Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:46:59 -0300
From:      JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br>
To:        Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>
Cc:        freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: amd64 slower than i386 on identical AMD 64 system? / How is hyperthreading handled on amd64?
Message-ID:  <200603160747.00051.joao@matik.com.br>
In-Reply-To: <200603151356.27972.peter@wemm.org>
References:  <20060313221836.5491916A420@hub.freebsd.org> <346a80220603141520i2ac1a4br66cbfb213453dcd6@mail.gmail.com> <200603151356.27972.peter@wemm.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 18:56, Peter Wemm wrote:
> I tend to agree with this.  ubench is not a useful benchmark for
> comparing 32 bit vs 64 bit systems.
>
> However, what might be interesting is to compile a 32 bit binary (and
> statically link it) on the i386 system, and compare the runtime on the
> 64 bit kernel, using the same identical binary.  That way you are
> measuring the same math operations on both platforms.  Comparing 64 bit
> operations vs 32 bit operations is apples vs oranges.
>
> Of course, it may still be slower, but at least the results would be
> more meaningful.  Don't assume the OS is slower because the compiler
> makes the application do twice the work.

good point=20
what do you think of unixbench since it does some real-life tasks?

Jo=E3o







A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura.
Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik  https://datacenter.matik.com.br



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200603160747.00051.joao>