On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:05:59AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > assume. And if you ask me, we should just stick to SSE2 as the baseline.
Ie the status quo. > What are the big gains to be had from SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, and SSE4.2? Each of those individually, and from a general system library persepective, I'd wager not a whole lot. But in aggregate, there are a lot of Clear Linux benchmarks showing a sizeable bump in general purpose performance. That said -- A reasonable argument can be made to bump the baseline to require SSE3, because all non-AMD x86_64 CPUs support it, and on the AMD side, anything beyond their 1st-gen single-core K8s supports it. (We're talking April 2005 here, versus the September 2003 introduction of the very first x86_64 processor) As another data point, Windows 8.x effectively required SSE3 on 64-bit CPUs as the other CPU features they required (LAHF/SAHF, CMPXCHG16B, and NX) were only implemented together on SSE3-capable processors. (And Steam's hardware survey shows that a full 100% of their users have an SSE3-capable processor..) - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org High Springs, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
