Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed

Marco van de Voort <marcov@stack.nl>
13 Apr 2007 01:30:45 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed jlforrest@berkeley.edu (Jon Forrest) (2007-04-11)
Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2007-04-13)
Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2007-04-13)
Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2007-04-13)
Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-04-13)
Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed ian.rogers@manchester.ac.uk (Ian Rogers) (2007-04-13)
Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed meissner@the-meissners.org (Michael Meissner) (2007-04-13)
Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed georgeps@xmission.com (George Peter Staplin) (2007-04-13)
Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed tmk@netvision.net.il (Michael Tiomkin) (2007-04-13)
[11 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Marco van de Voort <marcov@stack.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 13 Apr 2007 01:30:45 -0400
Organization: Stack Usenet News Service
References: 07-04-031
Keywords: architecture, performance

On 2007-04-12, Jon Forrest <jlforrest@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> I don't think it's worth messing with 64-bit computing for apps that
> don't need the address space."


Dr Dobbs march 2005 has a nice summary that seems to confirm your view, and
my own little experiments agree with them.


With the added remark that a lot of benchmarks seem to be biassed due to
the fact that on 64-bit you can always use SSE2. In general the base
level of instructions that one can used is raised on 64-bit, and to really
isolate the 64-bit issue one has to carefully check that the RTL (most
notably memory move) is on equal footing.


IIRC Dr Dobbs also made some other exceptions for apps that are really
heavily bound by something that really benefits from larger register size.
(e.g. some hashing or checksumming functions)


> Let's say you're a Linux user who never needs to run programs that
> don't fit in 32-bits. Would you run a 32-bit or a 64-bit version of
> Linux? You compiler people probably have intimate knowledge of the ISA
> issues here so I'm interested in what you have to say.


32-bit.



Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.