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 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
