64 worth it?

ssl6 · 2007-09-10 02:56:37

i'm sure this question has come up time and time again. i have gone through some responses and do have questions, probly things i just dont quite grasp

now i've been using linux for about 2 months steady now, i have kubuntu on my laptop, working beautifully. and i have arch running on a test system, basically to make sure i can get everything i need running before i dump windows on my desktop. so far its doing good

now i've done all the hardware discussions elsewhere about 64bit being the future and all that jazz. and my main thing with switching to linux, is that with ubuntu on my laptop, i've found some tasks get done quicker on there then my far superior desktop, and for what i do, i dont need windows. and if i got that kind of performance increase on my laptop. im thinking i can get that same kind of jump on my desktop. being as its an X2 4200, 2gb ram, geforce 7900, and not a pentium m 1.6, 1gb ram, 6800 go. so i know the SMP support in linux will give me a good jump there hands down

now, being as im new to linux, is it worth me trying 64bit, i know i can get all my stuff working on 32bit. but is 64bit linux like 64bit windows in a sense that it needs 64 bit compatible everything to work? i've seen some stuff about 32bit programs working on 64bit linux with 32 bit libs. how tricky is that?

should i just settle 32bit and be happy with how much faster my stuff gets done that i need. or is it worth it to give 64bit a go and possibly toss linux out for good? im asking from experienced linux users to a microsoft certified guy like myself, because i know 64 bit linux has been around longer than 64bit windows, and to this day i havent recommended 64bit windows unless it was absolutely necessary for a system dedicated to a single task

lilsirecho · 2007-09-10 03:25:07

What do you mean by "toss linux out for good"....?

When operating in 64bit technology, you will need compatible hardware and software. These you correctly stated were not there in windows and mostly they aren't in linux either.

The hassle you need to go thru to use 64bit at this time is not worth it.

To spend moola to get 64bit hardware and use it as 32bit is nonsense.

Archlinux runs quite well as 32bit with 32 bit hardware and software having had several years of development behind it.

I would not recommend 64bit operation except as you say for dedicated tasks.

The only reason I would go to an advanced machine would be to get more RAM since it is usually limited to 3GB of useable RAM in 32bit systems. One can get 16GB in the later machines. Operating in RAM exclusively will beat 64bit performance hands down.

I vote no for 64bit at this time.....

The cost of 16GB RAM keeps me away from the new machines!!!

fwojciec · 2007-09-10 03:32:06

I have 32bit and 64bit Arch installed in parallel (I know, but I was bored...) They are pretty much analogous installation sharing /home and using the same programs, configs etc. Here's a few observations.

1) I could live happily with just the 64bit install. Pretty much everything I need is possible and available on Arch64. The only 32bit apps I use at the moment are flash-plugin and skype.
2) I don't notice any speed/responsiveness difference.
3) 64bit tends to use more memory to run the same apps (might be because of lib32 stuff in firefox, dunno). The difference is not huge but noticeable and consistent.
4) I have more AUR packages in my 64bit install, but not too many (the 64bit community repo is growing every day it seems).

Unless you require very specific, unusual apps you should be fine with Arch64. At the same time you will not see any major benefits (if any) of running a 64bit system. In other words, do it if it's your idea of fun - otherwise just stick to the 32bit version for now.

jb · 2007-09-10 03:38:18

Another Vote for No, with comments:

The only things stopping people from using 64bit are Flash, some codecs, and other proprietary, closed-source applications that their respective companies have yet to port. Basically, (pure) 64bit is ready for those who have no use for proprietary multimedia stuff.

(BTW, if the situation has changed at all, please someone correct me )

The_ouroboros · 2007-09-10 06:54:46

jb wrote:

Another Vote for No, with comments:
The only things stopping people from using 64bit are Flash, some codecs, and other proprietary, closed-source applications that their respective companies have yet to port. Basically, (pure) 64bit is ready for those who have no use for proprietary multimedia stuff.
(BTW, if the situation has changed at all, please someone correct me )

gnash(free flash) is developing well.. for the codecs with xine+mplayer I haven't yet found a file I can't play... but that's is only my experience.

ssl6 · 2007-09-10 07:56:17

i had an entire blog almost typed earlier when i was still at work, and then i clicked on a link in VKB and it opened a frigging Zune article over the forum here and i lost the whole thing

but basically, from what I'm seeing, there's no performance to be gained by going 64bit? so i might as well just stick with 32 bit then. i can live with that. just means i don't have to knock my head through a wall or something

AndyRTR · 2007-09-10 08:00:06

Arch64 is compiled with SSE2 instructions. That makes it faster in applications that can make use of it.

For further comparison see Arch64 wiki FAQ entry.

buddabrod · 2007-09-10 10:51:13

It's the future [tm] so i use it.
Some day far away, x86 will be completely deprecated, that's for sure. Everything works with Arch64, too, so why use the x86 version?

ssl6 · 2007-09-10 16:54:23

i know theres that aspect, i mainly just dont know if its going to be any harder for me to set up at all or what im going to be looking

i guess i'll list the programs i use right now, if that helps

firefox
flash (i know theres gnash for this now)
java
video plugins
adobe reader
gimp
bluefish (maybe, i have it, haven't toyd with it, but i probly will)
k9copy
dvd::rip
devede
digikam/kphotoalbum (havent picked one for good yet)
k3b
amarok
w32codecs (all my music is mp3, movies are mixed up too)
mplayer
avidemux
mtpfs
frostwire
azureus
filezilla
adobe reader
open-office

also have alot of games, some that i'll be running under wine, and some that have native linux installers

and right now im looking for an alternative to qwix for making xbox iso's, but from what i've seen, qwiz runs under wine so i can probably get by there, but i'd like to have as many apps as i can to run native under linux, i know the windows games wont run 64bit native

thats all i can think of for now though

Last edited by ssl6 (2007-09-10 16:56:12)

ise · 2007-09-10 17:00:33

Nearly all apps running under arch64.
Except:
Acrobat reader (useless, there are enough free pdf readers)
flash (there are gnash/swfdec for basic flash things)
wine

All other apps runs just fine....All videos just play on my arch64, I didn't found any video, that not play.

Last edited by ise (2007-09-10 17:01:17)

MrWeatherbee · 2007-09-10 17:47:22

I ran Suse and Ubuntu exclusively as 64-bit systems for a few years (most of that time was spent in Ubuntu). I ran a chroot for 32-bit requirements (which may not be the current method de rigueur), but I got tired of messing with that on top of keeping mult-boot machines maintained, so I switched back to all 32-bit OSes even though I use AMD 64 processors. The only performance gains I noticed in 64-bit were related to some but not all media encoding tasks.

I have not tried 64-bit Arch, as I am sticking to my philosophy:

Build the system for the most flexible current and [near] future requirements.

You may not currently have any need for apps that don't run in 64-bit environments, but as soon as you do, you'll wish you had installed the 32-bit OS.

If you're running a multi-boot system and can install 32-bit as well as 64-bit like Fwojciec says he has done, then that might be a nice way to really identify your personal preference without tying yourself down. I currently try to keep Win XP and a couple of different Linux distros on each machine (currently those are Ubuntu Feisty 32-bit and Arch 32-bit), and though I could add a 64-bit OS, I just haven't seen the benefit.

kagerato · 2007-09-10 20:25:06

buddabrod wrote:

It's the future [tm] so i use it.
Some day far away, x86 will be completely deprecated, that's for sure. Everything works with Arch64, too, so why use the x86 version?

AMD64 is effectively an extension of x86 (IA-32). It doubles the register width, doubles the number of general purpose registers, and significantly improves SSE support. The architecture includes a full legacy mode, however, which enables normal execution of IA-32 code. It is unlikely that the legacy functionality will ever be purged from direct-line x86 successors.

As to the "why" of continuing to use IA-32, the main reason for most people is broader compatibility. That reason is shrinking to a very small segment of applications now that Intel's Core 2, whose architecture is effectively an alternate implementation of AMD64, has become their flagship product line. As we see NetBurst/Pentium 4 and Core/Yonah processors fall off the market, the number of applications that are built exclusively for AMD64 will grow at a steady pace.

Memory usage in AMD64 is higher, as already mentioned. All of those register-sized variables ("int" in C) end up using 64 instead of 32 bits each, even if they do not need it. Program designs that do not end up using noticeably more RAM are very possible, but usually performance is favored over other factors like RAM usage and code size. (Most CPU architectures perform integer operations fastest on input data matching the architecture register width. Hence you have a significant reason for 'int' changing size on different architectures. Most people probably do not remember now when 'int' was 16 bit.)

fwojciec · 2007-09-10 20:52:34

kagerato wrote:

Memory usage in AMD64 is higher, as already mentioned. All of those register-sized variables ("int" in C) end up using 64 instead of 32 bits each, even if they do not need it. Program designs that do not end up using noticeably more RAM are very possible, but usually performance is favored over other factors like RAM usage and code size.

aha! so this is why... thanks for the explanation, very interesting.

ssl6 · 2007-09-10 21:00:11

i woulda been like 7-8 years old when we crossed to 32bit. i know the difference as far as hardware goes, more of a hardware junky then anything. but like i said, i know 64bit windows is just crap, well, windows is 90% crap on its own. just wondering how different linux is in that regard or if it still has all the same software incompatibility issues

but i think i have my answer, ill try the 64 bit at least, i might as well and see how it goes, doesnt sound to me like it would be any harder to get working to my needs as 32bit was/is, i do alot of media encoding and if thats where ill gain the most its definitely worth a try

Last edited by ssl6 (2007-09-10 21:00:54)

samoturk · 2007-09-10 22:36:38

For desktop user who is mostly runnig applications that don't benefit much from 64bit is probably best to stick at 32bit OS. It's less trouble.

But for some serious work 64bit rocks. Programs that we use at work for searching new antibiotics work up to 50% faster in 64bit. Or is it maybe just because we use Fedora?

Last edited by samoturk (2007-09-10 22:51:41)

brebs · 2007-09-10 23:20:30

lilsirecho wrote:

usually limited to 3GB of useable RAM in 32bit systems

The limit is 4gb, with PAE.

Misfit138 · 2007-09-10 23:27:35

I remember 8 bit computing with 64K of RAM. (Only 38911 Bytes free on startup) I remember it like it was yesterday, on my Commodore 64.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64

rbrownclown · 2007-09-11 17:59:40

I use Arch 64 and I can say, without a doubt, that it is worth using. For me, there really hasn't been any additional trouble. Using the lib32's is really not that difficult. I use them to run WINE, and Flash (nspluginwrapper). They work just as well as they do in 32 bit. So I say go for it!

Last edited by rbrownclown (2007-09-11 18:00:00)

ssl6 · 2007-09-13 22:47:22

this may be a dumb question.....but should i expect to have any issues getting SMP to work, since im running an athlon 64 x2, or should it just work?

skottish · 2007-09-14 01:34:46

ssl6 wrote:

this may be a dumb question.....but should i expect to have any issues getting SMP to work, since im running an athlon 64 x2, or should it just work?

[skottish@localhost ~]$ uname -a
Linux localhost 2.6.22-ck #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Aug 23 18:15:53 UTC 2007 x86_64 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5200+ AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux

Works perfectly.

ssl6 · 2007-09-14 02:13:55

5200+....fancy....im still on a S939, i've seen no need to upgrade.

but thats all the info i needed, for now, until i think of something else, thanks skottish, and everyone else of course

Arch Linux

#1 2007-09-10 02:56:37

64 worth it?

#2 2007-09-10 03:25:07

Re: 64 worth it?

#3 2007-09-10 03:32:06

Re: 64 worth it?

#4 2007-09-10 03:38:18

Re: 64 worth it?

#5 2007-09-10 06:54:46

Re: 64 worth it?

#6 2007-09-10 07:56:17

Re: 64 worth it?

#7 2007-09-10 08:00:06

Re: 64 worth it?

#8 2007-09-10 10:51:13

Re: 64 worth it?

#9 2007-09-10 16:54:23

Re: 64 worth it?

#10 2007-09-10 17:00:33

Re: 64 worth it?

#11 2007-09-10 17:47:22

Re: 64 worth it?

#12 2007-09-10 20:25:06

Re: 64 worth it?

#13 2007-09-10 20:52:34

Re: 64 worth it?

#14 2007-09-10 21:00:11

Re: 64 worth it?

#15 2007-09-10 22:36:38

Re: 64 worth it?

#16 2007-09-10 23:20:30

Re: 64 worth it?

#17 2007-09-10 23:27:35

Re: 64 worth it?

#18 2007-09-11 17:59:40

Re: 64 worth it?

#19 2007-09-13 22:47:22

Re: 64 worth it?

#20 2007-09-14 01:34:46

Re: 64 worth it?

#21 2007-09-14 02:13:55

Re: 64 worth it?

Board footer