Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 12:27:49 +0000 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: amd64 or i386 for desktop use? Message-ID: <20080306122749.281768ba@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <1afdeaec0803052335v1c46ba2dof594c3a213c8913b@mail.gmail.com> References: <200803050036.33579.itz@mushinsky.net> <20080305171303.GA35180@slackbox.xs4all.nl> <bbe9e35d0803050935w3476aeabl4bef4b8912f0f814@mail.gmail.com> <20080305194611.A8684@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20080306004221.14aa242c@gumby.homeunix.com.> <1afdeaec0803052335v1c46ba2dof594c3a213c8913b@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 07:35:34 +0000 "Colin Adams" <colinpauladams@googlemail.com> wrote: > On 06/03/2008, RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > I do on Linux (if that is relevant - I'm not clear if the question is > FreeBSD specific or not): > > See http://colina.demon.co.uk/?q=node/53 but your binary also grows to 5 times the size of the 32-bit version, it doesn't seem, in any sense, to be a typical desktop application.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080306122749.281768ba>