I would reiterate EJ's "depends on what you call accuracy." Floats present a lot of surprises to the unwary. Search the forums on "floating point precision" and you will turn up loads of threads documenting the potential confusion.

In many ways ints are lot easier to comprehend: addition, subtraction, and multiplication work the way you learned in school (as long as the results are can be written with less than 10 digits); once you get used to the idea that the division of two ints always yields an int (possibly losing a fractional remainder), you're good to go.

Floats, OTOH, don't handle many simple fractions the way you learned in school. Take one, divide it by nine, then multiply by nine and see what you get. And never mind the Infs and NaNs and denormalized and negative zeros. No, floats are not "more accurate".

And, although it is true that the processor can handle ints a few cycles faster than a float, every object and every patch cord in your patcher is using dozens if not hundreds of cycles more than your basic arithmetic operations. If you really need to worry about float vs. int, Max/MSP isn't the right tool to be worrying with.

In your case, it's more likely that Max/MSP is the right tool and int vs. float is the wrong worry.

Just to underscore the point about the cost of patch cords, here's another example of Chris' patch doing the exact same floating point calculation. I think you'll find it's a little faster than anything you've seen in this thread so far.