From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JaH4A-0003gG-96 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:03:50 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 19BD1E04E8; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:03:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com (fk-out-0910.google.com [209.85.128.186]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE89CE04E8 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:03:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 18so4554874fkq.2 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:03:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=LPvgmpJhMjT029Xrojj6VC5Jjk58xKEn3rWlOFowa3c=; b=kTlzicKQPkUPIkE1W7V+CUFt29E8+JMoC7TkHWbsioN1F6JYgLXQBq3d5tIkOe5UbLNKyDc3CoAQRUGG4q3sCmdI3XHpojBjbcoJ4p2Djdrp7ShM5iMH3wkfVGJZS5mMP9HIq1xfg4HSo4mSkcR7/z/DfyhoDOrho4VqezcbJOE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=BAcxA5zO8j4nnA2qP1Am3nDIg/FMiJUjyZQcDaL6ncpDnfIvOu720wn/0JeCXz2UEanY+zIbSqbF3JSZ13e31amc3S1rXX5FrhDQTh5yBSDLBMmfaNRLwkH5bZ5DN5jwtIwZMq2nfuYXKYpIZq+Jg5JzqN7I7UCzntZB+GrfUdM= Received: by 10.78.167.12 with SMTP id p12mr32291702hue.8.1205528625862; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:03:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.0.0.3? ( [41.243.253.153]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 33sm8122597hue.13.2008.03.14.14.03.42 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:03:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:57:25 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <47D6333E.9020003@ihug.co.nz> <20080314132348.3bcee472@pascal.spore.ath.cx> <5bdc1c8b0803141206o7a9acbaau149e392574fb2747@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5bdc1c8b0803141206o7a9acbaau149e392574fb2747@mail.gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200803142257.26094.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 722dc10a-e0f1-4b0a-9502-8f3d1b46fd3b X-Archives-Hash: 6073fa569c93d8d3eff40d0c46fdbb56 On Friday 14 March 2008, Mark Knecht wrote: > It's an interesting question and one I've not tried to test. Does an > AMD64 machine running a 32-bit or 64-bit install run faster or slower > with one or the other. Simple logic dictates that 32 and 64 apps will *generally* run at exactly the same speed, mostly because the amd64 arch is x86 with 64 bit extensions. Unless your app is compiled to actually use the 64 bit features (you'd be surprised just how few are), 32 and 64 bit code tends to run at exactly the same speed using exactly the same opcodes at exactly the same clock rate. For any app not using intensive 64 bit arithmetic (super-duper math/sci stuff and seriously intensive graphics are the only ones I can think of off-hand) it's hard to see a benefit for amd64 with current desktop memory loads. The real benefit of amd64 becomes very obvious when you are dealing with apps that consume huge amounts of memory and 3G of addressable space for all apps just doesn't cut it. This is the problem amd64 was primarily designed to solve. When you have an app that does benefit from amd64 - like Sybase IQ just to pull a random selection from a hat :-) the difference is astounding. Conventional desktops? Never seen a benefit yet on a normal desktop. -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list