Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

mvdvarrier · 2008-10-12 00:46:51

Hallo friends,
Now a days 64bit PCs are more common. But I think Operating systems and programs have not attained capacity to fully exploit the power of 64bit machines. (Of course Linux is better than MS counterparts in 64bit zone). If it is sensible to stick with 32bit for better experience in terms of stability and performance? What are the pros and cons of both methods? How we can attain maximum from 64bit PC? Since every one with a 64bit PC have tried both architectures, feed back opinions and suggestions in the above thread is anticipated from everyone.
Thanks to all
mvdvarrier

Barrucadu · 2008-10-12 09:12:41

Well, 64 bit is much faster for transcoding media files, and other similar tasks. The only real problem I can think of is Flash, and that's not so bad when you get used to it.

kjon · 2008-10-12 09:18:33

In my case, I'm tied to 64 bits due to I own a 8 gb machine. Fortunately is a server, so I don't need to worry about flash .
Anyway, I got a few boxes with 2 gb each. Those machines are Core2Duo so, as you might expect, their architecture is 64 bits. However, its use its mainly for desktop applications, so the native 32 bits is a must!. I know I might use lib32 on a 64 bits environment, but I'm too lazy to try it. (It isn't broken, so no need to fix it!)

Mikko777 · 2008-10-12 12:33:12

If it is sensible to stick with 32bit for better experience in terms of stability and performance?

No.

Cons?

the 32bit libs. Which doesnt matter alot to me.

Allan · 2008-10-12 13:48:51

I work on the system of "If you have 4+Gb of RAM, use 64 bit". Although, there is not a lot you are missing out on in 64bit land these days. Flash, skype, and that is about it. All can be used with either lib32 or a chroot.

ozar · 2008-10-12 15:46:45

Hi, mvdvarrier

I moved forward to 64-bit a few months back and have never looked back.

Best of luck with it, whatever you should choose.

cu3edweb · 2008-10-12 20:28:28

Allan wrote:

I work on the system of "If you have 4+Gb of RAM, use 64 bit". Although, there is not a lot you are missing out on in 64bit land these days. Flash, skype, and that is about it. All can be used with either lib32 or a chroot.

I am enjoying the 64 bit. I have a dell vostro with 4gb of ram. I use a chroot just for flash and skype that is it. Once those are available for 64bit the chroot will go bye bye.

dhave · 2008-10-12 23:12:10

cu3edweb wrote:

Allan wrote:
I work on the system of "If you have 4+Gb of RAM, use 64 bit". Although, there is not a lot you are missing out on in 64bit land these days. Flash, skype, and that is about it. All can be used with either lib32 or a chroot.
I am enjoying the 64 bit. I have a dell vostro with 4gb of ram. I use a chroot just for flash and skype that is it. Once those are available for 64bit the chroot will go bye bye.

The thing I like about have my 32-bit chroot is that I get to run "pacman -Syu" on TWO different systems in one. Since I often forget to update the 32-bit chroot subsystem, pacman then updates BUNCHES of packages on the chroot, which is always fun.

I'm serious. I love "pacman -Syu".

Riklaunim · 2008-10-18 21:03:53

I've made some tests with current Arch i686 and x86_64 on a old AMD Turion 64ML-30

MD5 Bruteforce attack:
i686: 43,5s
x86_64: 31,2s

import md5
import sys

haslo = 'kogut'
hasz_hasla = md5.new(haslo).hexdigest()


def make_word(m, base_string=False):
        znaki = 'qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm'
        for i in znaki:
                if base_string:
                        string = base_string + i
                else:
                        string = i
                
                if md5.new(string).hexdigest() == m:
                        print 'Podane Haslo to: ' + string
                        sys.exit()
                elif len(string) < 5:
                        make_word(m=m, base_string=string)

make_word(hasz_hasla)

Untar Gentoo stage3 to /dev/null:
i686: 48,3s
x86_64: 42,3s

Make a thumb out of 3,1MB jpeg file with convert:
i686: 1,62s
x86_64: 1,28s

Make avi from Big Buck Bunny with ffmpeg:
(ffmpeg -i big_buck_bunny_480p_stereo.ogg a.avi) making mpeg didn't work on i686 - segmentation fault
i686: 276s
x86_64: 295s

Make mpeg from Big Buck Bunny with mencoder:
(mencoder big_buck_bunny_480p_stereo.ogg -oac lavc -ovc lavc -o a.mpeg)
i686: 263s
x86_64: 251s

Last edited by Riklaunim (2008-10-18 21:04:28)

smakked · 2008-10-18 23:18:00

64 Bit is the future, 32 Bit is old school
the sooner more people realise this the better apps will get .

wantilles · 2008-10-19 08:43:54

mvdvarrier wrote:

But I think Operating systems and programs have not attained capacity to fully exploit the power of 64bit machines.

You think wrong.

I have been using amd64 Linux for more than 3.5 years now.

It was more than ready and mature even back then (March 2005).

Last edited by wantilles (2008-10-19 08:44:56)

mfalomir · 2008-10-24 22:16:11

Has anybody had any issues compiling/installing/running FFmpeg on 64-bit arquitectures ? I've been very comfortable running it on 32-bit machinery, however Im curious if its worth the switch; Im scared that the installation process doesnt goes as smooth as it has been everytime I set it up on 32bit boxes

skottish · 2008-10-24 23:32:59

mfalomir wrote:

Has anybody had any issues compiling/installing/running FFmpeg on 64-bit arquitectures ? I've been very comfortable running it on 32-bit machinery, however Im curious if its worth the switch; Im scared that the installation process doesnt goes as smooth as it has been everytime I set it up on 32bit boxes

FFmpeg is compiling and working great here. I'm using a modified version of the subversion PKGBUILD from AUR.

Last edited by skottish (2008-10-24 23:58:26)

mfalomir · 2008-10-25 00:57:57

So, other version than that does not work ?

skottish · 2008-10-25 03:59:15

mfalomir wrote:

So, other version than that does not work ?

I'm sure it works fine. I just use subversion for a few reasons. The first is to keep up with x264 from git. Second is to systematically lose various libraries. FFmpeg natively covers a lot of the functionality that the repo version depends on. In fact, I only compile support for FAAC and x264 into mine. FAAC will be unnecessary soon, and something big is going down with x264, but I have no idea what that means for FFmpeg right now.

mfalomir · 2008-10-28 00:18:49

Thanks for the info!

fumbles · 2008-10-28 07:07:53

mvdvarrier wrote:

Of course Linux is better than MS counterparts in 64bit zone

Rubbish! I've been using 64bit Linux and Windows for years (XP64 before Vista). Linux support was there, it just wasn't very good.

Intrepid · 2008-11-10 03:31:36

Using 32-bit on a 64-bit system is a huge underuse of the new registers for the 64 bit architecture. For some operations, speed increase is incredible (like sound editing/realtime effects and conversions/compilation etc). I moved to Arch 64, was worried about having to chroot. Lucky me, not once have I had to! The only apps which do not take some advantage of the architecture are the 686 optimized games and emulators (and skype).

agapito · 2008-11-19 12:41:33

If you use 32-bit programs on a 64-bit operating system, their performance will be exactly the same as on a 32-bit operating system. 64-bit operating systems consume about 25% more memory, and in return, programs offer a higher performance than in 32 bits, although not more than 15-20%.

Last edited by agapito (2024-09-01 16:00:53)

joeda · 2008-11-19 19:48:15

Hello everyone,

The only thing on 64 bit that could be interesting for me is compiling stuff and blender. (Usually more blender)

Does a 64-bit OS have effect on this? (Blender seems to be low on RAM consumption but high on CPU) Anyone tried it?

joe

pjjanak · 2008-11-21 15:26:59

Well, presumabley compiling stuff can go faster when yo utilize the two CPUS. As for Blender, I'm not sure.

Peter

ozar · 2008-11-21 16:33:24

Note that the main Arch server was upgraded just yesterday to 64 bit, so that's a good indicator of what the trend is, and it shows that the Arch admins have confidence in it.

dhave · 2008-11-21 16:57:20

Do it.

Lord Illidan · 2008-11-21 18:06:52

ozar wrote:

Note that the main Arch server was upgraded just yesterday to 64 bit, so that's a good indicator of what the trend is, and it shows that the Arch admins have confidence in it.

Server != Desktop pc.

iBertus · 2008-11-21 19:18:23

Lord Illidan wrote:

ozar wrote:
Note that the main Arch server was upgraded just yesterday to 64 bit, so that's a good indicator of what the trend is, and it shows that the Arch admins have confidence in it.
Server != Desktop pc.

True, but most of the issues with using 64-bit on the desktop have gone away in the past year. Two big examples are Flash and Java plugins, both of these were cause to need a 32-bit chroot or some 32-bit libs and were needed/wanted by most desktop users. Now, a 64-bit Flash is in the works (and it works pretty well) and OpenJDK provides a native 64-bit plugin for Java. More attention is paid to 64-bit linux than any other 64-bit OS because most Windows users don't care or don't know the underlying OS well enough to make the determination and because the linux community takes care of most of it's technical support on it's own.

I say to install x86_64! I'm using it on all of my machines and have been since it was created (the Arch 64 version) with no problems. All of my current machines have 4GB+ of RAM and I have a mix of AMD and Intel chips.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-10-12 00:46:51

Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#2 2008-10-12 09:12:41

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#3 2008-10-12 09:18:33

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#4 2008-10-12 12:33:12

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#5 2008-10-12 13:48:51

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#6 2008-10-12 15:46:45

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#7 2008-10-12 20:28:28

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#8 2008-10-12 23:12:10

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#9 2008-10-18 21:03:53

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#10 2008-10-18 23:18:00

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#11 2008-10-19 08:43:54

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#12 2008-10-24 22:16:11

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#13 2008-10-24 23:32:59

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#14 2008-10-25 00:57:57

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#15 2008-10-25 03:59:15

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#16 2008-10-28 00:18:49

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#17 2008-10-28 07:07:53

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#18 2008-11-10 03:31:36

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#19 2008-11-19 12:41:33

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#20 2008-11-19 19:48:15

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#21 2008-11-21 15:26:59

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#22 2008-11-21 16:33:24

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#23 2008-11-21 16:57:20

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#24 2008-11-21 18:06:52

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

#25 2008-11-21 19:18:23

Re: Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

Board footer