32-bit or 64-bit

Discussion topics, Linux related - not requests for help

Moderators: ChrisThornett, LXF moderators

32-bit or 64-bit

Postby Rhakios » Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:59 pm

Having been an early adopter of 64-bit, I tended to get a little tired of those people who liked to tell that there's no real benefit to 64-bit and I might as well run a 32-bit distro on the machine anyway as it only makes a difference if one uses more that 4GB of ram.
So, I was rather interested in reading this article on the Phoronix website comparing 32-bit, 32-bit PAE and 64-bit kernels on a machine with only 4GB of ram.
As you can see, except for gaming, the benefits of using 64-bit are quite considerable.
Bye, Rhakios
User avatar
Rhakios
Moderator
 
Posts: 7634
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:18 pm
Location: Midlands, UK

Postby wyliecoyoteuk » Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:48 pm

Been running 64bit for years, no issues.
Then again, I don't play games!
The sig between the asterisks is so cool that only REALLY COOL people can even see it!

*************** ************
User avatar
wyliecoyoteuk
LXF regular
 
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:41 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK

Postby LeeNukes » Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:09 pm

I moved to 64bit with my last upgrade. Glad to see it comes out on top. Will always try and use 64bit for servers if I have the option after looking at the apache tests etc.
User avatar
LeeNukes
LXF regular
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:11 pm
Location: At the bar

Postby Rhakios » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:28 am

LeeNukes wrote:Will always try and use 64bit for servers if I have the option after looking at the apache tests etc.


Yes, the Apache test was a bit eye-poppingly impressive wasn't it. :shock:
Bye, Rhakios
User avatar
Rhakios
Moderator
 
Posts: 7634
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:18 pm
Location: Midlands, UK

32 bit aint broke

Postby sentient_one » Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:20 am

Then again, a little extra speed, here and there, isn't everything
Whereas working well is good at hair retention level
Just about everything supports 32-bit

The change from 16 bit to 32 bit seemed swift and universal
32 bit aint broke so why . . .
sentient_one
LXF regular
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:51 am

Postby Rhakios » Thu Dec 31, 2009 9:31 am

Then again, some distros managed to provide 32 to 64 compatibility quite early on, so few if any problems resulted. I can only assume that those who have been tearing their hair out over 64-bit must either be using very specific software, or distros that didn't manage compatibility very well.
Bye, Rhakios
User avatar
Rhakios
Moderator
 
Posts: 7634
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:18 pm
Location: Midlands, UK

Postby nelz » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:04 pm

Indeed, even binary, non-free, 32 bit software - like flashplayer or vmware, have worked reliably for years with a 64 bit distro and the 32 bit compatibility libraries.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (Albert Einstein)
User avatar
nelz
Site admin
 
Posts: 8470
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Warrington, UK

Re: 32 bit aint broke

Postby ollie » Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:44 am

sentient_one wrote:Then again, a little extra speed, here and there, isn't everything. Whereas working well is good at hair retention level Just about everything supports 32-bit.

The change from 16 bit to 32 bit seemed swift and universal
32 bit aint broke so why . . .


From the Phoronix tests I'd conclude 32-bit is broken :wink:

I've been using 64-bit since I got my first 64-bit capable processor (Intel Q6600) and have continued to install the 64-bit versions andeven my laptop has been running 64-bit since I first installed Linux when I bought it 15 months ago (Asus G1S). That's 4 releases of Ubuntu all functioning extremely well, with only minor hassles with Adobe Flash which the 64-bit alpha release has fixed without any problems. IIRC it just needed the Ubuntu Karmic Partner repository enabling.
User avatar
ollie
Moderator
 
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:26 am
Location: Bathurst NSW Australia

Re: 32 bit aint broke

Postby Rhakios » Fri Jan 01, 2010 2:03 pm

ollie wrote:
From the Phoronix tests I'd conclude 32-bit is broken :wink:



Well, it is 32-bit Ubuntu...
Bye, Rhakios
User avatar
Rhakios
Moderator
 
Posts: 7634
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:18 pm
Location: Midlands, UK

Re: 32 bit aint broke

Postby ollie » Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:04 am

Rhakios wrote:Well, it is 32-bit Ubuntu...


:lol:

I'd be really interested if they repeated the tests with openSUSE and Fedora. Just how much of an impact does each distro make on the kernel? Are there noticeable differences between nVidia and ATI graphics on the different distros?
User avatar
ollie
Moderator
 
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:26 am
Location: Bathurst NSW Australia

Postby nordle » Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:36 pm

Having just gone from using mencoder under Slackware 12.2 to Xubuntu 9.10 and getting 30% slower fps, it does depend on multiple factors, kernel, compiler+flags, libs etc

Somewhere on this forum, pre-2005 days, I did a test using the same nvidia driver and again, I got much better fps under Slackware even though it was the same binary driver.

EDIT:
But, I think I then repeated the test with OpenSUSE and got even better fps result under glx-gears
I think, therefore I compile
User avatar
nordle
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:56 pm

Postby jamie_tickner » Sun Jan 03, 2010 8:39 pm

I used to use 64bit but had trouble getting flash, skype and some other stuff to work properly so I went back to 32bit. Now my previous errors have been addressed so I am back to 64bit.
jamie_tickner
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:15 pm
Location: north west England

Postby Grimnir512 » Sun Jan 03, 2010 8:48 pm

I've been using 64-bit since I upgraded to Karmic. I've had no problems at all apart from with Flash as detailed below.

jamie_tickner wrote:I used to use 64bit but had trouble getting flash, skype and some other stuff to work properly so I went back to 32bit. Now my previous errors have been addressed so I am back to 64bit.


I still have problems with flash in 64 bit. I need to hold the middle mouse button down to click buttons in many flash objects, it's rather strange. Should be fixed with Flash 10.1 with a native 64 bit flash, though :)
User avatar
Grimnir512
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:32 pm
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Postby LeeNukes » Sun Jan 03, 2010 9:09 pm

Grimnir512 wrote:Should be fixed with Flash 10.1 with a native 64 bit flash, though :)


When is that going to happen though?
User avatar
LeeNukes
LXF regular
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:11 pm
Location: At the bar

Postby paulm » Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:29 pm

Having finally managed to take a couple of blank CDs to work with me, I'm now running Salix in 64-bit. Very impressive. The 32-bit version was substantially faster than most other 32-bit distros, and the 64-bit flies compared to it. I've not seen any compatibility problems -so far, everything I've tried works.

The most impressive thing was compiling - I built Osmo under the 32-bit version, timed. I've just done the same under the 64-bit version - around 40 % faster. Generating the dep list (always a pain under the 32-bit version) was stunningly fast.

Looks like I'm going to be going fully 64-bit soon....

paul.
paulm
LXF regular
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:53 am
Location: Oxfordshire, UK


Return to Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests