To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

moljac024 · 2009-06-12 01:06:30

Stalafin wrote:

Jewtube? oO

tcoffeep wrote:

I was wondering what he meant too.

A joke ?

Oh, did I read that right, about the newest Windows Server only supporting 64bit ?

Last edited by moljac024 (2009-06-12 01:09:29)

Ranguvar · 2009-06-12 02:06:19

Wra!th wrote:

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!"

I agree with your statement about x86_64 users, but there ARE benefits besides the RAM limit vanishing. You have larger registers, for one. It's not much, but a reported 10% in x264 is worth it -- for me at least, I do a ton of encoding.

Here is some "evidence", though I believe the performance gains could be better:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1234822

My point is not that a 64-bit OS and software will make a noticeable difference, but that you should not dismiss it as a myth. My opinion is to go 64-bit if you're doing a fresh install anyways, but if it's a consideration of whether to spend extra time upgrading to a 64-bit environment then stay 32.
There are other 64-bit benefits, too... ah, wait, Wikipedia did my research for me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#Pros_and_cons I also remember someone telling me that 64-bit had benefits in rendering, something like maximum number of something-or-others... this looks similar: http://www.sidefx.com/docs/houdini9.5/r … rmanypolys ("Ray tracing" under "Memory retention" under "Rendering 300 million polygons"). I bet there's a workaround, but yeah: I'm just trying to show that there are other benefits to 64-bit computing, not that it's worth extra cash or time for most users.

Tyriel · 2009-06-12 02:22:23

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.

Sorry Wra!th but claims like this are wrong. 64 bit OS's have much to offer and simply put you can't run a 32-bit OS and expect to use any features of 64-bit execution. There is more to this than just ram and the performance benefits are noticable in certain circumstances. When compiling the same code I had an approx 10% improvement over a 32 bit Linux distro and there are many other benchmarks out there that can back me up on this one that involve anything using a heavy CPU/Memory load. Just google it.

To address your crappy software remark I would like to know what applications are you talking about that can not run? I have been using 64bit Linux for a little over three years now and have never not been able to get software to execute. Flash has been supported for a long time now and although it was an issue for some who did not know how to install it. The only peice of software that I use that is 32bit only is Skype however that also works just fine on a 64 bit OS with the 32 bit libraries.

bangkok_manouel · 2009-06-12 04:20:20

I just can't stop recommending Arch48. Better memory management, no userland hassle. In other words, sheer awesomeness.

Wra!th · 2009-06-12 05:51:51

Ranguvar wrote:

Wra!th wrote:
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!"
I agree with your statement about x86_64 users, but there ARE benefits besides the RAM limit vanishing. You have larger registers, for one. It's not much, but a reported 10% in x264 is worth it -- for me at least, I do a ton of encoding.
Here is some "evidence", though I believe the performance gains could be better:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1234822
My point is not that a 64-bit OS and software will make a noticeable difference, but that you should not dismiss it as a myth. My opinion is to go 64-bit if you're doing a fresh install anyways, but if it's a consideration of whether to spend extra time upgrading to a 64-bit environment then stay 32.
There are other 64-bit benefits, too... ah, wait, Wikipedia did my research for me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#Pros_and_cons I also remember someone telling me that 64-bit had benefits in rendering, something like maximum number of something-or-others... this looks similar: http://www.sidefx.com/docs/houdini9.5/r … rmanypolys ("Ray tracing" under "Memory retention" under "Rendering 300 million polygons"). I bet there's a workaround, but yeah: I'm just trying to show that there are other benefits to 64-bit computing, not that it's worth extra cash or time for most users.

It's not that x64 bit is bad (as an oldschool ASM programmer I can only love double regs). problems come from application land. it's just not worth it for the average user. No need in having double-sized registers if the applications that take advantage of those are really poor. the average user doesn't need that 10% extra on compile times, because he/she doesn't compile anything. Same goes for encoding (not the case with those select "few" that own a PSP - like myself - or an iPod, but as an average...this increase won't be noticed).
All in all I've heard people complain more about x64 than praise it. I have used it myself (not Arch though, I run OpenBSD x64) and I can't say that I've notice anything going "up".

Last edited by Wra!th (2009-06-12 05:52:28)

PiotrAlexej · 2009-06-12 10:35:25

I switched from Arch32 with ext3 to Arch64 with ext4 two weeks ago... and there was no problem that couldn't be solved. All the applications I used before, I still can use now. Opera runs fine (with Flash), Skype works ... and yes, I do notice an increase in speed* (though I can't show any benchmarks now...). I think that my machine boots faster, works faster (pacman's like a greyhound now...) ... and it's all stable (well, no less stable than it was before )

So, I just can recommend using 64bit... Frankly, I think there is no reason why you shouldn't

* Well, I don't know what's more speed-increasing, 64bit or ext4 ...

Last edited by PiotrAlexej (2009-06-12 10:36:20)

moljac024 · 2009-06-12 10:54:01

PiotrAlexej wrote:

I switched from Arch32 with ext3 to Arch64 with ext4 two weeks ago... and there was no problem that couldn't be solved. All the applications I used before, I still can use now. Opera runs fine (with Flash), Skype works ... and yes, I do notice an increase in speed* (though I can't show any benchmarks now...). I think that my machine boots faster, works faster (pacman's like a greyhound now...) ... and it's all stable (well, no less stable than it was before )
So, I just can recommend using 64bit... Frankly, I think there is no reason why you shouldn't

* Well, I don't know what's more speed-increasing, 64bit or ext4 ...

My money is on ext4 + a little bit of placebo

Ranguvar · 2009-06-12 11:05:19

Wra!th wrote:

Ranguvar wrote:
Wra!th wrote:
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!"
I agree with your statement about x86_64 users, but there ARE benefits besides the RAM limit vanishing. You have larger registers, for one. It's not much, but a reported 10% in x264 is worth it -- for me at least, I do a ton of encoding.
Here is some "evidence", though I believe the performance gains could be better:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1234822
My point is not that a 64-bit OS and software will make a noticeable difference, but that you should not dismiss it as a myth. My opinion is to go 64-bit if you're doing a fresh install anyways, but if it's a consideration of whether to spend extra time upgrading to a 64-bit environment then stay 32.
There are other 64-bit benefits, too... ah, wait, Wikipedia did my research for me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#Pros_and_cons I also remember someone telling me that 64-bit had benefits in rendering, something like maximum number of something-or-others... this looks similar: http://www.sidefx.com/docs/houdini9.5/r … rmanypolys ("Ray tracing" under "Memory retention" under "Rendering 300 million polygons"). I bet there's a workaround, but yeah: I'm just trying to show that there are other benefits to 64-bit computing, not that it's worth extra cash or time for most users.
It's not that x64 bit is bad (as an oldschool ASM programmer I can only love double regs). problems come from application land. it's just not worth it for the average user. No need in having double-sized registers if the applications that take advantage of those are really poor. the average user doesn't need that 10% extra on compile times, because he/she doesn't compile anything. Same goes for encoding (not the case with those select "few" that own a PSP - like myself - or an iPod, but as an average...this increase won't be noticed).
All in all I've heard people complain more about x64 than praise it. I have used it myself (not Arch though, I run OpenBSD x64) and I can't say that I've notice anything going "up".

And again, as I said several times, I was not trying to say x64 was worth it for the average user I was replying to this this statement:

Wra!th wrote:

You can't win this. x64 is a myth and you know it. there's absolutely no gain apart from high ram usage..

Wra!th · 2009-06-12 11:41:34

moljac024 wrote:

PiotrAlexej wrote:
I switched from Arch32 with ext3 to Arch64 with ext4 two weeks ago... and there was no problem that couldn't be solved. All the applications I used before, I still can use now. Opera runs fine (with Flash), Skype works ... and yes, I do notice an increase in speed* (though I can't show any benchmarks now...). I think that my machine boots faster, works faster (pacman's like a greyhound now...) ... and it's all stable (well, no less stable than it was before )
So, I just can recommend using 64bit... Frankly, I think there is no reason why you shouldn't

* Well, I don't know what's more speed-increasing, 64bit or ext4 ...
My money is on ext4 + a little bit of placebo

Was about to say

@Ranguvar: Not a total myth, but still nothing worth debating this much. I wouldn't encourage anyone to switch, but if a reinstall is in order, I guess trying x64 out is not the worse idea.

DevoidOfWindows · 2009-06-12 11:42:09

With the same environment on both, I gain about two hundred megabytes of RAM with thirty-two-bit.

Last edited by DevoidOfWindows (2009-06-12 11:44:57)

PiotrAlexej · 2009-06-12 12:26:31

moljac024 wrote:

PiotrAlexej wrote:
I switched from Arch32 with ext3 to Arch64 with ext4 two weeks ago... and there was no problem that couldn't be solved. All the applications I used before, I still can use now. Opera runs fine (with Flash), Skype works ... and yes, I do notice an increase in speed* (though I can't show any benchmarks now...). I think that my machine boots faster, works faster (pacman's like a greyhound now...) ... and it's all stable (well, no less stable than it was before )
So, I just can recommend using 64bit... Frankly, I think there is no reason why you shouldn't

* Well, I don't know what's more speed-increasing, 64bit or ext4 ...
My money is on ext4 + a little bit of placebo

Hehe... does it really matter as long as it works?

And besides, what are the reasons to stay with 32bit?

Last edited by PiotrAlexej (2009-06-12 12:27:47)

Peasantoid · 2009-06-12 20:57:26

Ranguvar wrote:

And again, as I said several times, I was not trying to say x64 was worth it for the average user

Ah, but Arch users are not average.

Anikom15 · 2009-06-12 22:13:29

I use i686 on Linux, and have yet to try x86_64. Anyways, nobody uses 16 bit anymore(that I know of), and soon everyone will use 64 bit, so it's better to switch now than later.

Wonder when we'll get 128 bit?

Themaister · 2009-06-12 23:26:22

64-bit is the future anyways ... If 64-bit works with no problems, why stick with 32-bit?

EDIT: 128bit? Yeah, I've wondered about that too. Maybe when we're not getting enough RAM with 16EiB

Last edited by Themaister (2009-06-12 23:28:09)

moljac024 · 2009-06-12 23:56:19

Themaister wrote:

64-bit is the future anyways ... If 64-bit works with no problems, why stick with 32-bit?
EDIT: 128bit? Yeah, I've wondered about that too. Maybe when we're not getting enough RAM with 16EiB

Nah, the jump will be straight to 256bit

Allan · 2009-06-13 01:50:49

bangkok_manouel wrote:

I just can't stop recommending Arch48. Better memory management, no userland hassle. In other words, sheer awesomeness.

I'm actually using this now so that I can make an x86_64 chroot for package building on my primary install which is i686.

richs-lxh · 2009-09-23 11:31:06

I'm a recent 64bit convert (laptop) and I read a lot of these threads on different forums to try and find out:

a) Are there any apps which either don't have a 64bit version, or don't work?
I found that all the apps I have tried from the repos (AUR/Community included) have worked fine apart from Lightening (it wouldn't compile/install) and Flash 64 crashes Firefox on some basic sites (not Youtube), Goober.com, other flash video sites for example.

b) Apart from RAM, what other benefits, benchmarks etc?
It maybe a placebo effect, I don't know, but I installed Arch64 on Ext4 and have noticed an increase in speed. My main distro has always been Dreamlinux as it goes like a rocket, so far Arch64 is the only distro which matches or is even faster, even when I installed Gnome as an experiment.

c) Can I run 32 bit apps on my 64bit install?
Yes, I installed Skype with the 32bit libraries and it works fine, I guess that goes for other apps as well.

So with my little knowledge of 64bit and first impressions, I would say if you have a 64 bit machine, install 64 bit.

Last edited by richs-lxh (2009-09-23 11:32:20)

Rasi · 2009-09-23 16:47:06

richs-lxh wrote:

I'm a recent 64bit convert (laptop) and I read a lot of these threads on different forums to try and find out:
a) Are there any apps which either don't have a 64bit version, or don't work?
I found that all the apps I have tried from the repos (AUR/Community included) have worked fine apart from Lightening (it wouldn't compile/install) and Flash 64 crashes Firefox on some basic sites (not Youtube), Goober.com, other flash video sites for example.
b) Apart from RAM, what other benefits, benchmarks etc?
It maybe a placebo effect, I don't know, but I installed Arch64 on Ext4 and have noticed an increase in speed. My main distro has always been Dreamlinux as it goes like a rocket, so far Arch64 is the only distro which matches or is even faster, even when I installed Gnome as an experiment.
c) Can I run 32 bit apps on my 64bit install?
Yes, I installed Skype with the 32bit libraries and it works fine, I guess that goes for other apps as well.
So with my little knowledge of 64bit and first impressions, I would say if you have a 64 bit machine, install 64 bit.

You should probably set up a 32bit chroot - this allows you to compile 32bit binaries. Its explained in the wiki, works very well, and does not need obscure lib32 packages...

richs-lxh · 2009-09-23 19:59:13

Well Skype is the only non-64bit package I have installed, and the rest works great. So at the moment i'm happy with 64 bit.

AngryKoala · 2009-09-23 20:58:34

64bit on windows gives a great many users grief with drivers and such. Of course we are not talking about the aforementioned name...

32bit works perfectly for me and tbh, 64bit is intimidating. I hate hate hate having instability/bugs/anything not working exactly right. Someday I'll try 64, maybe on my next reinstall ^^

techprophet · 2009-09-24 15:19:21

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.

It is faster. I have Arch32 installed for SuperCollider. Everything uses the same configs, and KDE4 is faster in 64bit than 32bit. Maybe not really, but it just feels.....snappier

z0phi3l · 2009-09-24 15:20:03

AngryKoala wrote:

64bit on windows gives a great many users grief with drivers and such. Of course we are not talking about the aforementioned name...
32bit works perfectly for me and tbh, 64bit is intimidating. I hate hate hate having instability/bugs/anything not working exactly right. Someday I'll try 64, maybe on my next reinstall ^^

The driver "issue" is not true, and hasn't been true for quite a while. There were some issues when MS put out htat horrible XP64, and the first few months after Vista came out, but now a days you almost have to force PC manufacturers not to use 64, and that will also force a RAM downgrade too.

As for Arch/Linux no issues at all using 64bit, or at least nothing that can't be solved quickly or using a 32bit chroot

Arch Linux

#26 2009-06-12 01:06:30

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#27 2009-06-12 02:06:19

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#28 2009-06-12 02:22:23

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#29 2009-06-12 04:20:20

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#30 2009-06-12 05:51:51

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#31 2009-06-12 10:35:25

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#32 2009-06-12 10:54:01

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#33 2009-06-12 11:05:19

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#34 2009-06-12 11:41:34

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#35 2009-06-12 11:42:09

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#36 2009-06-12 12:26:31

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#37 2009-06-12 20:57:26

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#38 2009-06-12 22:13:29

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#39 2009-06-12 23:26:22

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#40 2009-06-12 23:56:19

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#41 2009-06-13 01:50:49

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#42 2009-09-23 11:31:06

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#43 2009-09-23 16:47:06

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#44 2009-09-23 19:59:13

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#45 2009-09-23 20:58:34

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#46 2009-09-24 15:19:21

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

#47 2009-09-24 15:20:03

Re: To 64bit or Stay 32bit?

Board footer