To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

tcoffeep · 2009-06-09 23:52:06

I'm not sure which forum section this would go in, so I'm opting to put it in GNU/Linux because it's mostly a concern at this point. My processor ( AMD Athlon 64 X2 +4400 ) is a 64 bit processor, but, ever since my first 64bit computer, I've been wary of using the 64bit version of linux distros, because the last I heard, they were still not fully supported.

What I want to know, and can't seem to find an answer to, is if there's any benefits/risks in going 64bit rather than staying 32bit. ( I don't use flash/java much, if that's a concern. ).

ozar · 2009-06-10 00:05:28

I've been running 64-bit Arch for the last year now with no problems to report, so I've said good bye to 32-bit Linux.

Peasantoid · 2009-06-10 00:14:38

Not much reason to do so unless your box has 4+ GB of memory and/or you use RAM-intensive applications such as video-authoring software. Flash has a 64-bit version (10 alpha), don't know about Java.

Anyway, no problems here with Arch64, so I'd recommend upgrading nevertheless — it's [probably] faster.

DevoidOfWindows · 2009-06-10 00:28:00

I'd stay, because everything just works on thirty-two-bit. Sixty-four-bit Flash and Java are still slow and buggy, respectfully. And sixty-four-bit binaries eat up much more RAM, so unless you've got more than four gigabytes, and your machine isn't used for a multi-media production station or transcoding lots of movies or computation or whatnot, I think you're better off with thirty-two.

Last edited by DevoidOfWindows (2009-06-10 00:31:44)

leprosys · 2009-06-10 00:30:14

I have never used i686 and I have no problems with x86_64

tcoffeep · 2009-06-10 00:52:31

See, but I haven't really had a computer of my own for a few years ( Last time I actually owned a computer was Ubuntu Feisty-Fawn ). So, my knowledge is still sort of outdated. Is compiling any faster on a 64bit compared to a 32? I only ask instead of experiment because I'm currently using Gentoo. And I don't think I need to explain any more than that.

Peasantoid · 2009-06-10 00:58:22

I'm by no means an expert, but I believe compiling should be faster on 64-bit.

Ranguvar · 2009-06-10 01:41:35

Peasantoid wrote:

I'm by no means an expert, but I believe compiling should be faster on 64-bit.

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 38#p490038
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 80#p491980

Those threads may also help This topic's question is old as dirt. I say if it will take any extra effort on your part, don't go 64. Otherwise, if you're deciding between installing i686 or x86_64, go for the latter.

0 problems with Java (OpenJDK/IcedTea have open-source web plugins, and the official JRE now has a 64-bit web plugin), and Flash is just as buggy as on i686. The only reason I'd go 32 might be like if I was a Wine developer (and yes, Wine works fine on Arch64).

tcoffeep · 2009-06-10 01:47:16

Sorry Like I said, it's been a few years, and I could only find articles that didn't answer my question, or they were from '07-'08. I thought it better to ask than assume.

DevoidOfWindows · 2009-06-10 01:51:22

Actually, it might not be Flash's fault after all that it sucks in sixty-four-bit; it is probably the Catalyst driver, or even worse, my hardware.

Ranguvar · 2009-06-10 02:13:28

The Catalyst driver is very well known as trash, yes But so is Flash (though to a lesser extent. Don't worry, Adobe is hard at work turning it into Acrobat Reader all over again xD). One of the most prominent examples is video decoding... the H.264 decoder they use SUCKS. Try playing an HD video on YouTube, check CPU usage, and then download it and play it as a video.

And tcoffeep, no offense meant at all I was stating what's basically a fact, not trying to be snotty

Rasi · 2009-06-10 10:48:17

Peasantoid wrote:

Not much reason to do so unless your box has 4+ GB of memory and/or you use RAM-intensive applications such as video-authoring software. Flash has a 64-bit version (10 alpha), don't know about Java.
Anyway, no problems here with Arch64, so I'd recommend upgrading nevertheless — it's [probably] faster.

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16 … _the_ram/1

tcoffeep · 2009-06-10 18:29:00

Interesting article!

I'll try installing 64bit Arch on a seperate partition, and experiment.

moljac024 · 2009-06-11 07:58:12

Ranguvar wrote:

The Catalyst driver is very well known as trash, yes But so is Flash (though to a lesser extent. Don't worry, Adobe is hard at work turning it into Acrobat Reader all over again xD). One of the most prominent examples is video decoding... the H.264 decoder they use SUCKS. Try playing an HD video on YouTube, check CPU usage, and then download it and play it as a video.
And tcoffeep, no offense meant at all I was stating what's basically a fact, not trying to be snotty

Yes, jewtube is grossly inefficient....that kinda came as a surprise to me, the first time I noticed it...

Stalafin · 2009-06-11 13:58:24

Jewtube? oO

tcoffeep · 2009-06-11 14:26:54

I was wondering what he meant too.

Wra!th · 2009-06-11 14:32:46

Unless you need/have more than 3-4GB of ram, stick to 32 bit. x64 gives NOTHING good in the exchange, only crappy applications (and lack of them in some areas).
64 bit is way to overrated.

Rasi · 2009-06-11 15:55:47

Wra!th wrote:

Unless you need/have more than 3-4GB of ram, stick to 32 bit. x64 gives NOTHING good in the exchange, only crappy applications (and lack of them in some areas).
64 bit is way to overrated.

wrong wrong wrong.. BAD wra!th!

read the article i linked above and you will see the theoretical benefits of 64bit...
You think 64bit is not well enough supported? Well, by holding others back with comments like these, the situation will never change...

Last edited by Rasi (2009-06-11 15:56:32)

Wra!th · 2009-06-11 17:34:11

Rasi wrote:

Wra!th wrote:
Unless you need/have more than 3-4GB of ram, stick to 32 bit. x64 gives NOTHING good in the exchange, only crappy applications (and lack of them in some areas).
64 bit is way to overrated.
wrong wrong wrong.. BAD wra!th!
read the article i linked above and you will see the theoretical benefits of 64bit...
You think 64bit is not well enough supported? Well, by holding others back with comments like these, the situation will never change...

I'm never wrong....
I will never encourage someone to use anything that's les than stable or ready. x64 is both those.
You guys are taking this "bleeding" edge crap a tad too far IMO.

Last edited by Wra!th (2009-06-11 17:35:02)

z0phi3l · 2009-06-11 17:41:06

^^ Only problems I've had with 64bit Arch was the aforementioned garbage Catalyst drivers, other than that it ran good, AND the laptop only had 2gb RAM

Wra!th · 2009-06-11 17:45:34

So basically what you're saying is that no good came from using x64, but one huge bad?

Rasi · 2009-06-11 20:24:25

Wra!th wrote:

I will never encourage someone to use anything that's les than stable or ready. x64 is both those.
You guys are taking this "bleeding" edge crap a tad too far IMO.

You cant be serious about 64bit being bleeding edge...

Wikipedia wrote:

64-bit CPUs have existed in supercomputers since the 1960s and in RISC-based workstations and servers since the early 1990s.

Peasantoid · 2009-06-11 20:28:55

(Never mind, I misread.)

Last edited by Peasantoid (2009-06-11 20:29:36)

Rasi · 2009-06-11 20:42:40

z0phi3l wrote:

^^ Only problems I've had with 64bit Arch was the aforementioned garbage Catalyst drivers, other than that it ran good, AND the laptop only had 2gb RAM

That is the EXACT and ONLY problem there is with 64bit. Its not well supported by proprietary software. And that wont change if users dont do the switch. We Linux user have the power to be those users, because we are not dependent on proprietary software.

Apart from that: a 32bit chroot is totally safe and works very well, if you REALLY need one of those 32bit only programs. This wont help with drivers of course, but nvidias driver works very well on 64bit - where catalyst sucks on 32bit too - so thats no argument against 64bit.

Last edited by Rasi (2009-06-11 20:44:17)

Wra!th · 2009-06-11 20:45:01

Rasi wrote:

Wra!th wrote:
I will never encourage someone to use anything that's les than stable or ready. x64 is both those.
You guys are taking this "bleeding" edge crap a tad too far IMO.
You cant be serious about 64bit being bleeding edge...
Wikipedia wrote:
64-bit CPUs have existed in supercomputers since the 1960s and in RISC-based workstations and servers since the early 1990s.

I was refering to the "we need testers to make it better" part with the bleeding edge bit. You can't win this. x64 is a myth and you know it. there's absolutely no gain apart from high ram usage..you know this too! (not right now anyway..and having more and more confused users joining the ranks doesn't make x64 better..it just makes it more popular. I betcha 10 bucks that a max of 10% of x64 OS runners actually know why they do it, or why it would help them. Most of them just heard that on #archlinux and though "hey, I wanna be cool too!"

Arch Linux

#1 2009-06-09 23:52:06

To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#2 2009-06-10 00:05:28

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#3 2009-06-10 00:14:38

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#4 2009-06-10 00:28:00

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#5 2009-06-10 00:30:14

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#6 2009-06-10 00:52:31

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#7 2009-06-10 00:58:22

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#8 2009-06-10 01:41:35

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#9 2009-06-10 01:47:16

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#10 2009-06-10 01:51:22

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#11 2009-06-10 02:13:28

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#12 2009-06-10 10:48:17

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#13 2009-06-10 18:29:00

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#14 2009-06-11 07:58:12

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#15 2009-06-11 13:58:24

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#16 2009-06-11 14:26:54

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#17 2009-06-11 14:32:46

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#18 2009-06-11 15:55:47

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#19 2009-06-11 17:34:11

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#20 2009-06-11 17:41:06

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#21 2009-06-11 17:45:34

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#22 2009-06-11 20:24:25

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#23 2009-06-11 20:28:55

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#24 2009-06-11 20:42:40

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#25 2009-06-11 20:45:01

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

Board footer