4 Feb
2008
4 Feb
'08
12:30 a.m.
Just curious, but I've heard that 64-bit OSes are slower than 32-bit
ones. That seems odd to me. Any truth to it?
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
4 Feb
4 Feb
3:33 a.m.
On Feb 3, 2008 11:30 PM, david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Just curious, but I've heard that 64-bit OSes are
slower than 32-bit
ones. That seems odd to me. Any truth to it?
Maybe if you're referring to Windows, or running 32 bit code on a 64
bit OS, but generally, and modulo any architecture specific bugs, no.
64 bit should be faster as you have more registers and can address
more RAM without the overhead of PAE.
Lee
3:53 a.m.
david wrote:
Just curious, but I've heard that 64-bit OSes are
slower than 32-bit
ones. That seems odd to me. Any truth to it?
Swings and roundabouts.
On architectures like Sparc where the 32 and 64 bit CPUs have the same
number of registers, the 64 bit OS is likely to be a little slower
on operatrions like traversing linked lists because each pointer is
twice as big on 64 bit and hence each retrieval of a pointer requires
twice as much memory bandwidth as the 32 bit OS.
When comparing 32 bit x86 to x86-64, things are less clear because the
x86-64 has two more registers than the 32 bit version of the CPU which
is considered rather register starved (in comparison to other CPUs like
Sparc and PowerPC). The problem with register starvation is that the
compiler has move data from registers to the stack to free up register
space and this register spilling can slow down the program.
The extra registers means that code written in the Ocaml programming
language runs faster on x86-64 than on the 32 bit version of the
program.
Of cource all of the above assumes things like memory bus widths and
bandwidths are the same. Newer CPUs are more likely to be 64 bit and
have faster busses etc.
HTH,
Erik
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Arguing that Java is better than C++ is like arguing that
grasshoppers taste better than tree bark." -- Thant Tessman
5:06 a.m.
On Feb 4, 2008 2:36 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo <mle+la(a)mega-nerd.com> wrote:
david wrote:
Right. I presumed that he was comparing a 32 to a 64 bit OS on the
same (64 bit) hardware, in which case I would not expect a difference;
it's just as fast to load a 32 bit pointer as a 64 bit one. Unless
the compiler is smart enough to fetch two 32 bit words at once
whenever possible ;-)
Lee
Just curious, but I've heard that 64-bit OSes
are slower than 32-bit
ones. That seems odd to me. Any truth to it?
Swings and roundabouts.
On architectures like Sparc where the 32 and 64 bit CPUs have the same
number of registers, the 64 bit OS is likely to be a little slower
on operatrions like traversing linked lists because each pointer is
twice as big on 64 bit and hence each retrieval of a pointer requires
twice as much memory bandwidth as the 32 bit OS.
6:10 a.m.
Am Montag, 4. Februar 2008 schrieb david:
Just curious, but I've heard that 64-bit OSes are
slower than 32-bit
ones. That seems odd to me. Any truth to it?
Please stop spreading that old and wrong myth. There once was a time when
intel 64bit processors where slower with 32bit apps then with native 64bit
apps. I don't know if that still holds. Just because there is no (bundled)
64bit windows coming with that new computers, doesn't mean that 64bit is bad.
From my experience (doing math number crunching with doubles on big data read
from disk) 64bit 1.8GHz is faster then 32bit 2x2.8GHz....
Arnold
--
visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/
---
Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me
to all your contacts.
After a month or so log in as root and do a "rm -rf /". Or ask your
administrator to do so...
8:42 a.m.
david wrote:
Just curious, but I've heard that 64-bit OSes are
slower than 32-bit
ones. That seems odd to me. Any truth to it?
I recently published an article superficially comparing the 64-bit 64
Studio distro with the 32-bit JAD distro. Both are running on AMD64 CPUs
here (3200+ and 3800+), the JAD system is running on the faster of the
two. I didn't do a lot of scientific comparison, but Ardour's status
display was revealing, its performance was clearly superior on the
64-bit box. I also edited some video files with LiVES, again with much
better performance on 64 Studio. However, 32-bit JAD has much to
recommend it, so please don't take this comparison as meaningful beyond
certain bounds (and I think a 64-bit JAD is already in the works).
Obviously the memory handling capacity is much greater on the 64-bit
machine, and I expect that we'll all be running 64-bit boxes eventually.
Best,
dp
11:29 a.m.
Am Montag, 4. Februar 2008 schrieb Dave Phillips:
Obviously the memory handling capacity is much greater
on the 64-bit
machine, and I expect that we'll all be running 64-bit boxes eventually.
No, 32bit and 1GB of ram ought to be enough for everybody!
/me ducks out through the backdoor
Arnold
--
visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/
---
Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me
to all your contacts.
After a month or so log in as root and do a "rm -rf /". Or ask your
administrator to do so...
10 Feb
10 Feb
6:02 a.m.
Arnold Krille wrote:
Am Montag, 4. Februar 2008 schrieb Dave Phillips:
32-bit + 2GB RAM would be enough for me to handle stitching large
panoramic photos ... don't know about how it would help audio work.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
Obviously the memory handling capacity is much
greater on the 64-bit
machine, and I expect that we'll all be running 64-bit boxes eventually.
No, 32bit and 1GB of ram ought to be enough for everybody! 
6:34 a.m.
Arnold Krille wrote:
> No, 32bit and 1GB of ram ought to be enough for everybody!
Hrhrhr..... :)
Though he denied that he said that one, some others he cannot deny! My
faves:
1) "Spam will be a thing of the past in two years' time" (from 2004)
2) "We will never make a 32-bit operating system."
3) "There are people who don't like capitalism, and people who don't
like PCs. But there's no one who likes the PC who doesn't like
Microsoft."
--
Best regards,
Sebastian.
Web: linuxaudioblog.sternenhejim.de
9:51 a.m.
Am Sonntag, 10. Februar 2008 schrieb david:
Arnold Krille wrote:
The more ram the better for audio! Loading big soundfonts is easier with more
ram (try loading a 3gig piano-font into 1gig of ram). Caching more
audio-tracks is easier with more ram (and thus gives you more cycles
available for effects)...
RAM can't be substituted by anything else then RAM!
(DE: Frei nach "Hubraum ist durch nichts zu ersetzen als Hubraum.")
And that "ought to be enough for everybody" is a funny reference. Like that
famous (incorrect citation) "I think the world will be saturated with 5
computers."
Arnold
--
visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/
---
Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me
to all your contacts.
After a month or so log in as root and do a "rm -rf /". Or ask your
administrator to do so...
Am Montag, 4. Februar 2008 schrieb Dave
Phillips:
32-bit + 2GB RAM would be
enough for me to handle stitching large
panoramic photos ... don't know about how it would help audio work. Obviously the memory handling capacity is much
greater on the 64-bit
machine, and I expect that we'll all be running 64-bit boxes eventually.
No,
32bit and 1GB of ram ought to be enough for everybody! 
11 Feb
11 Feb
3:41 a.m.
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Arnold Krille wrote:
And that "ought to be enough for everybody"
is a funny reference. Like that
Yes. I took it as extremely tongue-in-cheek. It harkens back to the time
Bill Gates was asked why he reserved 384k of the 8086's available 1M of
address space for system ROMs and video, when he could have implemented a
banking scheme and left it all available for RAM. His answer was 'Because
640k is enough for anybody'
--
Rick Green
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
6135
days inactive
6143
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
10 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Arnold Krille -
Dave Phillips -
david -
Erik de Castro Lopo -
Lee Revell -
Rick Green -
Sebastian Tschöpel