Marco van de Voort schrieb: >> Op Sat, 12 May 2007, schreef Marco van de Voort: >>> P.s. I also don't get the "64-bit" gaming speed remark. What does a game do >>> with 64-bit? Load 4 GB of textures on startup? >> Games will be among the first end user applications that really need > >> 4GB. Commercial games currently released sometimes need 2 GB, it is a >> matter of time until it increases beyond 3GB, which is the limit for >> 32-bit systems. >> >> However, here the point is more moot than anywhere else, who cares about a >> few mb of exe for a game that requires gigabytes of memory and is often >> shipped on a 9GB dvd?! :) >> >> And needless, to say, FPC is very well prepared for 64-bit. > > One of the things I sometimes wonder about too is how far optimizations are, > most notably on non-x86 (and that includes _64). Maybe make a wiki page out > of it (implemented and to-implement?)
FPC as well as gcc are worse on non x86 architectures, however, fpc performs usually better in relation. > > Also instruction scheduling remains important, because in this weeks > (german) C'T I saw Intel is also preparing embedded in-order x86 CPU's. (and > at work I use C7's). The problem of instruction scheduling is that it is really CPU specific. That's one of the reasons why the P4 lost performance wise: Athlon and Core/Pentium M perform well with blended code, P4 didn't. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
