arch 64 bits

Insane-Boy · 2008-07-12 10:20:37

Is it worth installing arch64 on pc with 64bits amd and 1gb system memory or the 32bits edition would be a better choice ?

dyscoria · 2008-07-12 10:36:55

Well that depends entirely on what you plan to use your computer for.

Any kind of audio or video encoding benefits alot from a 64bit OS. Otherwise, most people argue that 64bit doesn't make a whole lot of difference and can be more of a hassle than it's worth (e.g. flash, skype, wine).

ornitorrincos · 2008-07-12 10:58:07

if you don't need flash(here is the biggest problem, 32bit chroot or use nspluginwrapper) skype, wine or other 32buts application, 64 bits is worht even if you don't do multimedia work(because some things as sse2 can be enabled by default)

Insane-Boy · 2008-07-12 11:02:42

The computer is going to be used for home pc .. - movies,music,graphics editing,downloading,skype and so on..i don't think i'm going to use wine or any other kind of emulators.So is it worh installing 64bits version ?

Mr.Elendig · 2008-07-12 11:43:20

I would just try it. Keep a seperate /home partion, and you are safe if you later change your mind and switch to i686. You can do a reinstall and have everything up and configured again in less than a houer, if you do a tiny bit of planning, so a switch later won't be that inconvenient.

Insane-Boy · 2008-07-12 11:55:49

Yes.. but do you think that the i686 optimization will slower my 64bits cpu ?

dyscoria · 2008-07-12 11:58:39

Seriously, just try it. All you're gonna get here is some people saying it's worth it and others saying it's not.

Some people feel like their system is much more responsive with 64bit OS. Others don't notice any difference whatsoever. Try it and see which group of people you fall into. Make a separate partition and install 64bit Archlinux without touching your existing setup at all.

Mr.Elendig · 2008-07-12 11:59:30

It's not about the cpu. Both amd and intel's 64bit cpu's are fast at executing 32bit, since they do so nativly. The big question are the software. Some apps even runs slower on 64bit than on 32bit, due to design. In most cases you won't realy notice a difference, but some encoders and decoders are faster on 64bit. (tho, some ar slower too >_>)

Barrucadu · 2008-07-12 12:23:03

I switched to Arch x86_64 last night (finished switching earlier today) and haven't noticed a difference through general usage. Flash was very easy to set up as Opera doesn't need nspluginwrapper, and all programs I use, with the exception of one game, have 64bit versions. Just try it, see if you like it.

liquibyte · 2008-07-12 12:31:47

I'd say that unless you have more than one core the benefits will probably not be that significant for you. I have a quad core myself so I have set MAKEFLAGS="-j5" in my makepkg.conf to compile programs in parallel. It makes compiling an application extremely fast. For instance, I once compiled Firefox on an older PIV and it took several hours. I can do the same thing now and I'd be willing to bet it will take less than 30 minutes. Given what you've said you use the system for I'd stick with the 32 bit option for now.

Mr.Elendig · 2008-07-12 12:38:49

64bit vs 32bit have nothing to do with smp or not >_> (exept that most multi-core cpu's also are 64bit)
Edit: point being: you can use j5 while compiling on i686 too, and any other smp compatible app will take advantage of the smp support too, even on an i686

Last edited by Mr.Elendig (2008-07-12 12:40:19)

z0phi3l · 2008-07-12 20:37:19

I tried em both out on my Laptop, ended up switching to 32 but only because of a few issues not present in 32 (flash was all glitchy if it worked), but the reason is yes my Hardware might be 64 but it's not top of the line so 32 worked for stability

I'm not saying use 32 I'm saying try em both, my experiences are not going to be the same as yours.

Barrucadu · 2008-07-12 20:39:23

Now I have noticed a difference in performance, transcoding media files from one format to another is much faster in x86_64.

diesel1 · 2008-07-12 23:16:01

Barrucadu wrote:

Now I have noticed a difference in performance, transcoding media files from one format to another is much faster in x86_64.

I would agree, since running Arch Linux 64 I have noticed a marked increase in video processing capability, transcoding several files and authoring a dvd image and at the same time burning an existing ISO to dvd, even while running f@h and having up to 60 tabs open in Konqueror and Minefield and Kontact running while playing audio media in amaroK.

Many people are amazed when I start a browser for youtube or MyBum( ) and I don't have to close almost everything down to get reasonable response from my system.

If you got it and can use it, why not?

I feel a marked shift towards industry thinking about 64bit from the ground up.

Diesel1.

Last edited by diesel1 (2008-07-12 23:17:12)

dyscoria · 2008-07-13 09:02:41

diesel1 wrote:

I would agree, since running Arch Linux 64 I have noticed a marked increase in video processing capability, transcoding several files and authoring a dvd image and at the same time burning an existing ISO to dvd, even while running f@h and having up to 60 tabs open in Konqueror and Minefield and Kontact running while playing audio media in amaroK.

RAM would be the limiting factor here, not 32bit vs 64bit. Also, you mention youtube which requires flashplayer, which happens to be much more stable on 32bit as you don't need to use nspluginwrapper (although it is improving).

That said, I regularly encode audio and video (x264) so that's why I use 64bit Archlinux.

liquibyte · 2008-07-13 17:41:05

Mr.Elendig wrote:

64bit vs 32bit have nothing to do with smp or not >_> (exept that most multi-core cpu's also are 64bit)
Edit: point being: you can use j5 while compiling on i686 too, and any other smp compatible app will take advantage of the smp support too, even on an i686

I realize that, I was just giving an example of what I use my system for (programmin/compiling). Given what the OP does on his system was what I based my recommendation on. I apologize if there was any confusion.

Lifty · 2008-07-17 15:33:12

I also have a question regarding 64bit arch and whether I should switch to it or not. Right now I have all my partitions encrypted with luks. Do you think there is any performance increase having a 64bit os running?

Edit: I kind of found the answer myself. I've read some 'benchmarks' stating that a 64bit os is significantly faster on aes encryption and thats what I am using with luks. So I'm going to do the switch when kdemod 4.1 hits the road. Thanks for your attention lady's and gentlemen

Last edited by Lifty (2008-07-17 21:52:30)

Arch Linux

#1 2008-07-12 10:20:37

arch 64 bits

#2 2008-07-12 10:36:55

Re: arch 64 bits

#3 2008-07-12 10:58:07

Re: arch 64 bits

#4 2008-07-12 11:02:42

Re: arch 64 bits

#5 2008-07-12 11:43:20

Re: arch 64 bits

#6 2008-07-12 11:55:49

Re: arch 64 bits

#7 2008-07-12 11:58:39

Re: arch 64 bits

#8 2008-07-12 11:59:30

Re: arch 64 bits

#9 2008-07-12 12:23:03

Re: arch 64 bits

#10 2008-07-12 12:31:47

Re: arch 64 bits

#11 2008-07-12 12:38:49

Re: arch 64 bits

#12 2008-07-12 20:37:19

Re: arch 64 bits

#13 2008-07-12 20:39:23

Re: arch 64 bits

#14 2008-07-12 23:16:01

Re: arch 64 bits

#15 2008-07-13 09:02:41

Re: arch 64 bits

#16 2008-07-13 17:41:05

Re: arch 64 bits

#17 2008-07-17 15:33:12

Re: arch 64 bits

Board footer