From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 16:42:52 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7608716A403 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:42:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gpalmer@freebsd.org) Received: from noop.in-addr.com (noop.in-addr.com [208.58.23.51]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B35243D72 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:41:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gpalmer@freebsd.org) Received: from gjp by noop.in-addr.com with local (Exim 4.54 (FreeBSD)) id 1GY3bm-0005v5-EG for freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:40:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:40:34 -0400 From: Gary Palmer To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Message-ID: <20061012164034.GA75799@in-addr.com> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG References: <452C8725.3070502@ant.uni-bremen.de> <200610111113.k9BBDRV3086345@lurza.secnetix.de> <20061012162003.GA56821@wafer.urgle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061012162003.GA56821@wafer.urgle.com> Cc: Subject: Re: Another whirl with FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:42:52 -0000 On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 05:20:03PM +0100, Mike Bristow wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 01:13:27PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > Heinrich Rebehn wrote: > > > > [i386 vs. amd64] > > > Overhead ?? Would this mean that the 64 bit version will run slower? > > > > It depends. Most applications will run somewhat faster, > > but there are cases where you might get a small slow-down. > [snip] > > Doesn't the increased number of registers available when running amd64 > really, really help when compared with the traditionally register-starved > i386? Except that you've made context switching more expensive as you have to save/restore more data/registers. Possibly function calls inside the code are also more expensive for the same reason. You also have to use natively compiled binaries and a compiler that can take advantage of the additional registers, and even then thats not a guarentee of increased performance. That will depend to a degree on the code being compiled. As with everything in life, there is a balance. For some applications 64bits are either required (due to memory addressing issues, for example) or offer some tangible benefit. Other applications suffer. YMMV. > I'm certainly of the opinion that plumping for amd64 over i386 is a sensible > default. > > -- > I don't play The Game - it's for five-year-olds with delusions of adulthood. > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >