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.