[RC5] core questions
blitz at macronet.net
Thu Mar 14 13:20:06 EST 2002
Thanks for the History Bruce, Interesting to say the least...
At 00:15 3/15/02 +1000, you wrote:
> > Then was the AMD core optimized for the available instruction set? Im
> > i missed the discussion on it previously.
>The MMX core was developed for the P5-MMX, which for the MMX pipeline is
>dual issue, with the restriction that only one may be a shift, 1 clock
>latency, 1 clock load, 2 clock store.
>AMD K6 was single issue MMX. MMX core is not competetive with ALU core when
>AMD K6-2 is dual issue MMX. Significant effort was put into getting the MMX
>core optimized for this CPU. I could make it get the "correct" clocks for
>one "cycle" of RC5. When the block of code was repeated for the next cycle
>there would be a significant increase in the clocks taken for no apparent
>reason. No amount of instruction shuffling seemed to help though it did
>tend to make the point of increase move. The increase was 2 clocks which
>extrapolated over 78 cycles would have made the MMX core slower than the ALU
>With out of order processors it is hard to determine exactly when a clock
>increase occurs. There were times when adding an extra pair of instructions
>decreased the clock count by 1 rather than increasing it by 1!
>My only theory for the increase is that the instuction sequence requires 32
>byte cache line alignment. Other theories welcome. Someone should really
>run AMD CodeAnalyst on it and find the problem. Sadly I do not have the
>AMD K7 is still being worked on.
>Prior to the K7 (which has triple instruction decode and issue capability)
>the AMD K5 was the fastest core in the x86 range in terms of clocks/key.
>The joy of pairable, single clock, rotate instructions.
>To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
>rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
More information about the rc5