On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 2:33 AM, Diego Biurrun <di...@biurrun.de> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 02:49:01PM -0700, Alex Converse wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Loren Merritt <lor...@u.washington.edu> >> wrote: >> > On Sun, 14 Aug 2011, Jason Garrett-Glaser wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 3:41 AM, Vitor Sessak <vitor1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Alex Converse >> >> > <alex.conve...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> When the 3DNOW version of vector_fmul_add was preferred over SSE the >> >> >> code >> >> >> was substantially more complex than it is now. Would someone with an >> >> >> AMD chip >> >> >> that supports both SSE and 3DNOW be willing to benchmark them and see >> >> >> which is >> >> >> current faster? >> >> > >> >> > According to /proc/cpuinfo: >> >> > model name : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5600+ >> >> > >> >> > Using the best result for each of 1000 runs: >> >> > 1334000 dezicycles in 3DNOW, 1 runs, 0 skips >> >> > 1336460 dezicycles in SSE, 1 runs, 0 skips >> >> >> >> Are we sure this isn't memory-bound? >> > >> > Of course it's memory-bound. So the SSE version should be faster on k10. >> >> What about on older AMD cpus? > > Like a K6-III+? :-) >
Does K-6 III+ support SSE? Wikipedia seems to say that SSE first showed up in AMD's line at Athlon XP/MP and Mobile Athlon 4. --Alex _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
