On Wednesday 24 January 2007 15:33, Linda Walsh wrote: > I have an Intel cpu / 64-bit extensions on a machine with 4G of > memory. > > Just want some confirmation (or not)...it seems like i386 would > currently be my best choice: all memory is accessible, no program I am > running needs >2G addr space, 32-bit programs execute faster and > will likely be smaller than the equivalent 64-bit programs (and > libraries). > > As long as I have under 4G mem (and my apps need <2-3G), I see only > "downsides" to moving to the x86-64 version. Am I missing > something or is this pretty much the "consensus view" (assuming > there is one :-)).
Linda: From my experience, I have seen DRASTIC imporovements in large-scale database applications running on 64-bit machines vs. the 32 bit machines. Adding quad-core processors helps, too. :) This is like processing where the same 5-10 TB databases will be on the machines. However, that is on servers. I have only anecdotal information about workstations, which have been that 64 bit gives you a better "seat of the pants" feeling but nothing more, unless you're a hard-core researcher doing massive calculations. -- kai www.perfectreign.com || www.4thedadz.com www.filesite.org || www.donutmonster.com closing the doors that surround me so no one will ever penetrate complete my retreat just to wait for the day that never comes so i will laugh alone -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
