This section discusses the hypotheses of Introduction with reference to the experiments in Implementation details and Streaming FFT and the results in Results and discussion.
Hypothesis 1: Accessing memory in sequential “streams” is critical for best performance
The simple implementation in Simple programs used a LUT to store precomputed coefficients, but for every size of sub-transform that composes a particular transform, the LUT is accessed non-contiguously, with vector gather operations of varying strides. In Vectorized loops, vector intrinsics and a sequentially accessed LUT for each size of sub-transform are shown to improve performance. Although the set of LUTs increases the memory footprint, the speed improves markedly, by over 30% in many cases.
In Improving memory locality in the leaves, a DAG representing the computation was topologically sorted so that accesses to the input data, which are effectively pseudo-random for a decimation-in-time decomposition, are ordered into sequential streams. Benchmark results in Results and discussion show that this technique, in tandem with several others, achieves good results, being faster than FFTW in many cases.
The results from the above two cases confirm the idea that accessing data in sequential streams provides big performance gains, even in the somewhat counter-intuitive case where data is duplicated and more memory is required.
Hypothesis 2: The conjugate-pair algorithm is faster than the ordinary split-radix algorithm
Hypothesis 2 is based on the idea that memory bandwidth is a bottleneck, and on the fact that the conjugate-pair algorithm requires only half the number of twiddle factor loads.
In Results and discussion, a highly optimized implementation of the conjugate-pair algorithm is benchmarked against an equally highly optimized implementation of the ordinary split-radix algorithm. For smaller sizes of transform, the ordinary split-radix algorithm is faster, but above a certain size (4096 in this case), the conjugate-pair algorithm is faster.
Thus, Hypothesis 2 is confirmed with the proviso that the transform is larger than a particular size.
Hypothesis 3: The performance of an FFT can be predicted based on characteristics of the underlying machine and the compiler
In Results and discussion, SFFT and FFTW were benchmarked on sixteen x86 machines and two ARM NEON machines, and SFFT was found to be as fast as, or faster than FFTW, suggesting that the performance of an FFT running on a certain machine can be predicted and reasoned about, and that extensive machine calibration might not be required.
In Predicting performance, a model was evaluated with 10-fold cross-validation to have 74.8% precision when using characteristics of the underlying machine and the compiler to predict performance, further supporting the idea that the performance of the FFT on SIMD microprocessors can be predicted and reasoned about.




