SSE normalization slower than simple approximation?

Question

I am trying to normalize a 4d vector.

My first approch was to use SSE intrinsics - something that provided a 2 times speed boost to my vector arithmetic. Here is the basic code: (v.v4 is the input) (using GCC) (all of this is inlined)

//find squares
v4sf s = __builtin_ia32_mulps(v.v4, v.v4);
//set t to square
v4sf t = s;
//add the 4 squares together
s   = __builtin_ia32_shufps(s, s, 0x1B);
t      = __builtin_ia32_addps(t, s);
s   = __builtin_ia32_shufps(s, s, 0x4e);
t      = __builtin_ia32_addps(t, s);
s   = __builtin_ia32_shufps(s, s, 0x1B);
t      = __builtin_ia32_addps(t, s);
//find 1/sqrt of t
t      = __builtin_ia32_rsqrtps(t);
//multiply to get normal
return Vec4(__builtin_ia32_mulps(v.v4, t));

I check the disassembly and it looks like how I would expect. I don't see any big problems there.

Anyways, then I tried it using an approximation: (I got this from google)

float x = (v.w*v.w) + (v.x*v.x) + (v.y*v.y) + (v.z*v.z);
float xhalf = 0.5f*x;
int i = *(int*)&x; // get bits for floating value
i = 0x5f3759df - (i>>1); // give initial guess y0
x = *(float*)&i; // convert bits back to float
x *= 1.5f - xhalf*x*x; // newton step, repeating this step
// increases accuracy
//x *= 1.5f - xhalf*x*x;
return Vec4(v.w*x, v.x*x, v.y*x, v.z*x);

It is running slightly faster than the SSE version! (about 5-10% faster) It's results also are very accurate - I would say to 0.001 when finding length! But.. GCC is giving me that lame strict aliasing rule because of the type punning.

So I modify it:

union {
    float fa;
    int ia;
};
fa = (v.w*v.w) + (v.x*v.x) + (v.y*v.y) + (v.z*v.z);
float faHalf = 0.5f*fa;
ia = 0x5f3759df - (ia>>1);
fa *= 1.5f - faHalf*fa*fa;
//fa *= 1.5f - faHalf*fa*fa;
return Vec4(v.w*fa, v.x*fa, v.y*fa, v.z*fa);

And now the modified version (with no warnings) is running slower!! It's running almost 60% the speed that SSE version runs (but same result)! Why is this?

So here is question(s):

1. Is my SSE implentation correct?
2. Is SSE really slower than normal fpu operations?
3. Why the hell is the 3rd code so much slower?

Answer 1

I am a dope - I realized I had SETI@Home running while benchmarking. I'm guessing it was killing my SSE performance. Turned it off and got it running twice as fast.

I also tested it on an AMD athlon and got the same results - SSE was faster.

At least I fixed the shuf bug!