On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 11:46:04 +0100 Gabriel Bouvigne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Side note: I don't _expect_ a performance gain in using a AMD64 compiled > > version. Switching from 32bit to 64bit results in a larger executable > > (as pointers grow from 32 to 64 bits). This may result in a _slower_ > > executable, as the resulting code may not fit into the CPU cache > > anymore. The cache would play ping-pong in this case (switching between > > parts of the code). I've read about a performance loss of 20-30% for > > some specific applications (but with sparc64, not amd64). > > But on x86, we might benefit from the increased number of visible registers. Yes, this could help here. > > If someone compares the performance between an ia32 and amd64 compiled > > version of LAME, I would be interested to know the actual numbers. > > http://anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884&p=17 Woohoo! Very nice! Ok, obviously the increased number of visible registers helps alot. > Moreover, we do not have any amd64 computer. I think that this is a > major blocker. I've access to the FreeBSD amd64 machine (btw. it builds lame 3.95.1 just fine: no error logs on http://bento.freebsd.org/ for lame), but this doesn't help Fred. Bye, Alexander. -- I will be available to get hired in April 2004. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7 _______________________________________________ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
