aburto@marlin.NOSC.MIL (Alfred A. Aburto) (05/04/90)
In article <5913@scolex.sco.COM> seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) writes: > >*However*, even more impressively, are things like the >FCOS instruction, which takes 97 cycles on the Cyrix, and 582 (!!!) on the >'387. > Dropping from 582 to 97 is quite a step! It is such a giant step one wonders what magic is taking place. Does it still yield the same accuracy at 97 CC's as it did at 582 CC's ??? Al Aburto aburto@marlin.nosc.mil
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (05/06/90)
In article <1376@marlin.NOSC.MIL> aburto@marlin.nosc.mil.UUCP (Alfred A. Aburto) writes: >Dropping from 582 to 97 is quite a step! It is such a giant step one >wonders what magic is taking place. One realizes that Cyrix did the thing without microcode, and then one realizes that 582 Cycles to 97 cycles isn't so incredible after all. >Does it still yield the same >accuracy at 97 CC's as it did at 582 CC's ??? Yes. I think there are only a couple of instances where the Cyrix chip got different answers from the Intel chip, and someone mentioned that the Intel chip gets different answers from at least one FP emulator for DOS. -- -----------------+ Sean Eric Fagan | "It's a pity the universe doesn't use [a] segmented seanf@sco.COM | architecture with a protected mode." uunet!sco!seanf | -- Rich Cook, _Wizard's Bane_ (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.