- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Link Copied
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Vladimir
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
One of the reasons we still maintain our own codebase for MMX/SSE/SSE2. Looking at the code under VTune I can even point parts of code that must be rewritten to run much faster on AMD (and even a bit faster on P-IV). I realize Intel would like to protect its brand, but this way forces IPP users to look for something better.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Wanted to ask a question, with reference to the experiences/comments in Marc's original mail.
It is related to the 2nd and 3rd point mentioned by
Marc under the 'Cons' list.
Is it that, even in IPP4.0, some functions have same
name in IPP for Pentium and IPP for XScale but do
different jobs ? Is it that, some functions that are
present in IPP for Pentium are not yet there in IPP
for XScale, in ver 4.0 also ?
Then the mention about IPP that they are cross-platform
compatible, is not fully true..
Request the experienced folks to reply..
Thanks & regards,
Narendra
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hello
That's exactly the point. Many many functions are present in IPP 4.0 for Pentium and simply do not exist on the XScale version ...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
What about the other comment, i.e.
Do all the API calls for IPP ver 4.0 for XScale
do the same job as the corresponding API's in
IPP ver 4.0 for Pentium ?
Awaiting for reply,
Thanks & regards,
Narendra
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi,
if there is some difference in function's behaviour, please submit it as issue to technical support, we will fix. It is definitely not thing we want to have.
What about functions whichexist in IPP for ia32/itanium but is not present in IPP for PCA, I has mentioned already, you should take into account the different abilities for those platforms. Whyyou are notsurprised that there no any high-computing servers (say better, clusters) were made based on PCA processors? Right, calculating power too different, but not only. Did you noticed there is no floating point unit on PCA? So, why we should implement a lot of functions which have floating point arguments? And of course, there are other reasons like these, which we accounted.
In general, we implement only those features in IPP for PCA which have application in that very specific area. But you can help us to make IPP better. If you see any functionality missed butyou consider as important to have, you know, submit your request, and we will revise it in future versions.
Regards,
Vladimir
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page