Cockos Incorporated Forums - View Single Post

Justin · 04-15-2012, 08:02 AM

dub, are those numbers for the same (oldschool) JS code in 4.22 vs the latest jsfx.dll? The newer jsfx.dll should have faster memory accesses ([]), as well as a lot of code generation improvements (avoid ing a bunch of excess stack access), which is why I'd think the same code should be at least slightly faster in the new jsfx.

Edit: actually, on second thought, if you're testing against the release jsfx build, and your code calls a decent number of math functions, the release jsfx build might be faster (since it is compiled with ICC which may optimize some of those functions more than the builds I've posted here). I'll do some proper ICC builds shortly. Having said that, comparing the build here, Ozzifier with 3 voices uses 0.9% CPU, vs 1.3% in 4.151's jsfx. Which is a big difference, but it does a lot of memory accesses...

04-15-2012, 08:02 AM	#58
Justin Administrator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 15,746	dub, are those numbers for the same (oldschool) JS code in 4.22 vs the latest jsfx.dll? The newer jsfx.dll should have faster memory accesses ([]), as well as a lot of code generation improvements (avoid ing a bunch of excess stack access), which is why I'd think the same code should be at least slightly faster in the new jsfx. Edit: actually, on second thought, if you're testing against the release jsfx build, and your code calls a decent number of math functions, the release jsfx build might be faster (since it is compiled with ICC which may optimize some of those functions more than the builds I've posted here). I'll do some proper ICC builds shortly. Having said that, comparing the build here, Ozzifier with 3 voices uses 0.9% CPU, vs 1.3% in 4.151's jsfx. Which is a big difference, but it does a lot of memory accesses... Last edited by Justin; 04-15-2012 at 08:08 AM.