To 64 bit or not, that is the question...

liquibyte · 2008-02-18 19:18:29

I'm finally able to build a new sytem and am wondering if 64 bit offers any advantages over what I'm doing now given what I do with a computer. First, lets get my specs out of the way so that if anyone with similar interests can possibly help me on this decision. As an added note, not that it makes a difference one whit, I'm going to be liquid cooling and a tad bit of overclocking may be involved.

Shuttle SX38P2-Pro
Seagate Barracuda 500GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz LGA 775 Quad-Core Processor
ASUS EN8800GT GeForce 8800GT 1GB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0
CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (4 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)

Now for what I use my system for. I'm heavily involved in graphics. I use both the GIMP and Inkscape intensively and to their limits (which is my main reason for my new build), so this was my main reason for the quad as I've discovered that my benefits may be extraordinary. That coupled with a buttload of ram (4 gigs) should give me a bit of futureproof to the bottlenecks I've been experiencing with my P4 1.5 from about 7 years ago that I've been experiencing lately. I've also been known to compile extensively just due to the fact that I prefer more bleeding edge features. I enjoy a challenge and will be willing to try out the latest widgets but am nowhere experienced enough of a programmer to try and rewrite an entire program that I didn't start to begin with.

So, can you expound on my dilemma and elaborate to the point where I can reach an informed solution?

[vEX] · 2008-02-18 21:00:38

Well, I don't think the default i686 kernel has support for 4GB RAM so you would have to custom compile that (using ABS and it would be really easy). Only things I can think of now that's not working in x86_64 is flash, java in the browser, acrobat reader. But there are of course free alternatives though of course they're not all fully working yet, Gnash still misses all of v9 and some v8 and so on. Oh, and wine as well.

Though if you set up a 32-bit chroot you could run the stuff there and it should all work fine. Or use the lib32-/bin32-packages, not tried them myself so I can't say how good they are/work.

brebs · 2008-02-18 22:10:28

Well, I'm not going to give detail because there's a thousand other threads like this on the Gentoo forums, and probably a hundred here. Anyway, you want 64bit first. If it gives you hassle, try a 32-bit chroot.

Flash works OK - see nspluginwrapper-ubuntu.

Read wiki.

F · 2008-02-20 01:02:51

Quick answer: Go with 64bit so when things finally shift over to 64bit you won't need to upgrade hardware.

That said, use a 32bit distro for a year or two until that time actually happens. If you find yourself upgrading regardless in a year or two, then just go with the 32bit if its cheaper.

Noneus · 2008-02-20 10:14:08

Use 64bit. If there are apps that only work in 32Bit use this: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/32bit_chroot

F · 2008-02-20 19:40:36

Noneus wrote:

Use 64bit. If there are apps that only work in 32Bit use this: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/32bit_chroot

whoa, cool. Any way we could get an English translation for that?

azleifel · 2008-02-20 20:12:18

F wrote:

Noneus wrote:
Use 64bit. If there are apps that only work in 32Bit use this: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/32bit_chroot
whoa, cool. Any way we could get an English translation for that?

This is almost exactly the same article but in English: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arc … bit_system

Noneus · 2008-02-20 22:13:13

Oops sorry. didn't realize this wasn't english. Just looked at the title

jb · 2008-03-10 04:02:28

I linked the two together, although they should probably have a more unified name. Good for now I guess.

Also, I took a stab at it and declared it Czech. If my recognition skills were of epic fail, please correct.

liquibyte · 2008-03-13 01:53:46

I went 64 bit. No problems to date. As a matter of fact, I think my system is faster though I don't think I could prove it. 4 gigs of ram was the eventual deciding factor. I did initially install 32 bit and just decided to re-do it and take the plunge. I have no regrets now at all.

dschauer · 2008-03-13 02:48:47

I've only been running 64 bit Linux and BSD distros since 2003. There use to be more hassles with flash and few other things, but not any more. I recommend 64 bit. Like liquibyte said, things "seem" faster. Stuff like compiling is definitely faster from why I have observed (but once again, I've not benchmarked that). Since I went 64 bit back in 2003, I've never had any desire to go back to a 32 bit distro.

Last edited by dschauer (2008-03-13 03:06:37)

bgc1954 · 2008-03-13 13:05:28

I prefer the 64 bit for video editing as I also have a 32 bit machine in the basement that I can just set and forget if I'm converting video files or such. Avidemux works much quicker on the 64 bit platform, though, so I would tend to think that your graphics apps will do better in 64 bit.

danielsoft · 2008-03-13 13:40:29

jb wrote:

I linked the two together, although they should probably have a more unified name. Good for now I guess.
Also, I took a stab at it and declared it Czech. If my recognition skills were of epic fail, please correct.

your recognition skills are superb, it's Czech - the CZ version seems to be translated version of the same article, the EN version has a bit more information, so it seems someone updated the English original sometime after the Czech traslated the article...

Kknd · 2008-03-25 01:43:59

I was using a x64 Arch desktop, but switched back due to high memory usage (GTK and etc used almost twice memory). No performance win for 95% desktop programs. But x64 will soon be the default, so someday I will switch back to x64

Arch Linux

#1 2008-02-18 19:18:29

To 64 bit or not, that is the question...

#2 2008-02-18 21:00:38

Re: To 64 bit or not, that is the question...

#3 2008-02-18 22:10:28

Re: To 64 bit or not, that is the question...

#4 2008-02-20 01:02:51

Re: To 64 bit or not, that is the question...

#5 2008-02-20 10:14:08

Re: To 64 bit or not, that is the question...

#6 2008-02-20 19:40:36

Re: To 64 bit or not, that is the question...

#7 2008-02-20 20:12:18

Re: To 64 bit or not, that is the question...

#8 2008-02-20 22:13:13

Re: To 64 bit or not, that is the question...

#9 2008-03-10 04:02:28

Re: To 64 bit or not, that is the question...

#10 2008-03-13 01:53:46

Re: To 64 bit or not, that is the question...

#11 2008-03-13 02:48:47

Re: To 64 bit or not, that is the question...

#12 2008-03-13 13:05:28

Re: To 64 bit or not, that is the question...

#13 2008-03-13 13:40:29

Re: To 64 bit or not, that is the question...

#14 2008-03-25 01:43:59

Re: To 64 bit or not, that is the question...

Board footer