how about a processor specific winamp

joejamesatou · 5th February 2001, 08:20

this is a wish, but how about a processor specific winamp? one for pIII's, another for athlons, maybe even one for those rich snob's p4's.

luagh45 · 5th February 2001, 23:27

How would you make them different? make one intentionally use more cpu than another? it doesn't make sence

joejamesatou · 6th February 2001, 06:13

have a winamp that is designed to use the specific instruction set of a given processor. A celeron version would an mmx optimized decoder. an athlon would have enhanced 3D now, p3 optimized with sse, etc. you could make the program smaller, use less cpu, and possibly better sound quality.

RhinoTrip · 7th February 2001, 22:56

Unless you want to provide the funding, I doubt you'll see that one anytime soon

peter · 8th February 2001, 01:05

smaller : false
better sound quality : false
use less CPU : hardly noticeable (up to about 10% less)
amount of required work : HUGE
conclusion : go away, kid

joejamesatou · 8th February 2001, 07:07

my bad. i thought on a wishlist that ideas are ENCOURAGED.

Smaller: maybe not
Better sound quality:definetly (if designed properly)
CPU Use: yes (especially noticable when multitasking and with enhanced 3dnow and SSE2)
Amount of required work: not as much as stubborn people think (just look at nitrane v2.34)
Conclusion: Worth bring back, definetly! Many would like to see more put into this area. http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?threadid=41359

some "Major Dudes" need to pull their head out of their arse and be a little more open minded in the wishlist area.
-thanks

Joe

peter · 8th February 2001, 19:49

(grr) Have you ever written a program with 3DNow!/SSE support ? Do you know what exactly do 3DNow!/SSE accelerate ? You don't seem to. You can speed up PARTICULAR ROUTINES a lot, but overall speed won't be much higher.
About sound quality - all the benchmarks show that the latest Winamp MP3 decoder is perfect. If somebody tells that MMX / 3DNow! / SSE can decode with better sound quality, don't listen to this BS. If you want Winamp to sound 'better', use DSP plug-ins. If you want to reduce CPU usage, use old crappy Nitrane instead.
Optimizing WHOLE Winamp for every CPU makes no sense for me. Only the MP3 decoder really needs these optimizations. FYI, the latest MP3 decoder DOES use MMX.
BTW, CPU-specific ASM code is much harder to debug...

[Edited by PP on 02-08-2001 at 04:13 PM]

joejamesatou · 8th February 2001, 21:05

read: wishlist

7th February 2001, 22:56	#4
RhinoTrip Major Dude Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Boston, MA Skins: 9 Posts: 897	Unless you want to provide the funding, I doubt you'll see that one anytime soon RhinoTrip Working for the man.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

5th February 2001, 08:20	#1
joejamesatou Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Norman, OK Posts: 35	this is a wish, but how about a processor specific winamp? one for pIII's, another for athlons, maybe even one for those rich snob's p4's.

5th February 2001, 23:27	#2
luagh45 Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Cailifornia, USA Posts: 35	How would you make them different? make one intentionally use more cpu than another? it doesn't make sence

6th February 2001, 06:13	#3
joejamesatou Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Norman, OK Posts: 35	have a winamp that is designed to use the specific instruction set of a given processor. A celeron version would an mmx optimized decoder. an athlon would have enhanced 3D now, p3 optimized with sse, etc. you could make the program smaller, use less cpu, and possibly better sound quality.

8th February 2001, 01:05	#5
peter ist death Join Date: May 2000 Posts: 3,704	smaller : false better sound quality : false use less CPU : hardly noticeable (up to about 10% less) amount of required work : HUGE conclusion : go away, kid

8th February 2001, 07:07	#6
joejamesatou Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Norman, OK Posts: 35	my bad. i thought on a wishlist that ideas are ENCOURAGED. Smaller: maybe not Better sound quality:definetly (if designed properly) CPU Use: yes (especially noticable when multitasking and with enhanced 3dnow and SSE2) Amount of required work: not as much as stubborn people think (just look at nitrane v2.34) Conclusion: Worth bring back, definetly! Many would like to see more put into this area. http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?threadid=41359 some "Major Dudes" need to pull their head out of their arse and be a little more open minded in the wishlist area. -thanks Joe

8th February 2001, 19:49	#7
peter ist death Join Date: May 2000 Posts: 3,704	(grr) Have you ever written a program with 3DNow!/SSE support ? Do you know what exactly do 3DNow!/SSE accelerate ? You don't seem to. You can speed up PARTICULAR ROUTINES a lot, but overall speed won't be much higher. About sound quality - all the benchmarks show that the latest Winamp MP3 decoder is perfect. If somebody tells that MMX / 3DNow! / SSE can decode with better sound quality, don't listen to this BS. If you want Winamp to sound 'better', use DSP plug-ins. If you want to reduce CPU usage, use old crappy Nitrane instead. Optimizing WHOLE Winamp for every CPU makes no sense for me. Only the MP3 decoder really needs these optimizations. FYI, the latest MP3 decoder DOES use MMX. BTW, CPU-specific ASM code is much harder to debug... [Edited by PP on 02-08-2001 at 04:13 PM]

8th February 2001, 21:05	#8
joejamesatou Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Norman, OK Posts: 35	read: wishlist