From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f03830a80d247012 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: fixed point vs floating point Date: 1997/11/28 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 293498190 References: <65nafm$u8@lotho.delphi.com> X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 880756238 17677 (None) 128.122.140.58 Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-11-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Tom says <> I am beginning to get the idea that you have not actually looked at the MMX instruction set in detail. I think you should, you would find that it is not what you think it is! <> There is nothing at all new about the MMX style of instructions. Such instructions have been an integral part of graphics processors for a long long time. Even the appearence of such instructions on a general purpose microprocessor is not new, the i860 had similar instructions seven years ago. These instructions are very specifically designed for certain graphics operations, they are not some kind of general lets-make-things-run-faster SIMD magic, which is the idea you seem to have. I really think you should grab a copy of the MMX instruction manual and look at it! There is no pendulum swinging here, except perhaps in the images generated by the Intel PR machine and those who react to it without looking at details :-)