-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ GreyCloud on Wednesday 30 Dec 2009 23:30 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> ____/ Peter KÃhlmann on Wednesday 30 Dec 2009 20:47 : \____
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> Ubuntu 32-bit, 32-bit PAE, 64-bit Kernel Benchmarks
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | For this comparison we used Ubuntu 9.10 on a
>>>> | Lenovo ThinkPad T61 notebook running an Intel
>>>> | Core 2 Duo T9300 processor, 4GB of system
>>>> | memory, a 100GB Hitachi HTS7220 SATA HDD, and a
>>>> | NVIDIA Quadro NVS 140M. We were using the
>>>> | Ubuntu-supplied kernels that are based off the
>>>> | Linux 2.6.31 kernel in Ubuntu Karmic. Other
>>>> | packages that were maintained included GNOME
>>>> | 2.28.1, X Server 1.6.4, NVIDIA 195.22 display
>>>> | driver, GCC 4.4.1, and we were using the
>>>> | default EXT4 file-system with all other
>>>> | defaults. With Ubuntu to properly address 4GB
>>>> | or greater of system memory you need to use a
>>>> | PAE kernel as the Physical Address Extension
>>>> | support through the kernel's high-mem
>>>> | configuration options are not enabled in the
>>>> | default 32-bit kernels.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_32_pae&num=1
>>>>
>>> Oh, oh, now our resident 64bit "specialist" Hadron Snot Quark has some
>>> heavy explanation to do why, totally different from his ascertions, the
>>> 64bit linux trounced the 32bit counterpart on *every* test.
>>>
>>> Which was maintained as fact all along from linux users who actually use
>>> linux *and* especially in the 64bit version, and which was all the time
>>> naysaid by Hadron and comrades (after all, 64bit windows is actually
>>> *slower* than 32bit windows, as there are practically no 64bit apps. Can't
>>> have that, can we?)
>>>
>>> And here we have *again* a benchmark where 64bit linux was faster, in in
>>> several cases *dramatically* faster than 32bit
>>>
>>> I guess Hadrons "explanation" will be that those guys are "lying
>>> freetards"
>>
>> Microsoft has to throw mud at 64-bit because it's still struggling to get it
>> working.
>
> I'd say that the biggest improvements to performance when moving to
> 64-bit is the utilization of the general purpose registers and the
> elimination of the saving of the BP register and movement of addresses
> on every function call. All one has to do to verify this is to compile
> a simple hello world program in C and to utilize the generate assembly
> instructions only in 32-bit mode and compare the code generated in
> 64-bit code. This is the way Intel processors work. I don't get a
> speed advantage when the same code is compiled on a G5 (IBMs 970FX) in
> 64-bit mode. I get better speed in 32-bit mode as there are 32 general
> purpose registers available and it these same gp registers are there in
> 64-bit mode as well.
Microsoft recommended 64-bit only because it temporarily renders some viruses
incompatible. Not performance, not memory addressing...
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Windows O/S: chmod a-x internet; kill -9 internet
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 140 total, 1 running, 139 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAks8dZAACgkQU4xAY3RXLo54EwCgh+xB1hgPUMRHcG754F6kt5T8
IzcAmgKdj/7T067L3VX/+9OfWZrAYtv/
=VUxg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
