just brew it! wrote:Wicked Mystic wrote:That is HUGE difference. Even with SSE2 Athlon is still faster. And remember, very few software is recompiled after it's published.
...
Problem is that SSE2 needs software support. While recompiling is quite easy, very few software gets it after shipped.
SSE2 has been around for over a decade, and is now widely deployed. Most commercial software that is still being actively supported/developed has been recompiled for it by now, provided there's a significant benefit from it. Media codecs, game engines, and the like (which tend to benefit greatly) also tend to be on shorter release cycles since new features and enhancements get added regularly.
We talked about Pentium 4. What you said did not help much when Pentium 4 processors were useful.
just brew it! wrote:The transition away from WIndows XP and 32-bit is also driving recompilation of a lot of applications.
Open Source software (which represents a growing percentage of the overall market, even on Windows) gets recompiled A LOT. I'd guesstimate that 99% of all the software running on my Ubuntu Linux box was compiled within the past 3 years.
32-bit software is still around because of 32-bit Windows Vista/7/8(/9??).
Most Windows software is not open source, expecially games. Linux is different thing.
just brew it! wrote:Why do you keep harping on the "but recompilation is required" point anyway? Use of GPU compute isn't just recompilation, it's a complete REWRITE. Which do you think is the path of least resistance, for a developer looking for a boost in FP performance?
We talked about Pentium 4.
BlackStar wrote:To be fair, recompiling software won't magically give you SSE2 support. The compiler might insert one or two instructions here and there, but you won't actually see any significant improvement until you change your memory layout to fit SSE2 and rewrite your math using compiler intrinsics. SSE2 is no magic bullet and autovectorization is still a pipe dream.
Also keep in mind that most software today is written in languages that don't even have access to SIMD instructions (Java, C#, Python, PHP, Ruby, need I go on?) Hell, even PhysX was using x87 instructions until recently.
So yeah, desktop software today is still written for legacy x87 instructions.
This is funny because with Pentium 4 (that eas year 2000) Intel send clear message to get rid of x87.
Savyg wrote:Wicked Mystic wrote:How many 64-bit games are around?
Your arguments seem a bit dated. I'm too tired to care though so I'll just note these points.
Battlefield 4, Warframe, Need for Speed: Rivals, Titanfall, and World of Warcraft all have 64 bit executables or are 64 bit only...I'm sure I've missed a few.
I can count the number of major dx9 only releases on one hand this year, where a few years ago I might've agreed with you on some points.
Brain. fried. g'night.
That makes few titles out of thousands.
Same words about DX9. Hopefully PS4 and X1 will get popularity soon.
Chrispy_ wrote:Why isn't this thread locked yet, it's a perfect example of one person with an agenda using subterfuge and distraction to wind people up and keep the argument going.
There is nothing productive beyond page 2 because you're all playing the same impossible game.
You have lot to say on this topic. Why don't you just go away?
Glorious wrote:Wicked Mystic wrote:Then again six core part is 130W TDP.
Yeah, because the -E variants are for the MARKET SEGMENT of performance/enthusiasts.
Any cheaper six cores around?
Glorious wrote:
What?
Glorious wrote:lolwut? It was faster than the competition, which had an IMC.
In practice you can notice difference between Phenom II and Core 2 Quad. Phenom II is faster.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2715/4After playing through the several levels on each platform, we thought the Phenom II 940 offered a better overall gaming experience in this title than the Intel Q9550 based on smoother game play. It is difficult to quantify without a video capture, but player movement and weapon control just seemed to be more precise.
Just look at benchmarks and say your opinions with zero experience.
Glorious wrote:So why didn't they do that, then? Why did they design a new architecture instead?
Oh, right: because they couldn't improve per-core performance. It wasn't a deliberate design choice, it was desperation.
You know, like I said.
Because they thought that single thread performance is overrated? That is.
Glorious wrote:Wicked Mystic wrote:Importance of FPU performance has gone down, if that's better.
It isn't. You are just making stuff up.
Whatever.
Glorious wrote:S
Wicked Mystic wrote:Exactly, so no more need to do all rendering on CPU so less CPU resources is needed.
Right... Ok. So, by that logic, we should all currently being running FPU-
weakened Pentium-100s with gigantic GPUs attached. Because, after all, less CPU resources will be needed and it's not like we have ANYTHING ELSE to use them on.
Ever heard of the
Jevons Paradox?
Supercomputers are going on that direction. We however need backwards compatibility for legacy reasons.
Glorious wrote:Wicked Mystic wrote:That is quite well. That's not catastrophic.
You have a completely arbitrary criteria.
Much better than on POV-ray, right?
Glorious wrote:Wicked Mystic wrote:DirectX 9 came out 2003. That time we had single core processors.
libc came out in the 1970s. Back then we had core-memory.
So what?
So that Direct 9 software is legacy.
Glorious wrote:Wicked Mystic wrote:But most people do not. Including gamers.
1. Sabotage FPUs
2. ...???
3. PROFIT!
Look, what is the point of getting rid of the FPU? Yes, in a majority of cases it isn't really necessary, but that doesn't mean it isn't important when it is necessary. The
80/20 rule doesn't mean that you don't
need the rest of the features!
Here, read this:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ ... 00020.htmlAlso, why do you keep specially focusing on "Gamers" when you are talking about the ISAs and performance of general-purpose CPUs and software in general? It just reinforces my belief that you are being a raging absolutist because you only care about one use case and can't even
conceive of any differing use cases.
Very few people actually need FPU power. Or are you claiming that AMD engineers were just stupid when they decided to reduce FPU power and out more on INT power?
Gamers needed FPU power, a lot. Do not need as much now.
Glorious wrote:Wicked Mystic wrote:I have made my point clear many times: no need for high power FPU except some very special situations.
No, you've also railed against legacy software, specifically x87, directx9 and 32-bit. Your "point" is all over the place.
Everyone agrees that FP isn't used in most software. Everyone agrees that in most cases computers are now "fast enough."
That doesn't mean, whatsoever, that there is any justification in getting rid of FPUs or making CPUs slower. Because, when people need it, they need it. You are "solving" a problem that
doesn't exist.
Get rid of strong FPU's vs get rid of FPU's altogether. That is difference. Again, Intel thought exactly that way 14 years ago. AMD thought that way 2009. Both were wrong?
Glorious wrote:Wicked Mystic wrote:Ok, that's your definition for it. I consider even some new software legacy. Like that Directx 9. Many games still use it and 2003 we had Single core Pentium 4 or single core Athlon64 processors. Considering processor development, that is very legacy.
Your definition of it is useless and that's why NO ONE cares or agrees.
Useless or not, you seem to care.
Glorious wrote:wicked mystic wrote:Pentium 4 1,7 110,5
Athlon 1.2 67
That is HUGE difference. Even with SSE2 Athlon is still faster. And remember, very few software is recompiled after it's published
INACCURATE:Pentium 4. 1.7Ghz (Original): 110.5
Athlon 1.2Ghz DDR (Original):
90.5Athlon 1.2Ghz DDR
(PII): 67.0
It is
extremely difficult for me to believe that you made that mistake legitimately, seeing as how you actually made a point about recompilation.
As i already said, I don't care about benchmarks a lot. I even didn't read that well.
This is much better
http://ic.tweakimg.net/ext/i/987861386.gifNotice that FPU part.
Glorious wrote:Wicked Mystic wrote:can you explain why Intel now has strong x87 FPU "just for compatibility reasons"? On Pentium 4 that "x87 for compatibility reasons" was very weak. And that was year 2000.
No, Williamette was weak in general. Here, look:
http://techreport.com/review/2347/intel ... ocessor/13
But x87 FPU was very weak. Pentium 4 was designed to have very high clock speeds. That didn't work out however.
Glorious wrote:Damage wrote:First and foremost, it's clear the Athlon 1.33GHz is still the big dawg of PC processors. It's easily the fastest x86-compatible CPU around. Intel's new entry, the 1.7GHz Pentium 4, performs about like a 1.2GHz Athlon in most situations.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
In other words, it was just generally weaker.
Generally weaker because clock speeds were not high enough.
Exactly same can be said about AMD Bulldozer.
[
Glorious wrote:quote="Damage"]the Pentium 4's performance balance is pretty darn good. By that I mean it handles a variety of types of math—integer, floating point, SIMD—equally well (more or less).
Res ipsa loquitur
Damage wrote:n my original Pentium 4 review I echoed some sentiments I've heard in a number of places before and since, that the P4's FPU isn't very good. Truth is, the Pentium 4's balance between integer and floating-point performance is very, very similar to the Pentium III's. And it's not far from the Athlon's, either. Sure, the processor executes a relatively low number of instructions per clock, but the P4's floating-point units aren't especially bad in this respect, even without the help of SSE or SSE2.
Res ipsa loquitur x2[/quote]
That is total BS. Pentium 4 had some strengths (like good L2 cache and much better memory interface). However x87 was very weak, it was meant to be that way. How Intel could get support for SSE2 (and kill x87) if x87 speed is good?
Those quotes show that Damage looks to be "I look at benchmarks and make opinions" writer.
Chrispy_ wrote:You can't win this with logic or facts. No evidence or proof is going to change his mind because he's been *successfully* trolling you all for three pages now.
Look, you're arguing about mundane deficiencies of an abandoned architecture now. This topic is titled current-gen.
Go to hell. Your have said your point many times and nobody cares, idiot.
At least you got what you wanted, i quit here. Have fun. Bye.