0.13 is giving me times of 36 - 37 minutes on X86-64/XP Pro 64-bit, which is what 0.7 was doing.

Nice one. :-)

My MacBookPro C2D T7700 is finally back down to 3300-3400 cpusec/wu, like it was back on .07 versioon, and my iBook PPC G4 1.33 MHz is still hanging in there around a bit over 9000 cpusec/wu.

Having said that, My MBP should be down around 1000 cpusec/wu, based on the comparison between the same two computers running the optimized v8 for SETI. Is the SSSE3, and SSE2 in place on the MW 0.12 app? I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me the optimization for the MBP should give me the same results as it does for SETI, and approach the results the MS XP folks are enjoying.

C

---

Team MacNN

My MacBookPro C2D T7700 is finally back down to 3300-3400 cpusec/wu, like it was back on .07 versioon, and my iBook PPC G4 1.33 MHz is still hanging in there around a bit over 9000 cpusec/wu.

Having said that, My MBP should be down around 1000 cpusec/wu, based on the comparison between the same two computers running the optimized v8 for SETI. Is the SSSE3, and SSE2 in place on the MW 0.12 app? I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me the optimization for the MBP should give me the same results as it does for SETI, and approach the results the MS XP folks are enjoying.

C

Ah! A Team MacNN mate. I gave 10M credits to that team before moving on.

But I will say this about the intel mac apps: They should all have at least SSE3 optimization. Even the very first Yonah (Core Solo) that Macs ever had, are SSE3. So theoretically, the STOCK OSX Intel app should be at least as fast as an optimized SSE3 app for Windows. The idea is that there is no need to make it compatible with any lesser chip, like you have to with the Win apps. So while stock Win apps are handicapped by having to support Pentium I, stock OSX Intel apps are not.

---

My MacBookPro C2D T7700 is finally back down to 3300-3400 cpusec/wu, like it was back on .07 versioon, and my iBook PPC G4 1.33 MHz is still hanging in there around a bit over 9000 cpusec/wu.

Having said that, My MBP should be down around 1000 cpusec/wu, based on the comparison between the same two computers running the optimized v8 for SETI. Is the SSSE3, and SSE2 in place on the MW 0.12 app? I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me the optimization for the MBP should give me the same results as it does for SETI, and approach the results the MS XP folks are enjoying.

C

Ah! A Team MacNN mate. I gave 10M credits to that team before moving on.

But I will say this about the intel mac apps: They should all have at least SSE3 optimization. Even the very first Yonah (Core Solo) that Macs ever had, are SSE3. So theoretically, the STOCK OSX Intel app should be at least as fast as an optimized SSE3 app for Windows. The idea is that there is no need to make it compatible with any lesser chip, like you have to with the Win apps. So while stock Win apps are handicapped by having to support Pentium I, stock OSX Intel apps are not.

Thanks for this. Someone had said that it was possible for an Intel mac to have SSE2. In the next release I'll bump all the x86_64 macs to SSE3 (assuming it performs better than SSE2).

---

My MacBookPro C2D T7700 is finally back down to 3300-3400 cpusec/wu, like it was back on .07 versioon, and my iBook PPC G4 1.33 MHz is still hanging in there around a bit over 9000 cpusec/wu.

Having said that, My MBP should be down around 1000 cpusec/wu, based on the comparison between the same two computers running the optimized v8 for SETI. Is the SSSE3, and SSE2 in place on the MW 0.12 app? I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me the optimization for the MBP should give me the same results as it does for SETI, and approach the results the MS XP folks are enjoying.

C

Ah! A Team MacNN mate. I gave 10M credits to that team before moving on.

But I will say this about the intel mac apps: They should all have at least SSE3 optimization. Even the very first Yonah (Core Solo) that Macs ever had, are SSE3. So theoretically, the STOCK OSX Intel app should be at least as fast as an optimized SSE3 app for Windows. The idea is that there is no need to make it compatible with any lesser chip, like you have to with the Win apps. So while stock Win apps are handicapped by having to support Pentium I, stock OSX Intel apps are not.

Thanks for this. Someone had said that it was possible for an Intel mac to have SSE2. In the next release I'll bump all the x86_64 macs to SSE3 (assuming it performs better than SSE2).

You can bump i686-apple-darwin too. The earliest Intel processor in Macs was the Core Duo/Solo, which supported SSSE3 (notice the three S's, not two). So you can enabled all the (S)SSEx optimizations for all Intel Macs. And as always, keep Altivec enabled for PPC Macs.

---

My MacBookPro C2D T7700 is finally back down to 3300-3400 cpusec/wu, like it was back on .07 versioon, and my iBook PPC G4 1.33 MHz is still hanging in there around a bit over 9000 cpusec/wu.

Having said that, My MBP should be down around 1000 cpusec/wu, based on the comparison between the same two computers running the optimized v8 for SETI. Is the SSSE3, and SSE2 in place on the MW 0.12 app? I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me the optimization for the MBP should give me the same results as it does for SETI, and approach the results the MS XP folks are enjoying.

C

Ah! A Team MacNN mate. I gave 10M credits to that team before moving on.

But I will say this about the intel mac apps: They should all have at least SSE3 optimization. Even the very first Yonah (Core Solo) that Macs ever had, are SSE3. So theoretically, the STOCK OSX Intel app should be at least as fast as an optimized SSE3 app for Windows. The idea is that there is no need to make it compatible with any lesser chip, like you have to with the Win apps. So while stock Win apps are handicapped by having to support Pentium I, stock OSX Intel apps are not.

Thanks for this. Someone had said that it was possible for an Intel mac to have SSE2. In the next release I'll bump all the x86_64 macs to SSE3 (assuming it performs better than SSE2).

You can bump i686-apple-darwin too. The earliest Intel processor in Macs was the Core Duo/Solo, which supported SSSE3 (notice the three S's, not two). So you can enabled all the (S)SSEx optimizations for all Intel Macs. And as always, keep Altivec enabled for PPC Macs.

I've put it in the make.osx file and the next version of the app (0.15) will have it. On the macs, it seems SSE3 is barely an improvement (maybe 1%) over SSE2 so I don't think it's a serious priority.

---

You can bump i686-apple-darwin too. The earliest Intel processor in Macs was the Core Duo/Solo, which supported SSSE3 (notice the three S's, not two). So you can enabled all the (S)SSEx optimizations for all Intel Macs.

I've just tried an SSSE3 compile and get the following message
Fatal Error: This program was not built to run on the processor in your system.
The allowed processors are: Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo processors and compatible Intel processors with supplemental Streaming SIMD Extensions 3 (SSSE3) instruction support.

So it looks like my T2500 CPU doesn't support SSSE3 :(

You can bump i686-apple-darwin too. The earliest Intel processor in Macs was the Core Duo/Solo, which supported SSSE3 (notice the three S's, not two). So you can enabled all the (S)SSEx optimizations for all Intel Macs.

I've just tried an SSSE3 compile and get the following message
Fatal Error: This program was not built to run on the processor in your system.
The allowed processors are: Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo processors and compatible Intel processors with supplemental Streaming SIMD Extensions 3 (SSSE3) instruction support.

So it looks like my T2500 CPU doesn't support SSSE3 :(

ok scratch compiling the i686 with sse3 :)

---

ok scratch compiling the i686 with sse3 :)

NO!!!!

SSE3 is ok
SSSE3 doesn't work on my T2500
;-)

ok scratch compiling the i686 with sse3 :)

NO!!!!

SSE3 is ok
SSSE3 doesn't work on my T2500
;-)

lol oh ok :D

---

So i should be able to move the x86_64 apple versions to SSSE3? (thats 3 s). How would I go about doing that?

---

You can bump i686-apple-darwin too. The earliest Intel processor in Macs was the Core Duo/Solo, which supported SSSE3 (notice the three S's, not two). So you can enabled all the (S)SSEx optimizations for all Intel Macs.

I've just tried an SSSE3 compile and get the following message
Fatal Error: This program was not built to run on the processor in your system.
The allowed processors are: Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo processors and compatible Intel processors with supplemental Streaming SIMD Extensions 3 (SSSE3) instruction support.

So it looks like my T2500 CPU doesn't support SSSE3 :(

Huh, that's odd... I could've sworn I've used SSSE3 on my MB before, but it doesn't look like any of the Core processors supported it. They all do support SSE3 though.

So i should be able to move the x86_64 apple versions to SSSE3? (thats 3 s). How would I go about doing that?

Look it up using "man gcc", but IIRC it's through the -mssse3 command for GCC.

---

The first line of Intel Macs from 2006 used the Core Solo/Duo with:
All models support: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, EIST, XD bit

Only the following Macs with Core 2 Solo/Duo has SSSE3 and Intel 64.
Thanks to the stupid labeling by intel, its easy to confuse.

The first line of Intel Macs from 2006 used the Core Solo/Duo with:
All models support: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, EIST, XD bit

Only the following Macs with Core 2 Solo/Duo has SSSE3 and Intel 64.
Thanks to the stupid labeling by intel, its easy to confuse.

Yeah, it stands for Supplemental Streaming SIMD Extensions 3. Anyway, Wikipedia cleared it up for me.

---

I explored the differences among the several SSE flavors starting here.

SSSE3 is probably useless for scientific applications.

HTH

---

I explored the differences among the several SSE flavors starting here.

SSSE3 is probably useless for scientific applications.

HTH

Hi Augustine nice to see you again around,

yes you are right with one small exception, scientific applications with supported code and structure for SSE3 and SSSE3 can get really very much and good performance,what its not the case (even) with the current optimized MW client.

And yes dear Augustine i made the needed changes and tests (ok with a bit of help from some experts) and it works ,much more better it works the spu code for ps3 cell cpu and yes i test it that too, but im done somehow with MW, its too late and disappointed (yes i cant hide it) because the project Administration penalize the improvements!

Have a nice day!

---

yes you are right with one small exception, scientific applications with supported code and structure for SSE3 and SSSE3 can get really very much and good performance...

Note that I said that only SSSE3 is useless for scientific applications. MMX-like instructions are not well suited for scientific applications nor for compiler-generated code, requiring hand-assembly to be taken advantage of.

HTH

---