On 2016-12-02 00:31, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> 2016-12-01 17:57 GMT+01:00 James Darnley :
>> Yorkfield:
>> - mmx2: 2.44x faster (278 vs. 114 cycles)
>> - sse2: 3.35x faster (278 vs. 83 cycles)
>>
>> Skylake:
>> - mmx2: 1.69x faster (169 vs. 100 cycles)
>> - sse2: 2.34x faster (169 vs. 72 cycl
On 2016-12-01 23:16, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:57:44PM +0100, James Darnley wrote:
>> Yorkfield:
>> - mmx2: 2.44x faster (278 vs. 114 cycles)
>> - sse2: 3.35x faster (278 vs. 83 cycles)
>>
>> Skylake:
>> - mmx2: 1.69x faster (169 vs. 100 cycles)
>> - sse2: 2.34x f
2016-12-01 17:57 GMT+01:00 James Darnley :
> Yorkfield:
> - mmx2: 2.44x faster (278 vs. 114 cycles)
> - sse2: 3.35x faster (278 vs. 83 cycles)
>
> Skylake:
> - mmx2: 1.69x faster (169 vs. 100 cycles)
> - sse2: 2.34x faster (169 vs. 72 cycles)
Is it expected (or possible) that the speed impac
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:57:44PM +0100, James Darnley wrote:
> Yorkfield:
> - mmx2: 2.44x faster (278 vs. 114 cycles)
> - sse2: 3.35x faster (278 vs. 83 cycles)
>
> Skylake:
> - mmx2: 1.69x faster (169 vs. 100 cycles)
> - sse2: 2.34x faster (169 vs. 72 cycles)
> - avx: 2.32x faster (169