Hello Don, Thank you for the advises but I run 32 bit Fedore Core 5 on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don Dailey: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 03:54 +0900, Hideki Kato wrote: >> Hello Sylvain and Don, >> >> I prefer 32-bit OS as Core series is not better for 64 bit and try not >> nocona but pentium-m. For overclocking, usually 3 GHz (333 MHz FSB x 9 >> for E6700) is very easy without core volt doping. > >With 64 bits as your desktop, there are some issues with flash and java >web start. I know, thanks. >I probably should have stayed with the 32 bit stuff, but I went ahead >and installed the 64 bit version and will stay with this. Probably already you know but you could create a new partition, install 32 bit linux on it, and share /home etc. on one box with multi-boot. >I have heard that the 64 bit linux does run some things better. I >suppose Sure, Debian runs faster upto 20%, for example. It's mainly because, however, 64 bit linux is optimized for recent cpus while 32 bit linux is compiled partly for old i686 (kernel) or oldest i386 (other stuff). So, if you want to get the same performance on 32 bit, recompile all stuff for your cpu (ex. with -march=pentium-m for Intel Core). #This option will be changed for upcoming GCC 4.2. Pros of 64 bit: 1. Double the number of general registers (8 to 16). 2. Wide addressing area (over 4 GB). Cons of 64 bit: 1. Pointers are 8 byte long so that the effective cache size decreases. 2. Instructions are long and complex so that the decoding speed decreases. #AMD's are relatively better than Intel's on this issue. As a conclusion, if your functions/procedures are relatively simple/short and/or using pointers lot, 32 bit is better than 64 bit. -gg >you could recompile things to work in 64 bit mode, and still run 32 bit >OS, at least for the utilites that benefit from it (and there are some >that do.) I haven't sorted it all out yet. > >- Don > > >> -gg (Hideki) >> >> Don Dailey: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 18:50 +0100, Sylvain Gelly wrote: >> >> > I'm very much interested in core 2 duo performance and would >> >> appreciate >> >> > hearing what others have experienced in this regard. I don't know >> >> what >> >> > OS you use, but here are my experiences so far with Linux: >> >> >> >> You seem to have exactly the same processor as I have access to. And I >> >> get much better performance than you. Maybe it comes from the system: >> >> - which compiler do you use? >> >> - which libc do you use? >> >> - what is your "-march" option and -O ? >> >> >> >> I use g++ 4.1.1, -march=opteron, -O3, and quite recent linux >> >> installation (Mandriva 2007). >> >> For me also, everything is in 32bits and I did not optimize further >> >> for this processor. >> >> >> >> Maybe changing these things would explain the difference between the >> >> performance I get and you get. (should be > 2. for you). >> >> >> >> Sylvain >> > >> >I'm using gcc 4.1.2 on a new Edgy Eft Ubuntu distribution. >> > >> >My options are -O3 -march=nocona with other minor options that see to >> >help a tiny bit. >> > >> >I'll try the opteron option to see what happens. I never tried that >> >but I've tried other architectures and most of what I read claims the >> >best to use is -march=nocona for the core 2 duo. >> > >> >- Don >> > >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >computer-go mailing list >> >computer-go@computer-go.org >> >http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >> -- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
