Will 64 bit version of arch linux have some speed up?

syms · 2009-10-27 17:58:43

Thanks again people. I installed 64 bit arch and just completed downloading kdemod. What can i say is that it really feels faster on some areas. For example systemsettings opens significant faster, and it feels like the system is no more "lazy". All in all, 64 bit install is worth. About ram consuption, well, my previous 32 bit arch with gnome and some loaded apps like firefox used 320 mb of ram, and my new 64 bit arch with fresh (though not minimal) kdemod uses 240 mb ram. And we know that kde preloads konqueror. Im not sure why 64 bit system uses less memory, but oh well, i have to say that at least it shouldnt use much more ram than 32 bit version. So i can say, jdhore, you are lier! I recommend to everyone use 64 bit version, because it will be a bit faster and you know that your computer works at full power. I guess this thread is going to be good for those begginers who dont know which architecture they should choose.

B-Con · 2009-10-27 20:03:38

I just upgraded to 640bit a week ago. Unfortunately I can't guess by the benchmarks because the reason I switched to 64-bit was because my mobo blew and I replaced practically my entire system. My laptop, however, is on 32bit and I plan to switch it to 64bit in a few days, so maybe I can use that to form a basis.

Anyway, here are some relevant 32-bit vs 64-bit benchmarks: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a … 4bit&num=1

Peasantoid · 2009-10-27 20:13:37

B-Con wrote:

I just upgraded to 640bit a week ago.

You, sir, are awesome.

flamelab · 2009-10-27 20:52:21

B-Con wrote:

I just upgraded to 640bit a week ago. Unfortunately I can't guess by the benchmarks because the reason I switched to 64-bit was because my mobo blew and I replaced practically my entire system. My laptop, however, is on 32bit and I plan to switch it to 64bit in a few days, so maybe I can use that to form a basis.
Anyway, here are some relevant 32-bit vs 64-bit benchmarks: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a … 4bit&num=1

LOL, my time machine works. I'm in 2099 !!

fukawi2 · 2009-10-27 21:24:04

B-Con wrote:

I just upgraded to 640bit a week ago.

That is uber

panosk · 2009-10-27 21:45:34

If you don't plan to upgrade your RAM anytime soon, you probably won't notice any difference. Also, if you want to run skype and wine, stick with 32bit. I have installed wine on my 64bit laptop but I have major problems with very high CPU usage. Don't get me wrong, though. I strongly suggest 64bit in most cases. I run 64bit on a server with 8 gigs of ram and on my laptop with 4 gigs. But my desktop runs 32bit mainly because I need to run a commercial java application which isn't available for 64bit for the time being, and because I have 2 gigs of RAM which I will not upgrade.

However, my desktop runs much faster than my laptop. Most probably, a comparison between a desktop system and a laptop can't be valid, but just for reference the desktop is quite old (Athlon64 4200 X2, socket 939, 2 gigs of DDR1 Ram) and the laptop fairly new (Dell XPSM1330, with 4 gigs or RAM). Both systems run Arch with KDE4, but the desktop is blazing fast because of the hard drive in which Arch is installed (WD Raptor 10000rpm) and the graphics card (nvidia geforce 7600 GS agp). Just for reference, after a cold boot, go-openoffice starts in 3-4 seconds, while in my laptop starts in 6-7 seconds.

So, IMHO, the main factors for a snappy system is the hard drive (get a raptor drive and you won't believe the HUGE improvement in overall speed) and the graphics card (concerning the GUI response). I have to say that I have regretted buying the laptop with Intel graphics and not with nvidia.

To conclude, yes, I would prefer 64bit, but only for more than 3 gigs of RAM (when I buy RAM I want to have it all available). Keep in mind though that 64bit will indeed eat more RAM (I measured a 20% when I switched my laptop from 32bit to 64bit some months ago).

--------
edit: a few typos

Last edited by panosk (2009-10-27 21:50:08)

sand_man · 2009-10-27 22:16:43

I use both skype and wine under 64-bit and have never had any problems, at least not related to the architecture anyway.

syms · 2009-10-28 08:30:29

panosk wrote:

If you don't plan to upgrade your RAM anytime soon, you probably won't notice any difference. Also, if you want to run skype and wine, stick with 32bit. I have installed wine on my 64bit laptop but I have major problems with very high CPU usage. Don't get me wrong, though. I strongly suggest 64bit in most cases. I run 64bit on a server with 8 gigs of ram and on my laptop with 4 gigs. But my desktop runs 32bit mainly because I need to run a commercial java application which isn't available for 64bit for the time being, and because I have 2 gigs of RAM which I will not upgrade.
However, my desktop runs much faster than my laptop. Most probably, a comparison between a desktop system and a laptop can't be valid, but just for reference the desktop is quite old (Athlon64 4200 X2, socket 939, 2 gigs of DDR1 Ram) and the laptop fairly new (Dell XPSM1330, with 4 gigs or RAM). Both systems run Arch with KDE4, but the desktop is blazing fast because of the hard drive in which Arch is installed (WD Raptor 10000rpm) and the graphics card (nvidia geforce 7600 GS agp). Just for reference, after a cold boot, go-openoffice starts in 3-4 seconds, while in my laptop starts in 6-7 seconds.
So, IMHO, the main factors for a snappy system is the hard drive (get a raptor drive and you won't believe the HUGE improvement in overall speed) and the graphics card (concerning the GUI response). I have to say that I have regretted buying the laptop with Intel graphics and not with nvidia.
To conclude, yes, I would prefer 64bit, but only for more than 3 gigs of RAM (when I buy RAM I want to have it all available). Keep in mind though that 64bit will indeed eat more RAM (I measured a 20% when I switched my laptop from 32bit to 64bit some months ago).
--------
edit: a few typos

That might be your hardware incompatibility issues, since many people have problems that xorg or something else 100% cpu, but in my computer ive never encoutered these issues. Also, as i said my 64 bit kdemod uses ~250 mb of memory with clean desktop. Since i can use web browser, file manager, text editor, skype and watch youtube, how many megs it should use? I strongly believe that its impossible that these applications will eat all of my 1.5 gb, because full kdemod desktop uses only 250mb.

B-Con · 2009-11-09 02:22:20

Peasantoid wrote:

B-Con wrote:
I just upgraded to 640bit a week ago.
You, sir, are awesome.

flamelab wrote:

B-Con wrote:
I just upgraded to 640bit a week ago. Unfortunately I can't guess by the benchmarks because the reason I switched to 64-bit was because my mobo blew and I replaced practically my entire system. My laptop, however, is on 32bit and I plan to switch it to 64bit in a few days, so maybe I can use that to form a basis.
Anyway, here are some relevant 32-bit vs 64-bit benchmarks: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a … 4bit&num=1
LOL, my time machine works. I'm in 2099 !!

fukawi2 wrote:

B-Con wrote:
I just upgraded to 640bit a week ago.
That is uber

The downside is that executables take, on average, 5x as much RAM. On the plus side, encryption and encoding speeds are matched by none. :-)

syms · 2009-11-09 16:58:27

Im going to switch back to 32 bit now. Since flash works crappy on my machine. On some youtube clips flash just crashes, on others it uses 70% cpu so im very disappointed of this. Kde4 scrolling is slow in sites which has flash. Also, 64 bit system uses too much ram to me. I mean that it starts swapping too soon. But its because of cache, and my applications never used more than 550 mb of ram. I mean my hard drive wont work too long, and i want to use it as less as i can, so i wont tolerate swapping at all. Overall, 64 bit is slighty faster in most operations, but a crappy flash for 64 bit, and all these bin32* are the bad things to me. It still has issues, and when all of them will gone, ill back to 64 bit system.
And dont ask me to isntall 32 bit flash, i already did that, and when watching youtube sometimes cpu loads to 100% in 32 bit version of flash.

Mikko777 · 2009-11-09 21:14:02

syms wrote:

Im going to switch back to 32 bit now. Since flash works crappy on my machine.

You are prolly the only one I know who has switched back to 32 bit

About ram:

currently:

[~]: free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          3959       3298        660          0         67       2093
-/+ buffers/cache:       1137       2822
Swap:         4095          5       4090

I almost never use swap tho, guess you could play with swappiness?

That 1 GB is used by:

nepomuk 300MB
firefox 215MB
X 182MB
amarok 100MB
everything else is using 10+ MB or less.

Verdict: large databases seem to use ram, i dont see that 5x ram usage tho except on caching which ofc can be disabled.

About flash:

Watching HD flash on gametrailers.com
makes my all 4 cores go to 20% usage. But flash works brilliantly here.
I've had some quirkiness sometimes tho but I blamed it on GTK.

Verdict: Was just as bad/ good on 32bit iirc.

Conclusion: 64bit definately worth using in linux.

Edit: this is with catalyst and old xorg, might be completely different story with new xorg and opensource drivers.

Last edited by Mikko777 (2009-11-09 21:17:32)

sand_man · 2009-11-09 21:42:58

syms wrote:

Im going to switch back to 32 bit now. Since flash works crappy on my machine. On some youtube clips flash just crashes, on others it uses 70% cpu so im very disappointed of this. Kde4 scrolling is slow in sites which has flash. Also, 64 bit system uses too much ram to me. I mean that it starts swapping too soon. But its because of cache, and my applications never used more than 550 mb of ram. I mean my hard drive wont work too long, and i want to use it as less as i can, so i wont tolerate swapping at all. Overall, 64 bit is slighty faster in most operations, but a crappy flash for 64 bit, and all these bin32* are the bad things to me. It still has issues, and when all of them will gone, ill back to 64 bit system.
And dont ask me to isntall 32 bit flash, i already did that, and when watching youtube sometimes cpu loads to 100% in 32 bit version of flash.

Don't blame 64-bit, blame flash.

syms · 2009-11-10 09:20:13

Im not blaming 64 bit system. Theres weird bug with ati r300 chips and 64 bit flash. Also, i found that flash works slower with 64 bit version. And since i use flash 70% of my work, i cant tolerate this. At least i hope that gnash will become better in future. And also 64 bit flash makes my browser scrolling slower, especially on qt based browsers, so these are the reasons.

Arch Linux

#26 2009-10-27 17:58:43

Re: Will 64 bit version of arch linux have some speed up?

#27 2009-10-27 20:03:38

Re: Will 64 bit version of arch linux have some speed up?

#28 2009-10-27 20:13:37

Re: Will 64 bit version of arch linux have some speed up?

#29 2009-10-27 20:52:21

Re: Will 64 bit version of arch linux have some speed up?

#30 2009-10-27 21:24:04

Re: Will 64 bit version of arch linux have some speed up?

#31 2009-10-27 21:45:34

Re: Will 64 bit version of arch linux have some speed up?

#32 2009-10-27 22:16:43

Re: Will 64 bit version of arch linux have some speed up?

#33 2009-10-28 08:30:29

Re: Will 64 bit version of arch linux have some speed up?

#34 2009-11-09 02:22:20

Re: Will 64 bit version of arch linux have some speed up?

#35 2009-11-09 16:58:27

Re: Will 64 bit version of arch linux have some speed up?

#36 2009-11-09 21:14:02

Re: Will 64 bit version of arch linux have some speed up?

#37 2009-11-09 21:42:58

Re: Will 64 bit version of arch linux have some speed up?

#38 2009-11-10 09:20:13

Re: Will 64 bit version of arch linux have some speed up?

Board footer