Re: amd64 and dpkg and so
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Martin Jungowski wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 10:43, Roland Fehrenbacher wrote:
>
> > Fully agreed. A pure 64bit distro would be nothing more than an academical
> > exercise at this stage and the foreseeable future with little practical value
> > and even less real users. 32 bit binaries will need to run on these machines
> > for a long time. Please don't waist resources for this.
>
> Oh I don't think so. The AMD Opteron is a lot faster in 64-bit than in
> 32-bit. Not only does it have eight additional GPRs but also the
> XMM-Registers (aka SSE). During my benching, every single 64-bit test
> was faster than the same software compiled for 32-bit - sometimes more
> than 20% faster in 64-bit
Well, a few tests that I ran were slower (these are in spec cpu2000, so
numbers should be easy to find), about 10% or so, but more were faster
than were slower.
But really, I'd say getting amd64 kernel and biarch toolchain available
for an i386 install would go a long way for those that just want to use it
resonably. It would be nicer to see a real amd64 port, but to be
realistic, that won't happen in time for sarge.
If you really want those extra 20-50% of performance you can compile
programs locally. The hard part of this would be library dependancies, and
I don't think the lib64 situation is going to be fully solved for some
time yet.
/Mattias Wadenstein
Reply to: