4 ms·
Wouldn’t CORDIC have done the trick faster? There’s no mention that they even considered it, even though it’s been around for half a century or so.
by drfuchs 5y ago
Wouldn’t CORDIC have done the trick faster? There’s no mention that they even considered it, even though it’s been around for half a century or so.
- adrian_b 5y agoCORDIC was great for devices that were too simple to include hardware multipliers. CORDIC, in its basic form, produces just 1 bit of result per clock cycle. Only for very low precisions (i.e. with few bits for each result) you would have the chance to overlap enough parallel atan2 computations to achieve a throughput comparable to what you can do with polynomial approximations on modern CPUs, with pipelined multipliers. CORDIC remains useful only for ASIC/FPGA implementations, in the cases when the area and the power consumption are much more important than the speed.
- mzs 5y agoCORDIC unlikely to be faster than this article's: "the approximation produces a result every 2 clock cycles"