[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 21:49:16 +0200 (CEST)
From: sebastian.rother@...erlin.de
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
> No, not yet. The extra registers are indeed very helpful, but the
> slowdown with the move from MMX to SSE on AMD processors is bad enough
> that the extra registers, if used to reduce the instruction count and/or
> to avoid dependencies, would barely compensate for it (of course, this
> is just my guesstimate).
>
> Perhaps this is worth doing for EM64T and for future AMD processors.
AMD64/Opteron CPUs contain SSE,SSE2 and also SSE3 already...
And the 64bit extension on Intel is not 100% the implementation of AMD.
AMD64 (no matter if Opteron or Workstation) are far more spreaded, cheaper
and more powerfull (SMP-Systems) then INTEL XEONs or other INTEL CPUs with
EMT64.
I think supporting AMD first is the better way.
Why? For AMD Motherboards there`s a CO-Processor avaiable wich is
compatible to the AMD-Sockets and wich is more powerfull then a FPGA.
I don`t know the Company anymore but they produce programmable CPUs wich
can be assembled at a f.e. dual CPU Mainboard (one AMD-CPU, one
CO-Processor).
These CPUs are programmable but they`re NOT limited by the PCI-Bus (like
FPGA-based Cards via PCI). So you could speed up some stuff a lot using
those Co-Processors... :)
If you think about Performance and you wont do any GPU-Hacks then maybe
this Co-Processor is a solution... :)
Kind regards,
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
