On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Dominic Fandrey <kamik...@bsdforen.de> wrote:
> 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.

I suppose so.

In case future reference is needed the system that appeared was debian
64 stable current: q3 x86 on it VS q3 x86_64 on it.
_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to