View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
morphodone n00b
Joined: 24 Jan 2004 Posts: 4
|
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 6:38 am Post subject: athlon 64... 64bit vs 32 bit |
|
|
okay, i just did my first (succesfull) install of gentoo
even though it was a stage 3 , i'm still happy to have
gotten it working.
i installed with a livecd version for x86_64, but should i have
just installed 32 bit instead?
after reading thru this forum it looks like there isn't much support
yet for 64 bit...for instance i have a radeon 9700pro i would
like to play games with but it doesn't sound possible with x86_64
so my question is should i just start over and go with x86 32 bit? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scoobydu Veteran
Joined: 16 Feb 2003 Posts: 1076 Location: 'Mind the Gap'
|
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are a good number of applications that work in 64bit mode.
I have everything I had before except cdrecord prodvd (but that should work soon!)
That said, you have an ati card, that will be your stumbling block in you want accelerated graphics when using 64 at the moment. _________________ Tyan Tiger K8W, 2xOpteron 240,Powerbook5,6 15" 1.5g, Macbook Black 2g, Mac Mini 1g, Ipod P60g.
| Linux - From a windows user perspective| |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blueworm l33t
Joined: 09 May 2003 Posts: 962
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
morphodone n00b
Joined: 24 Jan 2004 Posts: 4
|
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scoobydu wrote: |
That said, you have an ati card, that will be your stumbling block in you want accelerated graphics when using 64 at the moment. |
yeah, i agree you're right about that, but i refuse to put my ti4200
back in...after spending money on the radeon
interesting article, i haven't seen that one...back to 32 bit for me then
argh, i suppose i have to start from scratch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blueworm l33t
Joined: 09 May 2003 Posts: 962
|
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I found the article interesting also, I am not sure how relevant it is since the test system was an ultrasparc. But as the compiler usec was GCC, I think the same may be true for amd64. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LaNcom Apprentice
Joined: 03 May 2003 Posts: 254 Location: Erfurt, Germany
|
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not really.
First of all, there are apps that use 64bit integers (oggenc comes to mind), and those will be way faster (more than 200%) in 64bit. It should also be possible to optimize quite a few applications for AMD64 to get a great speed-up (Mathematica's preformance increases by about 50% on 64bit).
But there's more: on a 64bit system, AMD64 CPU's use 16 registers, on 32bit there are only 8 registers. Don't know if all the renaming registers are available in 32bit mode.
So, the results from the Ultra5 are not really comparable... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Evangelion Veteran
Joined: 31 May 2002 Posts: 1087 Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Completely irrelevant. Yes, 64bit binaries might be slower on the SPARC. And that's because running software in 64bits don't give you any new hardware-features on the SPARC. but on AMD64 you get twice as much GP-registers (regural x86 has just 8, which is a MAJOR drawback!, AMD64 has 16), and twice as much SSE-registers.
In short: on AMD64 64bit should be considerably faster than 32bits. _________________ My tech-blog | My other blog |
|
Back to top |
|
|
secondshadow Guru
Joined: 23 Jun 2003 Posts: 362
|
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This article is relavent only if you use an UltraSparc. For this to matter for an x86-64 you have to do benchmarks for x86-64's. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lightvhawk0 Guru
Joined: 07 Nov 2003 Posts: 388
|
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yay! thanks, I've been debating over whether or not my amd64 was a good purchase. Now it's comfirmed. It was a great purchase!!! _________________ If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor. - Voltaire |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|