From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
References: <CAL3m8eAf2Yjpg77wtykTSPnyKHxKHYc5YWfWH2L8CNjc86P1kA@mail.gmail.c>
	<CAL3m8eDJEo6o+srxuYpKSGDmM+0KgQhC15u7Qxg4TvnpO57Zgw@mail.gmail.c>
	<c16d42fafcb9d73a58f0f9b4882393ce@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<1411330.QJAbfBr5F9@blitz>
	<CAOw7k5gFmRQvoR8Z5e+x99ZmV=yq9E3uuHiaXYeAfg8h2Dgchw@mail.gmail.com>
From: steve <steve@quintile.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <CAOw7k5gFmRQvoR8Z5e+x99ZmV=yq9E3uuHiaXYeAfg8h2Dgchw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <1E6996DB-2712-4AC6-A860-B09C06A8638E@quintile.net>
Date: Sun,  6 May 2012 10:20:06 +0100
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [9fans] integer width on AMD64 (was: Re: AMD64 system)
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 84584670-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

i think this is an often misunderstood fact, 32bit ints are, in my experienc=
e,
a significant win compared with 64bit when doing memory intensive work
- image processing in my case.

-Steve


On 5 May 2012, at 06:48 PM, Charles Forsyth <charles.forsyth@gmail.com>=20
.
> if it's performance you're worried about, for programs that don't care abo=
ut width, i'd expect 32 bits at least
> to match performance with 64 bits (if there's a measurable difference). fo=
r one thing, cache lines will contain
> more values, and several will be fetched at once when cache lines are fill=
ed.
>=20