<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">a couple of months ago I had completely identical (same h/w, same packages, same cflags, same use flags etc.) x86 and amd64 gentoo installs on my machine in triple boot setup with xp. And during mencoder encoding x264, I found that x86_64 was about 15-20% faster than x86.<br><br>cons are that the 32-bit plugins will work only with <pkg>-bin packages, and a freshly booted x86_64 install eats up more RAM than freshly booted
x86 does, and programs in general will appear bigger in 'top'. But gentoo makes it very easy to manage the 32-bit thing.<br><br>so, if you have plenty of RAM, can work with 32-bit plugin intricacies and have use for video encoding etc., amd64 may be a good idea. btw, I removed 32-bit install after few months of settling down with amd64 and have no issues with it now.<br><br>-devsk<br><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">----- Original Message ----<br>From: Rod Smith <mythtv@rodsbooks.com><br>To: Discussion about mythtv <mythtv-users@mythtv.org><br>Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:14:50 AM<br>Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] Gentoo 64bit and MythTV completely compatible?<br><br><div>On Saturday 27 January 2007 13:17, Richard Freeman wrote:<br>> John Drescher wrote:<br>> >> Is anyone successfully running gentoo 64bit from the gentoo<br>> >> repositories?<br>><br>> Been running myth for the
better part of year now on 64-bit gentoo with<br>> no real issues.<br><br>When I researched distributions and software for my recent MythTV <br>installation, I ran across some posts from ~2 years ago suggesting that <br>certain operations (such as transcoding, IIRC) relied on code that had been <br>optimized for 32-bit x86, and that such code would run much slower on a full <br>64-bit installation. I interpreted this to mean that the software included <br>inline 32-bit x86 assembly instructions for x86 platforms, but that on <br>x86_64, the compiler would revert to slower C code. I found this quite <br>believable because I've run across similar things in the past in other <br>software (Ghostscript, IIRC, for one). Unfortunately, I didn't save the <br>reference URLs for these discussions, and they tended to be scarce on <br>details, so I can't provide anything more specific.<br><br>Have such inefficiencies in the 64-bit implementations of these tools been <br>eliminated
in the intervening time? I'm currently running a 32-bit Ubuntu <br>installation on my 64-bit-capable Celeron D system, but if there won't be any <br>speed hit to running a 64-bit OS, I'll consider using one when it comes time <br>to do software upgrades. Although the speed benefits are small (about 5-20% <br>for most programs), x86_64 code can be a little faster than x86 code on the <br>same CPU, all other things being equal.<br><br>-- <br>Rod Smith<br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.rodsbooks.com">http://www.rodsbooks.com</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>mythtv-users mailing list<br>mythtv-users@mythtv.org<br><a target="_blank" href="http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users">http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users</a><br></div></div><br></div></div><br>
<hr size=1>It's here! Your new message!<br>Get
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49938/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/"> new email alerts</a> with the free <a href="
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49938/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/">Yahoo! Toolbar.</a></body></html>