AVX2 is slower than SSE2-4.x under Windows ARM emulation
blogs.remobjects.com
AVX2 is slower than SSE2-4.x under Windows ARM emulation
1–10 of 88 posts
Re: AVX2 is slower than SSE2-4.x under Windows ARM emulation
#2AVX2 should be banned anyway.
Only expensive CPUs have it, ruining mininum games requirements and making hardware obsolete.
Most of the world lives of 300$ per month
Re: AVX2 is slower than SSE2-4.x under Windows ARM emulation
#3AVX2 should be banned anyway. Only expensive CPUs have it, ruining mininum games requirements and making hardware obsolete. Most of the world lives of 300$ per month
Almost every x86 cpu made in the last decade should have avx2.
Maybe you're thinking of avx512 or avx10?
Re: AVX2 is slower than SSE2-4.x under Windows ARM emulation
#4Spoiler is in the conclusion:
> Yes, it is absolutely key to build your app as ARM, not to rely on Windows ARM emulation.
Re: AVX2 is slower than SSE2-4.x under Windows ARM emulation
#5I suspected this was because the vector units were not wide enough, and it seems that is the case. AVX2 is 256-bit, ARM NEON is only 128-bit.
The big question then is, why are ARM desktop (and server?) cores so far behind on wider SIMD support? It's not like Intel/AMD came up with these extensions for x86 yesterday; AVX2 is over 15 years old.
Re: AVX2 is slower than SSE2-4.x under Windows ARM emulation
#6AVX2 should be banned anyway. Only expensive CPUs have it, ruining mininum games requirements and making hardware obsolete. Most of the world lives of 300$ per month
Au contraire: AVX2 is the vector ISA for x86 that doesn't suck. And it's basically ubiquitous at this point.
Re: AVX2 is slower than SSE2-4.x under Windows ARM emulation
#7I suspected this was because the vector units were not wide enough, and it seems that is the case. AVX2 is 256-bit, ARM NEON is only 128-bit. The big question then is, why are ARM desktop (and server?) cores so far behind on wider SIMD support? It's not like Intel/AMD came up with these extensions for x86 yesterday; AVX2 is over 15 years old.
Well, you can always use a Fujitsu A64FX...let me check eBay.. :-)
Re: AVX2 is slower than SSE2-4.x under Windows ARM emulation
#8I suspected this was because the vector units were not wide enough, and it seems that is the case. AVX2 is 256-bit, ARM NEON is only 128-bit. The big question then is, why are ARM desktop (and server?) cores so far behind on wider SIMD support? It's not like Intel/AMD came up with these extensions for x86 yesterday; AVX2 is over 15 years old.
SVE was supposed to be the next step for ARM SIMD, but they went all-in on runtime variable width vectors and that paradigm is still really struggling to get any traction on the software side. RISC-V did the same thing with RVV, for better or worse.
Re: AVX2 is slower than SSE2-4.x under Windows ARM emulation
#9AVX2 should be banned anyway. Only expensive CPUs have it, ruining mininum games requirements and making hardware obsolete. Most of the world lives of 300$ per month
I, too, hate progress. By the way, the AMD Athlon 3000G system I helped build for a friend has AVX2. Even the old HP T630 thin client (https://www.parkytowers.me.uk/thin/hp/t630/) I bought for $15 as a home network router has AVX2.
Re: AVX2 is slower than SSE2-4.x under Windows ARM emulation
#10I suspected this was because the vector units were not wide enough, and it seems that is the case. AVX2 is 256-bit, ARM NEON is only 128-bit. The big question then is, why are ARM desktop (and server?) cores so far behind on wider SIMD support? It's not like Intel/AMD came up with these extensions for x86 yesterday; AVX2 is over 15 years old.
[removed]