Ubuntu 14.10 Linux 32-bit vs. 64-bit Performance

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Ubuntu 14.10 Linux 32-bit vs. 64-bit Performance

Given yesterday's story about Ubuntu 16.04 LTS potentially being the last 32-bit release if that proposal goes through, and given the number of people still running 32-bit Linux distributions on Intel/AMD hardware that is 64-bit capable, here's some fresh x86 vs. x86_64 benchmarks using Ubuntu 14.10.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=21043

[opensource]

However, for nearly all other systems with Linux CPU workloads, the 64-bit builds will be faster due to access to more registers, assuming SSE instruction support, a larger virtual address space, etc.

Good to know to what I wrote to the last proposal article.

[magika]

So the SSE compiled binaries are faster? Shocker.

[Pseus]

So the SSE compiled binaries are faster? Shocker.

Apps which get a significant speed boost from SSE usually perform runtime detection of SSE-enabled CPUs (and load the appropriate libs if so). Not sure about these apps, though.

[67GTA]

I'm curious about how much of the software we use is actually written/compiled for 64bit, and not just made to be compatible. I still see a lot of multiarch software.

[mark45]

I'm curious about how much of the software we use is actually written/compiled for 64bit, and not just made to be compatible. I still see a lot of multiarch software.

Me too. Firefox is probably the perfect example. And stuff like GoogleEarth is even worse, afaik it's a 32 bit app wrapped in something to run on 64 bit - which always made me wonder how come Google buys the most and best programmers but they can't port properly a worthy/known/used piece of their software to 64 bit - Google isn't Adobe or Canonical who might lack manpower or money.

[schmidtbag]

I'm curious about how much of the software we use is actually written/compiled for 64bit, and not just made to be compatible. I still see a lot of multiarch software.

A huge chunk of multiarch software is through interpreters, like python, perl, and ruby. Honestly I'm not sure how well those scale on 64 bit but I figure they're not just simply sloppy ports.

@mark45
In many cases, there is no gain in making something designed for 64 bit. How would firefox or google earth really get a performance gain? In what situation would they require an (unsigned) value of 18,446,744,073,709,551,615?

[speculatrix]

Me too. Firefox is probably the perfect example. And stuff like GoogleEarth is even worse, afaik it's a 32 bit app wrapped in something to run on 64 bit - which always made me wonder how come Google buys the most and best programmers but they can't port properly a worthy/known/used piece of their software to 64 bit - Google isn't Adobe or Canonical who might lack manpower or money.

AFAIK, Google spend a LOT of money on making Chrome run on a variety of platforms, perhaps more to do all the cross-platform integration and testing and QA than the base code. So I guess anything they can do to simplify things the better.

[caligula]

I find it shocking that there are still so many 32bit advocates around. The prrformance simply sucks. On top of that some early 64bit era machines like some pentium m has issues with 32b/pae. 32b x86 should BE killed with fire.

Where does that last remark about <2GB better suited for x86 come from? Hard to believe anyone with a low end system wants to run it slower?

[schmidtbag]

I find it shocking that there are still so many 32bit advocates around. The prrformance simply sucks. On top of that some early 64bit era machines like some pentium m has issues with 32b/pae. 32b x86 should BE killed with fire.

Where does that last remark about <2GB better suited for x86 come from? Hard to believe anyone with a low end system wants to run it slower?

I agree, x86-32 should have died years ago, but Intel, adobe, and MS unfortunately kept it alive. But as these benchmarks show, not all applications have any particular gain running in 64 bit. There doesn't appear to be any significant downsides though, so there's really no reason to stick with 32 bit anymore (unless you're forced to).

I personally don't understand why anyone with a 64-bit compatible CPU specifically chooses to use a 32-bit OS. Of course there are scenarios where that is the best route, but it's pretty rare.


For the record - regarding my earlier post, I was merely saying that in many cases, there is no gain in optimizing software for 64 bit. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, and I wholeheartedly welcome 64 bit ports (preferably optimized).