Subject: Re: [boost] Fixed point integer proposal
From: Christian Schladetsch (christian.schladetsch_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-25 20:23:47
> I just wrote a quick test with the following loop for some random
> initialization values:
> for (int i = 0; i < iterations; ++i)
> sum += a * b;
> a += b;
> I used MSVC++ to compile.
> I set iterations to a billion. When I used ints I got around 800
> ticks. When I used floats I got around 3700 ticks.
> That is almost a factor five. For my purposes, that's an optimization
> I am willing to sacrifice a lot for.
I just did the same test, with SSE2 enabled.
int: 0.916 seconds, 1321730048
float: 1.398 seconds, 4.5036e+015
In this case, floats were 70% the speed of ints, but also gave a modicum of
the correct result.
The ints were faster but gave the incorrect result. Furthermore, this was
ints not fixed-point. Would doing it using an actual fixed-point number make
up the %30 difference? Perhaps, but it would still give the wrong result.
I didn't mean to claim that fixed-point was "always slower than floating
point" - especially for toy cases like this ints will be faster (if wrong)
because there is nothing else for the CPU todo while the FPU is working.
Add in some fetches or stores and I think you will get a far different
In any case, I merely intended to make the point that one good reason for
using fixed-point over floating point is accuracy and not necessarily speed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk