To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Shame AMD didn't make the extra registers available in 32 bit mode as well. With the registers and decoders already there anyway, it wouldn't have cost any significant extra hardware.
Hmmm...
Although Microsoft probably would not have bothered with such an extension, gcc and the open source OSs would have been quick to make use of it and gain some extra speed almost for free.
That's not going to last very long, though. Anyone with x64 hardware and Linux (or BSD, or x64 Solaris, ...) will move to a fully 64bit environment anyway. Efforts are better spent elsewhere (though I admit the inital coding should/could be minor).
That's not going to last very long, though. Anyone with x64 hardware and Linux (or BSD, or x64 Solaris, ...) will move to a fully 64bit environment anyway.
Architectures that have been 64-bit for a while, e.g. PPC or Sparc still run plenty of 32-bit software, because it's smaller and faster unless you actually need the 64-bit address space.






Member since:
2005-07-06
x86_64 is faster due to the extra registers available, so running 64-bit gains speed as things are compiled for that it instead of for x86.
Not necessarily. Benchmarks suggest that it depends on the application whether the slowdown due to the 64 bits or the speedup due to the extra registers dominates.
Shame AMD didn't make the extra registers available in 32 bit mode as well. With the registers and decoders already there anyway, it wouldn't have cost any significant extra hardware.
Although Microsoft probably would not have bothered with such an extension, gcc and the open source OSs would have been quick to make use of it and gain some extra speed almost for free.