On 09/03/2010 08:53, Michael Menegakis wrote: > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Dominic Fandrey <kamik...@bsdforen.de> 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 >>> >>> 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. >> >> There is considerable overhead in the 64bit VM code. I'd assume that >> this is the reason. > > Then why do I see considerable improvement on Linux x86_64? about +20% > FPS on timedemo.
Though I wouldn't expect that, there might be several reasons, compiler flags, differences in the kernel or your CPU is optimized towards 64bit performance. -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? _______________________________________________ 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.
