There would seem to be a lot of math going on to do some of the
graphics involved, yet these games run fine on non-FPU'ed Macs.
Do FPUs speed up any of these or other games???
- Ross
Madison Academic Computing Center
University of Wisconsin
608.262.8626
Despite the popularity of FPU's for business software, the sad reality is
that integer math, used by any competent games programmer, still outperforms
FPU-based math. So there is no reason for these games to switch to FPU
support.
Also, note that you don't automatically get "FPU performance" by just
plugging one in--the programmer has to code explicitly for it.
On the other hand, games with complex models, such as flight simulators,
could conceivably benefit from a more straightforward *coding style,* which
requiring an FPU would help facilitate. A rumor on AOL had it that Microsoft
Flight Simulator 5.0 (PC) will require an FPU; they're probably willing
to take the performance hit in order to achieve better maintainability.
The hardware people would like us all to think that the solution to all
ills is to get the fastest, shiniest computer on the block--but good coding
practices, and efficient algorithms, are what really count.
---
Robert Dorsett
r...@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Jim
Jim
IMHO, no self-respecting game designer should use the FPU. Fixed point is
faster than floating point and it's just as good for almost all games.
Apple has some really nice machines that do not have FPUs. If you just
do word processing, simple illustrations and play games, there's absolutely
no need for an FPU. Come to think of it, you don't need the FPU for software
development either.
--
Juri Munkki Windsurf: fast sailing
jmu...@hut.fi Macintosh: fast software
Thanks,
Danny Prairie
pra...@cs.concordia.ca
In <1993Mar17.0...@ifi.uio.no> erl...@ifi.uio.no (Erling Mork) writes:
>Guys, guys...there is an easy solution to the question "Should I use the FPU?"
>The answer is :SANE!! SANE is Apple's mathematics library that programs
>can access, and it uses the FPU is there is one, thereby speeding up
>computations. If there is no FPU, the same computations are done without it.
If floating point with direct FPU access is around 2 times slower than fixed
point (just a wild guess, could be less especially on the 68040-based machines),
then SANE routines are usually 10 times slower.
My point still remains valid. Fixed point is just fine for most games.
Arashi/STORM uses SANE for some calculations between the levels. During
the actual game play, floating point is not used (except that Mike added
a few floating point operations, which I only removed recently).
STAY AWAY FROM FLOATING POINT IF YOU WANT HIGH PERFORMANCE!
Ok, so now SANE is less inefficient (relative to the FPU) than it was
before. It is still a LOT faster to go directly to the FPU. Even if
SANE transfers the work to the FPU, it still spends more time doing it
than the the FPU does doing the work. Further hampering SANE is the fact
that SANE has to return an answer for every calculation. The FPU can
hold intermediate results between calculations. If you want to compute
A+B+C, you can send A,B, and C to the FPU, tell it to do two adds, and
then send back the result. SANE has to ask the FPU to send back A+B so
it can give it to your program so your program can give it back to SANE
so SANE can give it back to the FPU.
**** From Planet BMUG, the FirstClass BBS of BMUG. The message contained in
**** this posting does not in any way reflect BMUG's official views.
Call Apple and see if they will send you an LCIII demo program or any
other computers demo for that matter. I've seen some of them at certain
retailers and they're nice...
..... Steven_...@magic-bbs.corp.apple.com .....