# Variable size and CPU performance

When you learn programming they tell you choose data types that suffice for the concepts you're expressing, i.e. not too small because then your data won't fit and not too big because you don't want nonsensical values stored.

Table of unsigned integers

• 8-bit: 0 to 255
• 16-bit: 0 to 65,535
• 32-bit: 0 to 4,294,967,295
• 64-bit: 0 to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615

According to the table above, an 8-bit unsigned integers can store e.g. the number of weeks in a year (approximately 52) and a 64-bit unsigned integer can store e.g. astronomical values.

To get to the point of my question; how do the different variable sizes affect the performance of a program? I imagine that a 64-bit CPU internally handles all variables as 64-bit and simply ignores the highest bits, so an 8-bit variable, travelling across the system, would be handled as:

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx yyyyyyyy


Where y is either 0/1 and x is ignored.

Would it make any difference performance-wise to only use the largest variable size on the platform and use business logic to enforce reasonableness in the values being processed and stored? Is there a performance hit when using variable sizes lower than the native variable size of the architecture?

• No, not all variables are handled as 64-bit, they are handled using precisely the number of bits as their name suggests, e.g. uint8_t uses 8 bits. That's why when you add 2 to an uint8_t variable with 255 as its value, you get 1 (i.e., the overflow is truncated). – xtt Sep 28 '17 at 5:22
• And what about performance of different sizes? – user8056359 Sep 28 '17 at 9:54
• that will depend on many aspects. For example, different instruction sets have different ways of manipulating data. For modern cpus, handling data with standard sizes (8, 16, 32, 64 bits) most likely has optimized routines, so I guess besides memory consumption (which will affect performance during read and write), the total number of cycles won't differ that much. Besides, different compilers will have different optimizations, which will also affect performance. – xtt Sep 28 '17 at 10:06
• x86 Intel 64-bit CPUs have 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit and 64-bit registers, they also have commands for reading 32-bits or 64-bits etc, they don't work exclusively with 64-bit operations. Others have explained this well, just adding a related interesting read: stackoverflow.com/questions/25078285/… – jwbensley Oct 17 '17 at 18:31

Would it make any difference performance-wise to only use the largest variable size on the platform and use business logic to enforce reasonableness in the values being processed and stored?

Yes, it could make your performance worse.

Memory, memory bandwidth, cache density are primary concerns. Larger data size can:

• result in increased cache and translation lookaside buffer (TLB) misses;
• require more RAM to avoid paging.

E.g. x86 CPUs always load (if not already in cache) a whole cache line from memory.

So, assuming a cache line of 64 bytes, there are 64 8-bit-integers per cache line, yet only eight 64-bit-integers. Thus resulting in eight times as many memory transfers for processing a large array.

Also consider that many compiler are smart enough to figure out how to perform automatic vectorization1.

Taking advantage of the processor's SIMD capabilities you can pack eight 16-bit integers into the same space as two 64-bit integers and do four times as many operations at once.

Is there a performance hit when using variable sizes lower than the native variable size of the architecture?

There isn't a general rule.

x86 CPUs can operate on fractions of a register and there will be no slow down at all2.

Other CPUs (e.g. PowerPC) cannot process a fraction of a register. So performing multiple operations on small integers may require masking / cutting back partial results. Anyway it's just a simple AND operation and often the compiler can find a way to avoid it entirely.

As a corner case some instructions can be slower when performed with the CPU's "native size" (e.g. multiplication / division of 64-bit quantities vs 32-bit quantities on Intel Pentium IV).

2) x86 processors can suffer a partial register stall if you, say, write to BX and then try to read from EBX (something to consider mixing integer of different sizes).