On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:05:59AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
assume. And if you ask me, we should just stick to SSE2 as the
Ie the status quo.
What are the big gains to be had from SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, and
Each of those individually, and from a general system library
persepective, I'd wager not a whole lot. But in aggregate, there are a
lot of Clear Linux benchmarks showing a sizeable bump in general purpose
That said -- A reasonable argument can be made to bump the baseline to
require SSE3, because all non-AMD x86_64 CPUs support it, and on the AMD
side, anything beyond their 1st-gen single-core K8s supports it.
(We're talking April 2005 here, versus the September 2003 introduction
of the very first x86_64 processor)
As another data point, Windows 8.x effectively required SSE3 on 64-bit
CPUs as the other CPU features they required (LAHF/SAHF, CMPXCHG16B, and
NX) were only implemented together on SSE3-capable processors.
(And Steam's hardware survey shows that a full 100% of their users have
an SSE3-capable processor..)
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
High Springs, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.