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."

Comments

There's always a trade-off

[KalvinB]

between precision and speed.

It's not surprising that 64-bit processors are rated much slower than 32-bit ones. The fastest 64-bit AMD is rated 2.0ghz while the fastest AMD 32-bit is 2.2ghz.

If you use a shovel you can move it very fast to dig a hole. If you use a backhoe you're going to move much slower but remove more dirt at a time.

Using modern technology to build a 386 chip would result in one of the highest clock speeds ever but it would be practically useless. Using 386 era technology to build a 64 bit chip would be possible but it'd be massive and horribly slow.

I'm still debating whether or not to go with 64-bit for my next system. I'd rather not spend $700 on a new system so I can have a better graphics card and then have to spend several hundred more shortly after to replace the CPU and MB again. But then again, 64-bit prices are still quite high and I'd probably be able to be productive on 32-bit for several more years before 32-bit goes away.

Ben

Re: OSNews

[Guuge]

News flash: 64-bit apps are, usually, slightly slower than 32-bit ones. Duh. Any developer who's been around 64-bit environments for more than a few weeks knows this. It's not like there's some subtle magic going on here; bigger pointers means more data to schlep around.

That is the sort of "obvious" conventional wisdom that the article is questioning. In fact, 64-bit architecture means a lot more than pointer size, and merely counting bits is no way to estimate performance.