That is just the thing. Other things that should have been similarly
affected in the benchmark were not. Take a gander if you would at some of
the rest of that article...
On Apr 5, 2011 11:32 AM, "William A. Rowe Jr." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/5/2011 6:27 AM, Andrew Oliver wrote:
>>
>> Anyone have any theory on why 64-bit was so much worse (suggest looking
at general article
>> for context rather than solely the except above)?
>
> Simple memory access. Intel doesn't scale to 64 bits as cleanly as, say,
> a sparcv9 64 bit binary vs sparcv8 32 bit.
>
> int's, pointers, most resources consume 2x heap and stack, except of
course
> strings.
>
> All this means you are falling out of L1, L2 cache out to memory pretty
> regularly. Pick some other applications, you should find similar results
> on most any intel program, including 32 vs 64 bit jvm performance.
