porno türk porno rokettube
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Do 64-bit OS's really always run 10% slower than 32-bit OS's?

  1. #21
    Ext User(JJ) Guest

    Re: Do 64-bit OS's really always run 10% slower than 32-bit OS's?

    On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 15:18:47 +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
    > Huh ? AFAIK there are no PAE enabled applications, PAE is an internal OS
    > thing. As J.O. Aho wrote, PAE does not extend the applications' virtual
    > addressing space.
    > Or do you mean ChromiumOS ? Or AWE (Address Windowing Extensions)
    > instead of PAE ?


    Crap. My brain has been glitchy lately.
    Yes, I meant the AWE.

    Chromium (Canary?), which is the base of Google Chrome.
    Its 32-bit version is not yet large address aware, in the PE header.
    32-bit Firefox already has this bit enabled.
    Or... is this bit for PAE instead of AWE?

  2. #22
    Ext User(Pascal Hambourg) Guest

    Re: Do 64-bit OS's really always run 10% slower than 32-bit OS's?

    JJ a écrit :
    >
    > Chromium (Canary?), which is the base of Google Chrome.
    > Its 32-bit version is not yet large address aware, in the PE header.
    > 32-bit Firefox already has this bit enabled.
    > Or... is this bit for PAE instead of AWE?


    Neither. "Large Address Aware" indicates that a 32-bit application can
    handle the full 32-bit 4 GiB addressing space instead of the traditional
    2 GiB space (the remaining 2 GiB being reserved for the kernel on 32-bit
    Windows versions). Of course this is only relevant for 32-bit
    applications running on 64-bit Windows versions (WOW64).

  3. #23
    Ext User(Yousuf Khan) Guest

    Re: Do 64-bit OS's really always run 10% slower than 32-bit OS's?

    On 16/08/2013 6:38 PM, Misha wrote:
    > I have a 1.6GHz Lenovo W510 with 16MB of memory and I'm not sure
    > if I should put 32 bit or 64 bit Windows on it.
    >
    > I have 64-bit Linux on now but I'm making it a dual boot system.
    >
    > Normally I'd just "go" with 64-bit, to follow the crowd, without
    > really knowing why - but I was always told that 64-bit OS's always
    > run about 10% slower than 32-bit OS's.
    >
    > Is that true that applications *always* run slower on 64-bit OS's
    > than on 32-bit OS's?


    No, it was never as much as 10% slower, it was more like 1-2% slower
    sometimes. Most of the reason for the slowness was operating
    system-dependent. Because the real OS kernel is 64-bit, the 32-bit apps
    are presented with a simulated 32-bit OS to work with. The simulated
    32-bit kernel is just a wrapper for the 64-bit kernel, converting 32-bit
    calls to 64-bit and vice-versa (they called this "thunking"). That extra
    layer of OS added the 1-2%. That of course is only a problem for 32-bit
    apps, and it's not much of a problem at that. Native 64-bit apps have no
    such additional layer to go through. Also as I said, it was
    OS-dependent, so some OS's might have had a much more efficient thunking
    layer than others, e.g. think Linux vs. Windows.

    However, on the plus side, on a 64-bit OS, all 32-bit apps see their own
    full private 3GB of address space, they aren't sharing it with other
    32-bit apps. So this may help performance with those apps as they are
    much less memory constrained than on their own native 32-bit OS.

    And then finally, you have 16GB of RAM! You will be wasting more than
    12GB of that RAM if you load it down with a 32-bit OS! Since 32-bit OS's
    don't see much more than 3-4GB of RAM, usually (though there are
    complicated ways around that).

    Yousuf Khan

  4. #24
    Ext User(Pascal Hambourg) Guest

    Re: Do 64-bit OS's really always run 10% slower than 32-bit OS's?

    Yousuf Khan a écrit :
    >
    > However, on the plus side, on a 64-bit OS, all 32-bit apps see their own
    > full private 3GB of address space, they aren't sharing it with other
    > 32-bit apps.


    AFAIK, the applications see their own full private address space and
    don't share it with other applications on 32-bit systems too. Of course
    they share the physical RAM, but that does not change on 64-bit systems.

  5. #25
    Ext User(Peter Köhlmann) Guest

    Re: Do 64-bit OS's really always run 10% slower than 32-bit OS's?

    Pascal Hambourg wrote:

    > Yousuf Khan a écrit :
    >>
    >> However, on the plus side, on a 64-bit OS, all 32-bit apps see their own
    >> full private 3GB of address space, they aren't sharing it with other
    >> 32-bit apps.

    >
    > AFAIK, the applications see their own full private address space and
    > don't share it with other applications on 32-bit systems too. Of course
    > they share the physical RAM, but that does not change on 64-bit systems.


    That is not completely right.
    On 32Bit systems, even with PAE enabled (which excludes all windows systems
    except few selected Server versions) any application can see a max of about
    3 GByte memory. The remaining 1 GByte is mapped to the OS
    On 64 bit systems, any 32bit application can have a max of nearly 4 GByte
    memory. More is not possible since in 32bit mode, only 4 GByte are
    adressable

  6. #26
    Ext User(Pascal Hambourg) Guest

    Re: Do 64-bit OS's really always run 10% slower than 32-bit OS's?

    Peter Köhlmann a écrit :
    > Pascal Hambourg wrote:
    >
    >> Yousuf Khan a écrit :
    >>> However, on the plus side, on a 64-bit OS, all 32-bit apps see their own
    >>> full private 3GB of address space, they aren't sharing it with other
    >>> 32-bit apps.

    >> AFAIK, the applications see their own full private address space and
    >> don't share it with other applications on 32-bit systems too. Of course
    >> they share the physical RAM, but that does not change on 64-bit systems.

    >
    > That is not completely right.


    What part exactly is not right ?

    > On 32Bit systems, even with PAE enabled (which excludes all windows systems
    > except few selected Server versions) any application can see a max of about
    > 3 GByte memory. The remaining 1 GByte is mapped to the OS
    > On 64 bit systems, any 32bit application can have a max of nearly 4 GByte
    > memory.


    This has been mentionned earlier in the thread. However it does not mean
    that applications share their address space with others, does it ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •