In this book both Table Based methods and Cordic iterations are explained. computationally speaking i suppose the Table based is usually faster, even though it probably requires more resource, while Cordic is probably slower, but probably less resource consuming (if my understanding is correct, it should be a specific instance of shift and adds algorithm). But are there other benefits/drawback in both approach? I suppose also the CORDIC doesn't suffer of the table maker dilemma, even though it in general requires a LUT.

  • $\begingroup$ We expect references to fulfill the minimal scholarly requirements and be as robust over time as possible. Please take some time to improve your post in this regard. We have collected some advice here. $\endgroup$ – Raphael Jul 6 '16 at 9:37

CORDIC uses small table to work, it calculates one bit at the time and being shift and add algorithm it is preferable when there are no multipliers available. Whenever multipliers are present, table based methods or power series are faster. Also one point worth notting - the scalling factor is also needed which sometimes is argument to use BKM, but this one is slower than CORDIC.

CORDIC is still used in x87 FPU, but nowadays Chebyshev polynomials are preferred way to compute special functions (or transcendental, but not elementary - this is rather bad name) (also do not consider Taylor here, it is very slow and works for small angles).

Drawbacks in both methods are increase in number of iterations and tables provided. Good to know how they work and grasp a piece of history, but not practical in software and not preferrable in hardware.

| cite | improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.