On 2016-11-29 21:09, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > 2016-11-29 17:14 GMT+01:00 James Darnley <jdarn...@obe.tv>: >> On 2016-11-29 15:30, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >>> 2016-11-29 12:52 GMT+01:00 James Darnley <jdarn...@obe.tv>: >>>> sse2: >>>> complex: 4.13x faster (1514 vs. 367 cycles) >>>> simple: 4.38x faster (1836 vs. 419 cycles) >>>> >>>> avx: >>>> complex: 1.07x faster (260 vs. 244 cycles) >>>> simple: 1.03x faster (284 vs. 274 cycles) >>> >>> What are you comparing? > >> The AVX comparison is it versus SSE2. > > This wasn't obvious to me.
I've made it more verbose but I'm not sure whether it is any better. Care to give your opinion Carl? > Nehalem: > - sse2: > - complex: 4.13x faster (1514 vs. 367 cycles) > - simple: 4.38x faster (1836 vs. 419 cycles) > > Haswell: > - sse2: > - complex: 3.61x faster ( 936 vs. 260 cycles) > - simple: 3.97x faster (1126 vs. 284 cycles) > - avx (versus sse2): > - complex: 1.07x faster (260 vs. 244 cycles) > - simple: 1.03x faster (284 vs. 274 cycles) I included the sse2 results for the Haswell to show that the avx is (slightly) better. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
