05-14-2015, 06:56 PM
(09-24-2014, 06:28 AM)Blyss Sarania Wrote: Second, I don't think it's common knowledge that SSE 4.1 is faster in hardware mode. Most people just say the instruction sets help with software only. I had heard on the forums one single time that SSE 4.1 was faster in Hardware, and that is indeed the case. AVX2 and SSE4.1 both show improvements over all the others in HW. This is not common knowledge.
(09-24-2014, 06:34 AM)Blyss Sarania Wrote: ^ I disagree. Let's say I set mine at AVX and leave it(which is what I've done til now). Take Xenosaga I as an example. Cutscenes regularly drop to ~55FPS for me in HW mode. Switching to SSE4.1 causes them to stay at 60FPS. So if you are using something other than SSE4.1/AVX2, and you have a game that's going ~10% slow, switching to SSE4.1 or AVX2 will bring it to full speed.
(09-24-2014, 01:10 PM)nosisab Ken Keleh Wrote: Just an observation, is technically incorrect saying "Better" instruction set because the newer is an extension of the former. So when using AVX plugin one is just using a plugin expected to be using AVX defined instructions + all the instructions from the previous sets.
On the other side saying better plugin makes more sense... what must be what Bliss meant in the OP
Edit: On the other hand, flagging a plugin as AVX/AVX2 effectively prevents it being used by any non supporting CPU, what is BAD idea. For a long time we will be seeing AVX extension in use in games only when options to SSEx does exist as well.
(09-24-2014, 08:05 PM)Bositman Wrote: The problem here is that the various SSE instructions are very, very case bound. This means that for example X game could be using lots of SSE4 optimized code paths making it much faster with that flavor of GSdx while Z plugin uses none of it, making it run equally fast in both SSE2 and SSE4 flavors.
In your case you analyzed how Burnout 3 behaves with the different versions of a plugin. A proper test (which doesn't exist, it would have to be synthetic) would use all code paths equally, so it would show which could potentially give the most speed boost. It would still not have any practical use though since the result could be radically different from game to game.
(09-24-2014, 09:04 PM)Blyss Sarania Wrote: 1. True, it doesn't show how a crap ton of different games will perform, you are right. But it shows that the test was at least valid, because there is an improvement between plugins. At the very least it shows for software that the newest instructions set will be faster than the older ones. Or at least the same. So we can still draw the conclusion that for software you should use the highest you support.
2. Based on how I understand it, it works like this:
Compile GSdx with SSE2: Some instructions get SSE2 optimized.
Compile GSdx with SSSE3: Some instructions get SSE2 optimized, and some more get SSSE3 optimized.
Compile GSdx with SSE4.1: Some get SSE2, some get SSSE3, and some more get SSE4.1
If the compiler is doing it "right" then GSdx SSSE3 should contain all the SSE2 optimizations that SSE2 version does(except where SSSE3 optimizations would be faster than SSE2) + also now SSSE3 optimizations.
I'm almost certain that's how it works. I don't know if AVX is backwards inclusive or not though.
May 05 [17:11:38]
May 05 [17:11:53]
May 05 [17:12:06]
May 05 [17:12:11]
May 05 [17:12:17]
OK so...what the hell is going on? GSdx-AVX2 should include all the previous instruction sets and yet there's cases where SSE4 outperforms it? The *****? Something must be wrong in how GSdx is being compiled or something.
Windows 10 Pro x64 Version 1909 | AMD Ryzen 5 5600X | GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce GTX 1080 Ti | Crucial 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4 3600 RAM | Samsung 850 EVO 500 GB SSD | WD Red Plus 8TB
CPU Intensive Games
GPU Intensive Games
Games that don't need a strong CPU