On 1/2/2014 4:52 PM, Nikolay Nikolov wrote:
Here are the results from my 286:
A small reminder: The MUL/IMUL/DIV/IDIV speed was increased an order of
magnitude from the 8088/8086 to the 80286. On 8086 a MUL is roughly 115
cycles; on 80286 it's 21. (on 386, it can be as low as 9)
Just thou
On 01/01/2014 05:35 PM, Max Nazhalov wrote:
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 19:42:44 +0200
From: Nikolay Nikolov
I got my PSU fixed and now I have results from my 10 MHz PS/2 Model 30 286:
32pas: ticks = 814
32asm: ticks = 30
~27x faster
64pas: ticks = 1130
64asm: ticks = 30
~38x faster
Thanks for fol
> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 19:42:44 +0200
> From: Nikolay Nikolov
>
> I got my PSU fixed and now I have results from my 10 MHz PS/2 Model 30 286:
> 32pas: ticks = 814
> 32asm: ticks = 30
> ~27x faster
>
> 64pas: ticks = 1130
> 64asm: ticks = 30
> ~38x faster
Thanks for follow-up, Nikolay!
I'm stil
I got my PSU fixed and now I have results from my 10 MHz PS/2 Model 30 286:
32pas: ticks = 814
32asm: ticks = 30
~27x faster
64pas: ticks = 1130
64asm: ticks = 30
~38x faster
The 286 is a speed monster! :)
Nikolay
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel
> That emulator is not cycle-exact, so it doesn't have the same
> characteristics as the real hardware. PCem comes closer, but is also not
> exact.
Well, it is better than nothing when you have no access to a real 808x machine.
___
fpc-devel maillist -
On 12/28/2013 04:52 PM, Max Nazhalov wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 01:15:41 +0200, Nikolay Nikolov wrote:
It looks correct, but I still haven't reviewed the overflow checking part of
the 64-bit multiplication routine. I'll commit the patch when I finish that.
Thanks for the effort, Nikolay!
To he
On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 01:15:41 +0200, Nikolay Nikolov wrote:
> It looks correct, but I still haven't reviewed the overflow checking part of
> the 64-bit multiplication routine. I'll commit the patch when I finish that.
Thanks for the effort, Nikolay!
To help with the understanding of data/decision
On 12/27/2013 5:15 PM, Nikolay Nikolov wrote:
it'd be nice if Jim could run the test on his 8088 machine
Here you go:
32pas: ticks = 4176
32asm: ticks = 190
~22x faster
64pas: ticks = 6089
64asm: ticks = 225
~27x faster
Raw output also attached.
--
Jim Leonard (trix...@oldskool.org)
Check ou
On 12/23/2013 03:34 PM, Max Nazhalov wrote:
Hello, Everybody!
Can anyone having the real i8086 hardware check attached MUL-helpers?
I've tested them on a modern Intel CPU -- "mul_dword" is about 4.5..5
times faster comparing to the generic FPC implementation, and
"mul_qword" is about 18..20, but
On 12/27/2013 9:35 AM, Kostas Michalopoulos wrote:
If you want to do speed tests, try some emulator. For example PicoXT
(which emulates an XT clone):
http://www.picofactory.com/free/software/pc-xt-emulator/
That emulator is not cycle-exact, so it doesn't have the same
characteristics as the re
If you want to do speed tests, try some emulator. For example PicoXT
(which emulates an XT clone):
http://www.picofactory.com/free/software/pc-xt-emulator/
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Jim Leonard wrote:
> On 12/23/2013 7:34 AM, Max Nazhalov wrote:
>>
>> Hello, Everybody!
>>
>> Can anyone hav
On 12/23/2013 7:34 AM, Max Nazhalov wrote:
Hello, Everybody!
Can anyone having the real i8086 hardware check attached MUL-helpers?
I've tested them on a modern Intel CPU -- "mul_dword" is about 4.5..5
times faster comparing to the generic FPC implementation, and
"mul_qword" is about 18..20, but
Hello, Everybody!
Can anyone having the real i8086 hardware check attached MUL-helpers?
I've tested them on a modern Intel CPU -- "mul_dword" is about 4.5..5
times faster comparing to the generic FPC implementation, and
"mul_qword" is about 18..20, but these numbers surely should be quite
differen
13 matches
Mail list logo
