Article View: comp.sys.misc
Article #427Re: 386 vs 387 integer divide performance
From: Sean Fagan
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 1990 22:51
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 1990 22:51
24 lines
1376 bytes
1376 bytes
In article <qbc13ys@Unify.Com> jde@Unify.Com (Jeff Evarts) writes: > 386: 46-49 cycles > 387: 88-127 cycles > > 1. Am I missing something obvious, or wouldn`t the 386 be the > faster of the two? Yes, you're missing something obvious, and, yes, the '386 is the faster of the two. The 'something obvious' you're missing is that the '387 has to do the divide as an 80-bit number, regardless of the precision you're interested in. > 2. If I have got it right, and the 386 is the faster engine, does > this change for a 486? Probably not, since the divide for the '486 is faster than the '386. -- -----------------+ Sean Eric Fagan | "*Never* knock on Death's door: ring the bell and seanf@sco.COM | run away! Death hates that!" uunet!sco!seanf | -- Dr. Mike Stratford (Matt Frewer, "Doctor, Doctor") (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<8159@scolex.sco.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!censor!geac!lethe!tvcent!comspec!humvax!becker!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!sco!seanfReferences:
<qbc13ys@Unify.Com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!censor!geac!lethe!tvcent!comspec!humvax!becker!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!sco!seanf From: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) Newsgroups: comp.sys.misc,comp.sys.intel Subject: Re: 386 vs 387 integer divide performance Message-ID: <8159@scolex.sco.COM> Date: 11 Oct 90 22:51:01 GMT References: <qbc13ys@Unify.Com> Sender: news@sco.COM Reply-To: seanf (Sean Fagan) Distribution: usa Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. Lines: 24