No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 12.10: 32-bit vs. 64-bit Linux Performance

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by kokoko3k View Post
    ...If you want to deal with the large memory footprint of a native 64bit application you're certanly welcome.
    But i'd rather prefer X32 abi and my cpu cache to be used better, instead.
    Couldn't put it up any better.


    • #32
      Right! Where are those x32 distros?

      Originally posted by chithanh View Post
      Yes, there is Gentoo x32, Phoronix even wrote about it here:

      But most people here have given up on waiting for Gentoo benchmarks from Phoronix, so it is unlikely that we will see any x32 benchmarks before a point&click install distro comes with x32 support.
      Hi chithanh

      Thanks for pointing to this article.
      I remember now reading it.
      But as you mentioned, still was waiting for some comparisons.

      So let's hope, it's not gonna take too long for some other / more x32 distro's to show up.


      • #33
        There is demand for different versions! with Intelligent setup/installation?

        I guess, there is demand for different version:

        a) Limited hardware
        There are still 32bit CPUs around (old machines, various ARM architectures, other special hardware).
        Those DO REQUIRE 32bit code.

        b) Heavy load 64bit applications
        There are some 64bit applications (CAD, database, video editing, some games, servers, ....) which can really benefit from the 64bit setup. Hence they should or even MUST RUN in 64bit mode.

        c) Rest and/or many desktop use cases
        A large part of installations does not really benefit from the 64bit pointers. They could however benefit from a large performance gain through the new extended instruction set.
        For those, an enhanced / optimized 32bit system (x32 ABI) should deliver the best performance.

        In the (hopefully near) future, when the x32 has been settled, there might be an intelligent installation:
        When somebody chooses a 32bit installation and has a 64bit architecture, the system automatically selects the x32 ABI version for best performance.


        • #34
          If there is any benefit at all in x32, outside a select few synthetic benchmarks and bandwidth-starved mobile architectures.


          • #35
            It DEPENDS on the USE CASE !

            Originally posted by chithanh View Post
            If there is any benefit at all in x32, outside a select few synthetic benchmarks and bandwidth-starved mobile architectures.
            I would expect so.

            Various tests are showing compiling kernels, heavy en- and decoding of media files, heavy video editing, large database applications and some gaming do actually benefit from the 64bit pointers.
            Interestingly, those are the tests that usually are performed in benchmarks. (Also look at the phoronix tests.)
            On the other hand, tests have shown that many applications used for desktop environments (office apps, mail programs, browser, etc., when not heavily utilizing x86_64 extensions or memory intensive) are usually running faster in 32bit than 64bit.

            So there are many use cases, where 64bit systems makes more sense and therefore should be choosen
            (preferred over a 32bit version)!
            On the other hand, there are also many use cases, which should actually benefit from the reduced footprint of 32bit pointers (when allowed to use the new x86_64 instruction sets) and hence be choosen (preferred over a 64bit version)!

            My point is: It depends on the use case!

            However, since there are no testable x32 systems available, one has to wait until then.
            And then, I hope phoronix is running some benchmarks for different use cases.
            So one can then see, which system makes more sense for which use case.
            Last edited by rgloor; 15 October 2012, 07:25 AM.


            • #36
              Debunking x32 myths

              x32 fanatics should read this...
              There has been many comments on my previous post about the new x32 ABI; some are interesting, others…


              • #37
                Originally posted by whitecat View Post
                The new x32 ABI has proven to be faster. Not really; what we have right now are a few benchmarks, published by those who actually created the ABI, Of course you’d expect that those who spent time to set it up found it interesting and actually faster, but I honestly have doubts about the results
                "Doubts" means... doubts, not something you should start from to define something a myth.
                Simple bench:

                From one side it is theoretically correct that you’re going to have smaller data structures, which means you can make better use of the data cache (not of the instruction cache, be sure!) — but is this the correct approach?
                Still, saying that the approach may be wrong doesn't imply that that approach is a myth.

                        exec         data       rodata        relro          bss     overhead    allocated   filename
                     1239436         7456       341974        13056        17784        94924      1714630   /lib/
                     1259721         4560       316187         6896        12884        87782      1688030   x32/
                this was libc, see that x32 loses just in the exec field.


                • #38
                  Originally posted by whitecat View Post
                  Thanks whitecat for the link.

                  I have read the article, as well as the comments.
                  Have you read the comments/discussion as well? Especially toward the end!

                  From what I read from various sources, there is a legitimate chance, that x32 might be beneficial in some use cases. And my statement is:
                  - One has to wait for the real deal: A released distribution with x32 properly implemented (might be only at the 2nd iteration).
                  - Then run several benchmarks for several use cases.

                  And only then we will see, which version is better suited for which use case. Point.

                  If that is fanatics by your definition, then you might call me fanatic.


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by kokoko3k View Post
                    Diego Elio Petten? wrote:
                    The data is also coming from a synthetic test, not from an actual overall system usage, and if you have any clue about benchmarks you know that the numbers can easily lie out of their teeth!

                    And in your benchmark:
                    x86-64 : 114 %
                    x32 : 117 %

                    Awesome. A new ABI for that?
                    x32 has 9 years late. For desktop or servers nobody will use x32 because x86-64 is already here.

                    And you forgot that proprietary vendors (Nvidia, AMD, Adobe, Microsoft) will certainly never support x32 because it's a waste of time.


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by rgloor View Post
                      If that is fanatics by your definition, then you might call me fanatic.
                      You're right, "enthusiasts" is more appropriate.