Xref: utzoo comp.lang.fortran:2735 comp.lang.c:24447 comp.lang.pascal:2818 sci.math.num-analysis:369
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mstan!amull
From: amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.pascal,sci.math.num-analysis
Subject: Re: Cyrix chip code generation
Summary: Is it really faster? That's not our information.
Message-ID: <596@s5.Morgan.COM>
Date: 11 Dec 89 07:16:49 GMT
References: <582@s5.Morgan.COM> <89341.162025BHB3@PSUVM.BITNET>
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Co. NY, NY
Lines: 25

In article <89341.162025BHB3@PSUVM.BITNET>, BHB3@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
> 
> As far as I understand the 80387 instruction set and the Cyrix one are
> excactly the same, except that the Cyrix executes many of them much quicker
> than the 80387.  You could use the Borland or Microsoft Assembler.  Both contai
> n the full 80387 instruction set.  I suppose certain sequences of instruction
> would make optimal use of the Cyrix chip.  I doubt any compiler manufacturers
> are going to put out special modules for it.  The CYrix is competing against
> the Weitek 3167 series, which are faster than it.  The selling point of the Cyr
> ix chip is that is is compatable with all 80x87 software, whereas the Weitek
> chips aren't.
Our information is that the Cyrix is about the same speed as the Weitek
3167 when it gets a good instruction stream. It turns out that NDP
FORTRAN and C both claim to generate Cyrix code as separate from their
ability to generate 80387 code. Does anyone actually have both of
these chips (Cyrix, Weitek) and know which is faster from first hand
experience? The fact that Cyrix is as fast, more widely useful, and
somewhat less expensive will prove decisive unless we get information
to the contrary. (We are consideing a purchase, and we are debating
whether to go through the trouble of testing the Weitek, since at
least one of our critical applications (APL2/32) doesn't support the
Weitek.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt