atom feed17 messages in com.googlegroups.hugin-ptxRe: [hugin-ptx] Re: hugin for 64 bit?
FromSent OnAttachments
Andreas BalzerJul 21, 2007 3:06 am 
Bruno PostleJul 21, 2007 10:35 am 
Hal V. EngelJul 21, 2007 10:52 am 
Bernhard VoglJul 21, 2007 1:10 pm 
Andreas BalzerJul 21, 2007 2:46 pm 
Andreas BalzerJul 21, 2007 2:59 pm 
Andreas BalzerJul 21, 2007 3:09 pm 
Bernhard VoglJul 21, 2007 4:17 pm 
Hal V. EngelJul 21, 2007 4:24 pm 
Ippei UKAIJul 21, 2007 5:13 pm 
Lars SchimmerJul 22, 2007 3:52 am 
Andreas BalzerJul 22, 2007 4:11 am 
Bernhard VoglJul 22, 2007 9:52 am 
Andreas BalzerJul 23, 2007 7:16 am 
Bruno PostleJul 23, 2007 9:28 am 
Andreas BalzerJul 23, 2007 2:30 pm 
Bruno PostleJul 23, 2007 3:22 pm 
Subject:Re: [hugin-ptx] Re: hugin for 64 bit?
From:Hal V. Engel (hven@astound.net)
Date:Jul 21, 2007 4:24:59 pm
List:com.googlegroups.hugin-ptx

On Saturday 21 July 2007 14:46, Andreas Balzer wrote:

Hi!

On Jul 21, 7:35 pm, Bruno Postle <br.@postle.net> wrote:

hugin works fine on 64bit systems, I've been running one for two years or so.

right, it runs fine but my Vista says it's working as a 32bit application. As there are many pros for 64bits I wanted to know..

OK you are not building your own I take it? I suspect that the Windows binary that is available for download is a 32 bit binary.

Note that 64bit software consumes more memory than the 32bit equivalent, stitching can be very memory intensive so this is a consideration.

Ah. But 64bit applications are a lot faster, aren't they?

The answer is it depends. But in most cases apps will run somewhat faster (15% to 25%) and in a few cases as much as 400% faster. In the later cases this happens with apps that make heavy use of 64 bit integers. Most of the general speed (IE. the 15% to 25% gain) gain is because of the extra registers you have when you are running in 64 bit mode. The other area where there will be big speed gains is for apps that need lots of memory (IE. more than 4 gigabytes) to run in an optinal way and where the 64 bit machine has that extra memory availble. With the size of the pano you are creating you would see performance improvements with more memory and could likely benfit from more than 4 gigabytes of RAM. I know my 48 image pano I am working on gets into significant swapping on my 2 gigabyte machine and has at times used an additional 2 gigabytes of swap space and your pano is larger. I should add that on my machine running the same versions of Hugin, enblend and other pano tools that these run noticiably faster on my 64 Linux installation than on the Windows XP (32 bit) installation. How much of this is Windows vs. Linux or 32 bit vs. 64 bit I do not know. But I suspect that most of it is 32 bit vs. 64 bit.

Also my personal experience is that the amount of added memory needed to run a 64 bit executable vs. a 32 bit executable is not a significant issue. For Hugin you might be talking a few hundred K extra.

Also I see you are running Vista. Vista imposes significant performance overhead for things like DRM (Digital Restriction Management) and this may be part of the problem. I know several users who switched back to XP after trying Vista because of a number of issues but all of them said that degraded performance was significant.