Vc VS DirectXMath

Most high-performance math libraries perform a lot of vectorization (Eigen, etc) under the hood. And you've got stuff like Klein, Vc (which is reminiscent of std::valarray), etc. Then there's OpenMP's #pragma omp simd (assuming version 4.0 or greater).

I personally like the ideas in Parallelism v2 TS, which is available in for libstdc++ 11 onwards. The reference implementation is a library named Vc (afaik Vc is the most popular SIMD library for C++), and this has also been implemented in recent versions of HPX.

First of all about our project, I previously decided to work with VC library.https://github.com/VcDevel/Vc

I've decided to switch to something better, and after a few hours of searching, I found this repository: NSIMD https://github.com/agenium-scale/nsimd FastDifferentialCoding https://github.com/lemire/FastDifferentialCoding VS https://github.com/VcDevel/Vc XSIMD https://github.com/xtensor-stack/xsimd

> - Waiting for Cross-Platform standardized SIMD vector datatypes

which language has standardized SIMD vector datatypes ? most languages don't even have any ability to express SIMD while in C++ I can just use Vc (https://github.com/VcDevel/Vc), nsimd (https://github.com/agenium-scale/nsimd) or one of the other ton of alternatives, and have stuff that JustWorksTM on more architectures than most languages even support

- Using nonstandard extensions, libraries or home-baked solutions to run computations in parallel on many cores or on different processors than the CPU

what are the other native languages with a standardized memory model for atomics ? and, what's the problem with using libraries ? it's not like you're going to use C# or Java's built-in threadpools if you are doing any serious work, no ? Do they even have something as easy to use as https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow ?

- Debugging cross-platform code using couts, cerrs and printfs

because people never use console.log in JS or System.println in C# maybe ?

- Forced to use boost for even quite elementary operations on std::strings.

can you point to non-trivial java projects that do not use Apache Commons ? Also, the boost string algorithms are header-only so you will end up with exactly the same binaries that if it was in some std::string_algorithms namespace:

https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/43vKadbde

For those unfamiliar, like I was, DXM is DirectXMath.

Alongside MiniEngine, you’ll want to look into the DirectX Toolkit. This is a set of utilities by Microsoft that simplify graphics and game development. It contains libraries like DirectXMesh for parsing and optimizing meshes for DX12, or DirectXMath which handles 3D math operations like the OpenGL library glm. It also has utilities for gamepad input or sprite fonts. You can see a list of the headers here to get an idea of the features. You’ll definitely want to include this in your project if you don’t want to think about a lot of these solved problems (and don’t have to worry about cross-platform support).

Bad news. For SIMD there are not cross-platform intrinsics. Intel intrinsics map directly to SSE/AVX instructions and ARM intrinsics map directly to NEON instructions.

For cross-platform, your best bet is probably https://github.com/VcDevel/std-simd

There's https://eigen.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Main_Page But, it's tremendously complicated for anything other than large-scale linear algebra.

And, there's https://github.com/microsoft/DirectXMath But, it has obvious biases :P

I am not in gamedev, but work with 3D graphics, we use DirectX 11, so DirectXMath was a natural choice, it is header only, it supports SIMD instructions (SSE, AVX, NEON etc.), it can even be used on Linux (has no dependence on Windows). It of course just one choice: https://github.com/Microsoft/DirectXMath.

I never really used GLM, but Eigen was substantially slower than DirectXMath https://github.com/microsoft/DirectXMath for these things. Despite the name, 99% of that library is OS agnostic, only a few small pieces (like projection matrix formula) are specific to Direct3D. When enabled with corresponding macros, inline functions from that library normally compile into pretty efficient manually vectorized SSE, AVX or NEON code.

The only major issue, DirectXMath doesn’t support FP64 precision.

If you’re the author, consider comparisons with the industry standards, glm and DirectXMath, which both ensure easy interoperability with the two graphics APIs.

Good article, but note that if the hardware supports the division instruction, will be much faster than the described workarounds.

Personally, I recently did what’s written in 2 cases: FP32 division on ARMv7, and FP64 division on GPUs who don’t support that instruction.

For ARM CPUs, not only they have FRECPE, they also have FRECPS for the iteration step. An example there: https://github.com/microsoft/DirectXMath/blob/jan2021/Inc/Di...

For GPUs, Microsoft classified FP64 division as “extended double shader instruction” and the support is optional. However, GPUs are guaranteed to support FP32 division. The result of FP32 division provides an awesome starting point for Newton-Raphson refinement in FP64 precision.

For graphics DX math is a very good library.

I wonder how does it compare with Microsoft’s implementation, there: https://github.com/microsoft/DirectXMath/blob/jan2021/Inc/Di...

Based on the code your version is probably much faster. It would be interesting to compare precision still, MS uses 17-degree polynomial there.