64-bit vs 32-bit userspace/kernel benchmark? Was: Athlon 64 X2 cpuinfo oddities

[Jeffrey Hundstad <jeffrey.hundstad@mnsu.edu>]

Jesper Juhl wrote:

>On 1/10/06, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
>  
>
>>On Tuesday 10 January 2006 03:12, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>>    
>>
...

>>Ah - how legacy.
>>
>>    
>>
>Yeah, but since my distro of choice is 32bit only and I don't much
>feel like porting it myself or using an unofficial port (slamd64) I'm
>sticking with a 32bit userspace. And as long as userspace is pure
>32bit there doesn't seem to be much point in building a 64bit kernel.
>And I only have 2GB of RAM, so I don't have a use for the larger 64bit
>address space.
>I also don't run any apps that do a lot of math on >32bit numbers, so
>there's not much gain there either.
>I guess I would bennefit from the extra GPR's, but then I would at the
>same time loose a bit by all pointers being 64bit - both lose some
>disk space due to larger binaries and I'd have increased memory use
>and less efficient L1/L2 cache use.
>
>I don't think there would actually be much gain for me in switching to
>a 64bit kernel with a 64bit userspace atm.
>But if I'm wrong I'd of course love to hear about it :)
>
>  
>

Has anyone done any actual benchmark tests that show 64-bit vs 32-bit 
environments/distributions with Athlon64 processors.  If so, I love to 
see the results.  I too elected to stick with 32-bit, using the same 
reasoning/guessing above.

-- 
Jeffrey Hundstad