Slashdot Mirror
Are 64-bit Binaries Slower than 32-bit Binaries?
JigSaw writes "The modern dogma is that 32-bit applications are faster, and that 64-bit imposes a performance penalty. Tony Bourke decided to run a few of tests on his SPARC to see if indeed 64-bit binaries ran slower than 32-bit binaries, and what the actual performance disparity would ultimately be."
in my opinion, that describes windows XP.
i have never seen a machine running XP with decent performance.
Sure send an email to "postmaster@fbi.gov" and ask to host your child porn in their server farm.
You'll be amazed at how quickly they provide you with support. In fact, if you're lucky they'll send some of their field sales reps straight to your house to work out a deal.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Nice try, but no, the article is indeed retarded.
They've at best proved a supposition about a single architecture/process/compiler family. They have not proved a general case. Did they test on amd64? Alpha? Mips? No? Then why are they making unwarranted generalizations? Ah, they're retarded.
Still, the word size of the processor is not a major factor in now fast a CPU is. Finding fater ways to process instructions, caches, and how fast you run the CPUs at make more of a difference. I am probably leaving out a lot of other major factors. Oh well.
The article is a bit interesting although it seems very amateurish. Just my personal opinion.
In fact the same logic means that with all else being equal an 8 bit processor is slightly faster than a 16 bit processor and a 16 bit processor is slightly faster than a 32 bit processor. But of course all else is never equal so things are usually the other way around.
Has anyone heard of a set (family?) of processors that were exactly the same EXCEPT for the processor's word size?
Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.