Arithmetic Unit in Pentium

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philip K.
  • Start date Start date
P

Philip K.

Could someone either answer these questions or refer me to the appropriate newsgroup.
1. How many bytes do the arithmetic units (integer, single precision, & double precision) use?
2. Is there a byte arithmetic unit?
3. If not, how do programmers handle digital photo information which comes in 3 bytes/pixel. Each color/pixel must be processed as a single byte.
 
Could someone either answer these questions or refer me to the appropriate
newsgroup.
1. How many bytes do the arithmetic units (integer, single precision, &
double precision) use?
2. Is there a byte arithmetic unit?
3. If not, how do programmers handle digital photo information which comes
in 3 bytes/pixel. Each color/pixel must be processed as a single byte.


go to:

support.intel.com
 
Philip said:
Could someone either answer these questions or refer me to the
appropriate newsgroup.
1. How many bytes do the arithmetic units (integer, single
precision, & double precision) use?
2. Is there a byte arithmetic unit?
3. If not, how do programmers handle digital photo information which
comes in 3 bytes/pixel. Each color/pixel must be processed as a
single byte.
Click to expand...


Those sound suspiciously like homework questions to me. This is not the
place to get someone to do your homework for you.
 
No, your suspicions are totally wrong. Look again at the last
question. I am 82 years old and trying to figure out why Photoshop runs
fine when using 8 bits/pixel/color/ but bogs down completely when using 16
bits/pixel/color. I would assume that this is as good a place to start as
any since Windows is built around Intel's processors and Microsoft MVPs
would at least know where to look for an answer --- the answer obviously
being in the arithmetic unit.
Now that you have been properly chastised -- answer the questions.
 
1. See my response to Ken Blake.
2. Putting down 3 numbers would have taken you less time than sending me to
Google. Why should I search the entire internet if you already know these
three numbers.
3. You should be ashamed of yourself. That includes calling yourself
"Nutcase".
 
Thanks. Either I've been aggravated by Blake and Nutcase or Outlook Express
is putting responses in the wrong place.
Thanks again
 
Philip said:
No, your suspicions are totally wrong. Look again at the last
question. I am 82 years old and trying to figure out why Photoshop
runs fine when using 8 bits/pixel/color/ but bogs down completely
when using 16 bits/pixel/color.
Click to expand...


In that case, my apologies.
 
Apologies accepted. Are you a programmer. If so, do you have any idea why
a program runs like lightening when the input data is 8 bits but then comes
to a crawl with 16 bit data doing the same operations? I would have
thought that they would both be converted to integer and so essentially run
at the same speed. Posts on the Photoshop forum show that other users are
equally puzzled and Photoshop programmers do not want to give away their
secrets. Could it have anything to do with settings in Windows.
 
Some observations:

(1) This is a Windows XP forum, not a graphics or arithmetic
processor forum. You're asking the wrong question in the
wrong place. Access Intel and Google for more specific help
(2) You provided absolutely no detail on your configuration
(CPU model and speed, RAM, graphics processor,...)
(3) You did not provide any application details other than
"Photoshop bogs down." What kind of file are you using
(.psd, .jpg, .raw?); size of files; Photoshop version number...
What?
(4) In other words, you gave us nothing to work with but you
expect us to jump through hoops to answer your question.

Now for some more observations:

(1) You complain that nobody in the Photoshop forum will help
you, and that the Adobe programmers won't divulge their
secrets. If you used the same tone in the Adobe forums as
you did here, I'm not surprised.
(2) Do you seriously expect Adobe programmers to discuss in detail
their proprietary code in an open forum? It's not going to happen.
(3) Microsoft MVPs are not your slaves--to jump at your slightest
command, and to be available for your whims 24/7.
(4) None of us work for Microsoft or Intel--although Microsoft
employees visit/scan the forum on occasion. We try to aid
visitors and one another, but we don't owe you jack--especially
with your attitude.
(5) I've never heard of an 82 year-old man bogged down in the details
of Photoshop, Windows, and Intel processors details. It's not true
to form--a warm room, a warm blanket, warm milk, a dog at his
feet--that's what an 82 year-old man cares about. You're young,
lazy, and you want us to do your research for us. It's that simple.

Performance observations:

(1) I'm running three year-old Intel Pentium 1.6 GHz, 1 GB RAM, Nvida
64 MB Gforce TI-200 graphics card, and two 7200 RPM HDs--
80 GB and 60 GB. If Photoshop processes 16-bit color just fine
on my aged system... God only knows what kind of PC an 82 year
old man uses.
(2) Add more RAM. Photoshop never gets enough RAM.
(3) Upgrade/install your graphics processor (accelerator).
Next to adding more RAM, this is the cheapest and most
effective thing a Photoshop user can add to his/her system
to boost performance. And you'll enjoy great performance a
wide spectrum of applications, as well, not just Photoshop.
(4) Assign scratch disks (Photoshop Edit > Preferences) to your
second hard disk. You do have a fast 2nd HD, right?
(5) If your motherboard and BIOS supports doing so, upgrade to
a faster CPU.







Philip K. said:
No, your suspicions are totally wrong. Look again at the last question. I am 82 years old and trying
to figure out why Photoshop runs fine when using 8 bits/pixel/color/ but bogs down completely when using 16
bits/pixel/color. I would assume that this is as good a place to start as any since Windows is built around
Intel's processors and Microsoft MVPs would at least know where to look for an answer --- the answer
obviously being in the arithmetic unit.
Now that you have been properly chastised -- answer the questions.
Click to expand...
 
Please understand that we frequently see students trying to get quick and
easy answers to their homework questions, rather than doing the work
themselves and learning. I won't apologize for my response as it is
appropriate most of the time. We have no way of knowing how old you are, or
even if what you are claiming to be your age is correct.

1. How many bytes do the arithmetic units (integer, single precision, &
double precision) use?

http://www.embedded.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=53700367

2. Is there a byte arithmetic unit?

Yes, but why? Single byte (8 bit) numbers are either signed (-128 to 127)
integers or unsigned (0 to 255) integers. Not of much use in anything beyond
simple programs. Certainly not capable of any precision or floating point
which uses 64 bit.

3. If not, how do programmers handle digital photo information which comes
in 3 bytes/pixel. Each color/pixel must be processed as a single byte.

This can get extremely complex, which is why the programmers work in the
higher C languages. When compiled and translated to assembly language, the
instructions are still handled one at a time by the processor, even with
superscaler structure in place. Your issue should be taken to programmers,
as only they can change how the information is handled once processed.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
 
Philip said:
Apologies accepted. Are you a programmer.
Click to expand...


No, not currently. I'm retired now, but I spent many years programming.

If so, do you have any
idea why a program runs like lightening when the input data is 8 bits
but then comes to a crawl with 16 bit data doing the same operations?
I would have thought that they would both be converted to integer and
so essentially run at the same speed. Posts on the Photoshop forum
show that other users are equally puzzled and Photoshop programmers
do not want to give away their secrets. Could it have anything to do
with settings in Windows.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I have no advice for you here.
 
Get your head examined. Nobody asked you to do anything. If you do not
know the answer to a question, stay off the internet rather than clogging
it up with a lot of paranoid garbage which applies more to you than your
target.


Uncle Joe said:
Some observations:

(1) This is a Windows XP forum, not a graphics or arithmetic
processor forum. You're asking the wrong question in the
wrong place. Access Intel and Google for more specific help
(2) You provided absolutely no detail on your configuration
(CPU model and speed, RAM, graphics processor,...)
(3) You did not provide any application details other than
"Photoshop bogs down." What kind of file are you using
(.psd, .jpg, .raw?); size of files; Photoshop version number...
What?
(4) In other words, you gave us nothing to work with but you
expect us to jump through hoops to answer your question.

Now for some more observations:

(1) You complain that nobody in the Photoshop forum will help
you, and that the Adobe programmers won't divulge their
secrets. If you used the same tone in the Adobe forums as
you did here, I'm not surprised.
(2) Do you seriously expect Adobe programmers to discuss in detail
their proprietary code in an open forum? It's not going to happen.
(3) Microsoft MVPs are not your slaves--to jump at your slightest
command, and to be available for your whims 24/7.
(4) None of us work for Microsoft or Intel--although Microsoft
employees visit/scan the forum on occasion. We try to aid
visitors and one another, but we don't owe you jack--especially
with your attitude.
(5) I've never heard of an 82 year-old man bogged down in the details
of Photoshop, Windows, and Intel processors details. It's not true
to form--a warm room, a warm blanket, warm milk, a dog at his
feet--that's what an 82 year-old man cares about. You're young,
lazy, and you want us to do your research for us. It's that simple.

Performance observations:

(1) I'm running three year-old Intel Pentium 1.6 GHz, 1 GB RAM, Nvida
64 MB Gforce TI-200 graphics card, and two 7200 RPM HDs--
80 GB and 60 GB. If Photoshop processes 16-bit color just fine
on my aged system... God only knows what kind of PC an 82 year
old man uses.
(2) Add more RAM. Photoshop never gets enough RAM.
(3) Upgrade/install your graphics processor (accelerator).
Next to adding more RAM, this is the cheapest and most
effective thing a Photoshop user can add to his/her system
to boost performance. And you'll enjoy great performance a
wide spectrum of applications, as well, not just Photoshop.
(4) Assign scratch disks (Photoshop Edit > Preferences) to your
second hard disk. You do have a fast 2nd HD, right?
(5) If your motherboard and BIOS supports doing so, upgrade to
a faster CPU.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for your pointer to embedded.com. That was just what I was
looking for.
It's none of my business, but you really should remove "nutcase'" from
your signature. It does not fit in with your rational response. A reader
immediately expects the kind of nutcase response that is all too common in
this newsgroup.
 
It's none of my business, but you really should remove "nutcase'" from
your signature. It does not fit in with your rational response. A reader
immediately expects the kind of nutcase response that is all too common in
this newsgroup.
Click to expand...

I have considered it, but I started here using only that pseudonym many,
many years ago, so it's kind of hard to drop.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

<snip>
 
Back
Top