Think about this code under gcc 4.5.1 (Ubuntu 10.04, apple core2duo 3. Ghz) It is simply 2 tests, in the first I create a direct ask virtual fucnion as well as in the 2nd I refer to it as using a Wrapper class :

test.cpp

#define ITER 100000000

class Print{

public:

typedef Print* Ptr;

virtual void print(int p1, float p2, float p3, float p4){/*DOES NOTHING */}

};

class PrintWrapper
{

    public:

      typedef PrintWrapper* Ptr;

      PrintWrapper(Print::Ptr print, int p1, float p2, float p3, float p4) :
      m_print(print), _p1(p1),_p2(p2),_p3(p3),_p4(p4){}

      ~PrintWrapper(){}

      void execute()
      { 
        m_print->print(_p1,_p2,_p3,_p4); 
      }

    private:

      Print::Ptr m_print;
      int _p1;
      float _p2,_p3,_p4;

};

 Print::Ptr p = new Print();
 PrintWrapper::Ptr pw = new PrintWrapper(p, 1, 2.f,3.0f,4.0f);

void test1()
{

 //-------------test 1-------------------------

 for (auto var = 0; var < ITER; ++var) 
 {
   p->print(1, 2.f,3.0f,4.0f);
 }

 }

 void test2()
 {

  //-------------test 2-------------------------

 for (auto var = 0; var < ITER; ++var) 
 {
   pw->execute();
 }

}

int main() 
{ 
  test1(); 
  test2();
}

I profiled it with gprof and objdump :

g++ -c -std=c++0x -pg -g -O2 test.cpp
objdump -d -M intel -S test.o > objdump.txt
g++ -pg test.o -o test
./test
gprof test > gprof.output

in gprof.output I observed that test2() takes additional time than test1() however i can't explain it

Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
  %   cumulative   self              self     total           
 time   seconds   seconds    calls  ms/call  ms/call  name    
 49.40      0.41     0.41        1   410.00   540.00  test2()
 31.33      0.67     0.26 200000000     0.00     0.00  Print::print(int, float, float, float)
 19.28      0.83     0.16        1   160.00   290.00  test1()
  0.00      0.83     0.00        1     0.00     0.00  global constructors keyed to p

The set up code in objdump.txt does not assist me to either :

 //-------------test 1-------------------------
 for (auto var = 0; var < ITER; ++var) 
  15:   83 c3 01                add    ebx,0x1
 {
   p->print(1, 2.f,3.0f,4.0f);
  18:   8b 10                   mov    edx,DWORD PTR [eax]
  1a:   c7 44 24 10 00 00 80    mov    DWORD PTR [esp+0x10],0x40800000
  21:   40 
  22:   c7 44 24 0c 00 00 40    mov    DWORD PTR [esp+0xc],0x40400000
  29:   40 
  2a:   c7 44 24 08 00 00 00    mov    DWORD PTR [esp+0x8],0x40000000
  31:   40 
  32:   c7 44 24 04 01 00 00    mov    DWORD PTR [esp+0x4],0x1
  39:   00 
  3a:   89 04 24                mov    DWORD PTR [esp],eax
  3d:   ff 12                   call   DWORD PTR [edx]

  //-------------test 2-------------------------
 for (auto var = 0; var < ITER; ++var) 
  65:   83 c3 01                add    ebx,0x1

      ~PrintWrapper(){}

      void execute()
      { 
        m_print->print(_p1,_p2,_p3,_p4); 
  68:   8b 10                   mov    edx,DWORD PTR [eax]
  6a:   8b 70 10                mov    esi,DWORD PTR [eax+0x10]
  6d:   8b 0a                   mov    ecx,DWORD PTR [edx]
  6f:   89 74 24 10             mov    DWORD PTR [esp+0x10],esi
  73:   8b 70 0c                mov    esi,DWORD PTR [eax+0xc]
  76:   89 74 24 0c             mov    DWORD PTR [esp+0xc],esi
  7a:   8b 70 08                mov    esi,DWORD PTR [eax+0x8]
  7d:   89 74 24 08             mov    DWORD PTR [esp+0x8],esi
  81:   8b 40 04                mov    eax,DWORD PTR [eax+0x4]
  84:   89 14 24                mov    DWORD PTR [esp],edx
  87:   89 44 24 04             mov    DWORD PTR [esp+0x4],eax
  8b:   ff 11                   call   DWORD PTR [ecx]

Exactly how should we explain this type of difference ?

One difference would be that the values you are passing into print in test1 will be saved within the instructions themselves, whereas the stuff in PrintWrapper need to be loaded in the heap. You can observe this happening within the assembler. Might be encountering different memory access occasions for your reason.