- Jun 25, 2009
- 1,106
- 2
- 19,310
Im not saying this is a fact, but it may be the case according to this recent blog from JF:
http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/10/25/the-new-flex-fp/
Read the whole thing, theres alot of info.
Specifically this part:
"One of these new instruction set extensions, AVX, can handle 256-bit FP executions. Now, let’s be clear, there is no such thing as a 256-bit command. Single precision commands are 32-bit and double precision are 64-bit. With today’s standard 128-bit FPUs, you execute four single precision commands or two double precision commands in parallel per cycle. With AVX you can double that, executing eight 32-bit commands or four 64-bit commands per cycle – but only if your application supports AVX. If it doesn’t support AVX, then that flashy new 256-bit FPU only executes in 128-bit mode (half the throughput). That is, unless you have a Flex FP."
Does this mean Bulldozer's FPU will be faster than Sandy Bridges in non AVX mode?
http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/10/25/the-new-flex-fp/
Read the whole thing, theres alot of info.
Specifically this part:
"One of these new instruction set extensions, AVX, can handle 256-bit FP executions. Now, let’s be clear, there is no such thing as a 256-bit command. Single precision commands are 32-bit and double precision are 64-bit. With today’s standard 128-bit FPUs, you execute four single precision commands or two double precision commands in parallel per cycle. With AVX you can double that, executing eight 32-bit commands or four 64-bit commands per cycle – but only if your application supports AVX. If it doesn’t support AVX, then that flashy new 256-bit FPU only executes in 128-bit mode (half the throughput). That is, unless you have a Flex FP."
Does this mean Bulldozer's FPU will be faster than Sandy Bridges in non AVX mode?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram