Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 00:42:21 +0000 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: amd64 or i386 for desktop use? Message-ID: <20080306004221.14aa242c@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <20080305194611.A8684@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <200803050036.33579.itz@mushinsky.net> <20080305171303.GA35180@slackbox.xs4all.nl> <bbe9e35d0803050935w3476aeabl4bef4b8912f0f814@mail.gmail.com> <20080305194611.A8684@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 19:47:53 +0100 (CET) Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > >> of RAM, and I seldom use more than half of that. Mind you, I'm > >> using a simple window manager not a desktop environment with lots > >> of bells & whistles. > >> > >> I suspect binaries on i386 will be somewhat smaller. But amd64 has > >> more registers which might give some speed advantages. I haven't > >> tested it, but > > yes it is much faster (somehow like 20%), and code size are rarely > big part of memory usage. Everything I've every seen about this suggests that amd64 is faster on a few applications, such as mp3 encoding, but generally there is very little difference, on average, across desktop applications. Do you have any measurements to support that 20% figure.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080306004221.14aa242c>