____/ GreyCloud on Thursday 31 Dec 2009 18:44 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> -----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...
>>
>
> It should've gave them performance, but then maybe they pissed away the
> performance on some other background process.
Maybe their compiler sucks.
--
~~ Best of wishes
One person' diction is another's verbiage
http://Schestowitz.com | Mandriva Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
run-level 2 Nov 17 02:36
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
