Xref: utzoo comp.sys.misc:3035 comp.sys.intel:1419
Path: utzoo!censor!geac!lethe!tvcent!comspec!humvax!becker!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!sco!seanf
From: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.misc,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 386 vs 387 integer divide performance
Message-ID: <8159@scolex.sco.COM>
Date: 11 Oct 90 22:51:01 GMT
References: <qbc13ys@Unify.Com>
Sender: news@sco.COM
Reply-To: seanf (Sean Fagan)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Lines: 24


In article <qbc13ys@Unify.Com> jde@Unify.Com (Jeff Evarts) writes:
>		386: 46-49 cycles
>		387: 88-127 cycles
>
>	1. Am I missing something obvious, or wouldn`t the 386 be the
>	   faster of the two? 

Yes, you're missing something obvious, and, yes, the '386 is the faster of
the two.  The 'something obvious' you're missing is that the '387 has to do
the divide as an 80-bit number, regardless of the precision you're
interested in.

>	2. If I have got it right, and the 386 is the faster engine, does
>	   this change for a 486?

Probably not, since the divide for the '486 is faster than the '386.

-- 
-----------------+
Sean Eric Fagan  | "*Never* knock on Death's door:  ring the bell and 
seanf@sco.COM    |   run away!  Death hates that!"
uunet!sco!seanf  |     -- Dr. Mike Stratford (Matt Frewer, "Doctor, Doctor")
(408) 458-1422   | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.