Mailing List ArchiveSupport open source code!
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]Re: [berman@example.com: LINUX on Alpha info]
- To: tlug@example.com
- Subject: Re: [berman@example.com: LINUX on Alpha info]
- From: turnbull@example.com (Stephen J. Turnbull)
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 96 14:21 JST
- In-Reply-To: <F80F5831016B1673@example.com> (TMatsumu@example.com)
- Reply-To: tlug@example.com
- Sender: owner-tlug@example.com
Ted, Virtually the running of any 16 or 32 bit native application will run slower [on a 64-bit machine. Yup, that's what I was thinking of---assuming that you are using something like a 64-bit Windows that needs to be "thunked", or a cross-platform emulation. (What 16-bit apps are there for the Alpha?) But otherwise, if there's a compatibility mode, I'm not aware of a performance hit; an 8MHz Pentium <giggle> runs DOS programs just as fast as an 8MHz 8086. No? Anyway, under Linux, that's not going to be a problem. You recompile the ones that matter. Where you are getting confused is clock speed. Clock speed is what will improve performance of apps not written to utilize 64 bit word sizes. Apps don't have to be *written* to utilize 64-bit word sizes. They need to be compiled to use them, in general. (A big win for Linux, if it has the app you need. For MS, you'll have to pay, and pay big, to upgrade to the new machine.) Network apps are one counterexample: they *must* be written to use 32-bit ints (at least for addresses) and also have correct endianness. As far as I know, GCC has been ported to the Alpha's 64-bit mode; if not, please tell me. Most programs use the local machine's standard ints. To give you an example that would surely make a difference on a 64-bit bus at the same clock speed, and might make a difference on a 32-bit bus at the same clock speed (either way depending on how loads and stores are optimized) is the use of word-size memory moves in strcpy()-like functions. This made a nearly 4:1 difference for the DJGPP libc string and memory move functions for large (>1kB) block moves. These functions get used in most user applications. Graphics (bitmaps, pixmaps), like net apps, must be rewritten to use different word sizes efficiently. But most modern graphics libraries (ever looked at any X windows server source?) are extremely heavily parametrized to deal with word size and endianness. George is probably not running any native 64 bit applications, so therefore this affects George greatly. Almost nothing will run faster with a 64bit processor change only. Depends on load/store optimization. Unless you allow me the 64-bit bus at the same clock speed. Then memory moves will go double-quick, improving most buffered software, which is just about everything that reads the disk or blits graphics to the screen. DX-2, DX-4, these are not ;64 bit processors, these are double external clocked versions of the DX-xx family. Where did you think they were 64 bits? They are bus-restricted, though. Some 64-bit ops will be faster, for example if you need big integers (a lot of financial software uses 64-bit integers; this would probably need a rewrite, though---I doubt these programs are parametrized the way graphics software is). It's quite reasonable to suppose that a 64-bit load or store on a 32-bit bus can be faster than two 32-bit accesses (only one instruction read and address decode; on second thought, probably not in practice since indexing will be done in a register on both architectures for block moves). 64 bits will not give you anywhere near the improvement that internal clock multiplication does. But to the extent that it's faster than 32 bits, it helps a little even on the same bus and clock. As for slower, I just don't see it, unless you need to emulate a different processor family, or use thunks to interface a 64-bit app to a 32- or 16-bit library such as Windows, or vice-versa (for that mythical 64-bit Windows; or is Alpha Windows NT 64-bit?) Agreed, I can't see that the minor improvements I'm talking about will do anything for the typical user. It's the clocks that matter, and will determine whether it's worth paying more. Unless you use Linux, and can recompile the whole lot to use the more efficient 64-bit operations, or can afford to buy all your software again when the vendor gets around to rebuilding them. And even there, you really need the 64-bit bus to buy any help from the 64-bit processor. -- Stephen J. Turnbull Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Yaseppochi-Gumi University of Tsukuba http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/ Tennodai 1-1-1, Tsukuba, 305 JAPAN turnbull@example.com
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [berman@example.com: LINUX on Alpha info]
- From: TMatsumu@example.com
- References:
- Re: [berman@example.com: LINUX on Alpha info]
- From: TMatsumu@example.com
Home | Main Index | Thread Index
- Prev by Date: Re: [berman@example.com: LINUX on Alpha info]
- Next by Date: Re: Compiling an Executable
- Prev by thread: Re: [berman@example.com: LINUX on Alpha info]
- Next by thread: Re: [berman@example.com: LINUX on Alpha info]
- Index(es):
Home Page Mailing List Linux and Japan TLUG Members Links