Dominic Fandrey wrote: > On 09/03/2010 06:30, Michael Menegakis wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Ludwig Nussel <ludwig.nus...@suse.de> wrote: > >> So, has anyone tried the new build yet? > >> http://www.ioquake3.org/files/angst/ioquake3-1.36_SVN1778-18.3.x86_64.exe > >> http://www.ioquake3.org/files/angst/ioquake3-1.36_SVN1778-15.2.x86.exe > > > > This one appears to be working fine > > http://www.ioquake3.org/files/angst/ioquake3-1.36_SVN1778-19.1.x86_64.exe
Great, thanks for testing :-) > > performance appears to be relatively good too. > > > > I don't know why it's not _better_ than the x86 version on windows - > > it is here when comparing the two on linux - but anyway; probably > > related to the x64 thing not being as mature on windows yet. I don't see why it should be faster. It's not optimized at all while the x86 vm tries to eliminate some "useless" instructions at least. > There is considerable overhead in the 64bit VM code. I'd assume that > this is the reason. You mean the argument conversion? Or do you have anything else in mind? cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) _______________________________________________ ioquake3 mailing list ioquake3@lists.ioquake.org http://lists.ioquake.org/listinfo.cgi/ioquake3-ioquake.org By sending this message I agree to love ioquake3 and libsdl.
