Re: ramblings about old hardware, gzip, bz2, and pentium opts
Now, the real question here, is there a C compiler that has AMD Athlon tweaks?
Since the Athlon is a VERY VERY good chip, I'd love to see binaries compiled
specifically for IT.
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Philip Thiem wrote:
> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:01:54 -0600
> From: Philip Thiem <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: ramblings about old hardware, gzip, bz2, and pentium opts
> Resent-Date: 30 Nov 1999 19:22:10 -0000
> Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> > `pentium optimisations slows down 99% of all systems'
> > You claim that Celeron / Cx 6x86 / PIII / K6 / Merced etc.
> > are faster with 386-optimized soft than with Pentium-optimized soft
> > Do you have any stats to prove it ???
> I'd say 99 might be a small over estimate, but the guy that made this claim
> seems to be talking within the context of implementation dependant
> optimzations. In the past pgcc has been brought in on these discussions.
> Could someone clarify if pgcc does that kind of optimization? If it does
> the likelyhood of a performance increase on non-Intel Penitums chips is
> really decreased.
> The Cyrix and AMD chips are different implementations of the 586+
> instruction(for which there is a 568/686 cpu code) set meaning different
> instruction timings, different order dependent instruction timings, etc.
> Though they do that same thing they work differently inside. In order for
> all these chips to recieve the same benefit from an implementation
> dependent optimization, the relative timings between instructions must be
> similar and preferably exactly within a scalar multiple of a true pentium
> core. Celerons/PII/PIII are more likely to reciving a boost, assuming
> their core was a directly descendant. They are all essentially PII core in
> some cases with addition SSE instructions. I can't remember how much the
> PII core was overhauled coming up from the pentium, if too much was done
> then the optimizations are highly likely to be not as near effective(or
> effective at all) enough to warrent doing the whole distribution. If the
> gain is quite a bit, it may prove benefical to just do essental packages.
> e.g. The ones in required.
> As for the mecred the likely hood of improvement would probably be very
> small. It is not likely Intel could just add to a existing design, they
> probably did a good portion of it from the ground up. An optimzated set of
> packages for the 64-bit intels instruciton set would probably be more
> benifical then a simple pentium optimzation in the long run as 64-bit
> systems(Merced, Sledgehammer..) become more common place, anyway.
> Philip Thiem /---/ email@example.com /---/ Pass on the GAS get NASM instead
> Computer Science & Mathematics Undergraduate @ UM-Rolla
> Interests: Security, Operating Systems, Numerical Computing,
> Algorithm Analysis, Discrete/Linear/Modern Algebra,
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com