Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

TPJ · 2007-10-02 21:11:15

Just a short question: is Intel Core 2 Duo a 64-bit processor, or a 32-bit one? I know that according to Wikipedia it's a 64-bit processor, but I have heard (rumors?) that it only "emulates" 64-bit mode, and in fact it is a 32-bit processor.

I have such a processor and I'd like to know what version of Arch should I install: i686 or x86_64 (in order to get the best performance)?

lucke · 2007-10-02 21:21:32

Core 2 is a 64-bit processor.

tam1138 · 2007-10-02 21:53:36

And x86_64 gets you little (if any) advantage over i686.

chicha · 2007-10-03 07:43:40

Hello,

I have just changed my whole hardware (but the hard disks) from PIV to Intel Core2Duo, and I had almost nothing to do, thanks to Arch :-)

This mean that I am using an i686 build under the core2duo (x64) whithout any problem.
All the people I know using a 64 bit architecture did not notice a real performance improvement which could justify to change your 32 bit system to a 64 bit system. More ever a 64 bit system consumes more memory than a 32 bit one (the binaries are bigger).

Here are 3 situations I would recommand a 64 bit system :

1 - For the fun and curiosity
2 - You have a big memory ( >= 2Go )
3 - You have a specific need which justify the 64 bit (special software, research, advanced use such as cluster ...)

Here are 3 situations I would not recommand a 64 bit system :

1 - You think your system will be faster than a 32 bit one.
2 - You do not know what a 64 bit system is against a 32 bit system and its consequences on programming stuffs
3 - You do not want to bother with recompiling stuffs or change some software you use because they do not support 64 bit.

I hope it helped !
Cheers,

Chicha

TPJ · 2007-10-03 22:02:59

Thank you all for your answers, they were very helpful!

chicha wrote:

All the people I know using a 64 bit architecture did not notice a real performance improvement which could justify to change your 32 bit system to a 64 bit system. More ever a 64 bit system consumes more memory than a 32 bit one (the binaries are bigger).

Quite interesting. But there are also other issues, mentioned later...

chicha wrote:

Here are 3 situations I would recommand a 64 bit system :
1 - For the fun and curiosity
2 - You have a big memory ( >= 2Go )
3 - You have a specific need which justify the 64 bit (special software, research, advanced use such as cluster ...)

Ad.1) I use my system for work, not fun. I need a tool, not a toy.
Ad.2) My new machine has 2 GB RAM. Moreover, one of the reasons to buy the machine was the ability to install total of 4 GB RAM. I'm a developer and it is possible that in the future (1, 2 years) I will need more RAM than I need now.
Ad.3) Not my case.

chicha wrote:

Here are 3 situations I would not recommand a 64 bit system :
1 - You think your system will be faster than a 32 bit one.
2 - You do not know what a 64 bit system is against a 32 bit system and its consequences on programming stuffs
3 - You do not want to bother with recompiling stuffs or change some software you use because they do not support 64 bit.

Ad.1) I don't think so; I didn't think so. But I'm not a "hardware guy", so I wanted to make myself sure...
Ad.2) I'm a developer, but my target is desktop. I use Java and Python, cross-platform languages. Do I really need to care about it? Isn't it the JVM's and Python's developers' problem? (Or, perhaps, I'm missing the point here?)
Ad.3) I don't want to bother...

Let's sum it up:

1) Since there is no noticable performance improvement of 64-bit OS over 32-bit one, using 32-bit OS is recommended (lower memory consumption).
2) Since my machine has 2 GB RAM, and it will be upgraded to 4 GB in 1-2 years, 64-bit OS is recommended.

The conclusion: I should install 64-bit OS.

Am I right?

lilsirecho · 2007-10-03 22:43:23

I would say that 4GB RAM is not enough to run a full-bore 64bit system since it uses more ram to begin with.

Much to the point is the need for 16 to 64 GB of RAM for a good 64bit system but not at this time since programming is lacking.

Mikko777 · 2007-10-04 05:44:01

I'd go for 64 bit...

And i think there is some perf advantage especially if you work and not play, compiling and what not might be faster.

And supports larger ram yes.

Noneus · 2007-10-04 08:24:21

Here are 3 situations I would not recommand a 64 bit system :
1 - You think your system will be faster than a 32 bit one.
2 - You do not know what a 64 bit system is against a 32 bit system and its consequences on programming stuffs
3 - You do not want to bother with recompiling stuffs or change some software you use because they do not support 64 bit.

1 - It is faster in processing large amounts of data like HDTV or other stuff. 64Bit has a bigger ALU and so is faster at calculating large integers or floatingpoints.
2/3 - The consequences on programming aren't that big. If you use glib2 for vars for example you don't need to worry about anything. Stuff like python works always.

You can use any software on arch64. Even 32Bit. Either with the lib32 stuff from arch64 or an chroot with arch32 http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arc … bit_system
With this you can have the advantages of both systems... If you have the extra gigabyte for the chroot go for this....

.:B:. · 2007-10-04 08:27:43

With the highmem option in the kernel configuration you can support more than 3 GB RAM on a 32 bit Linux (a bit like PAE under Windows pre-XP SP2). Let your RAM not be the sole reason to switch to 64 bit, it would be a bit silly to do it only for that.

TPJ · 2007-10-04 09:21:54

I have read a little about Arch64, and I made the decision: I'm going to install "classic" i686 system. If such a system can handle 4 GB RAM... I (suppose) don't need x86_64.

Noneus wrote:

It is faster in processing large amounts of data like HDTV or other stuff. 64Bit has a bigger ALU and so is faster at calculating large integers or floatingpoints.

Not my case. My calculations are done mostly on 32-bit integers (such datatype is enough for me). And I'm not doing any images processing.

Mikko777 wrote:

And i think there is some perf advantage especially if you work and not play, compiling and what not might be faster.

I spend 95% of my time working on sources of the software I make (NetBeans, Eclipse). Compilation takes less than 1% of my time.

fumbles · 2007-10-15 03:46:51

lilsirecho wrote:

I would say that 4GB RAM is not enough to run a full-bore 64bit system since it uses more ram to begin with.
Much to the point is the need for 16 to 64 GB of RAM for a good 64bit system but not at this time since programming is lacking.

I would say that your wrong... If you have over 2GB in a system, you should get a 64bit distro. Or just remove memory until you have 2GBs, because it is wasted otherwise.

I run a x64 OS because:

I run programmes which are only x64.
Have 4GB of memory.
I am a coder.

OzMick · 2007-10-15 21:27:05

I personally think that the potential advantages outweigh the potential disadvantages. I've put Arch64 on a 1.8GHz Celeron M laptop with 512MB ram and have had absolutely zero problems. Even installing flash isn't an issue, thanks to the wiki pages. The main problem with 64 bit is that too many people take the lazy way out, so there aren't enough voices yelling loud enough for better upstream support.

You don't NEED significantly more memory to run 64 bit, especially under a lean and mean distro like ours (typically around 200MB of ram is used on above mentioned laptop when running Gnome, Compiz-Fusion, Firefox and a couple PDFs), but it gives you the OPTION to address more memory. Linux itself is absolutely stable 64 bit. Our only real problems lie with insufficient support from closed source vendors (primarily things like Flash) due to low user bases, due largely to FUD and apathy. Use it! And if something doesn't work for you, make your voice heard! That is the only way things (especially in Linux) are going to improve!

Last edited by OzMick (2007-10-15 22:06:16)

skottish · 2007-10-16 01:25:46

OzMick wrote:

Our only real problems lie with insufficient support from closed source vendors

No doubt. From Lightscribe:

LightScribe is just starting support for Linux, and we apologize for the limited support. Linux 64 bit is not currently supported and no announcements have been made about it's future availability. Your best option would be to keep an eye on our Linux downloads page or possibly check the Pre-Release Software Evaluation page in the future.

Fortunately, the work-arounds for just about everything are easy now. I also recommend 64 bit.

Noneus · 2007-10-16 02:00:31

I'd recommend it too. There are disadvantages at the first look(mainly stuff with firefox, flash and javawebplugin) But the rest works without problems.

ganja_guru · 2007-10-16 19:37:39

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16 … _the_ram/1

iphitus · 2007-10-17 06:32:36

fumbles wrote:

lilsirecho wrote:
I would say that 4GB RAM is not enough to run a full-bore 64bit system since it uses more ram to begin with.
Much to the point is the need for 16 to 64 GB of RAM for a good 64bit system but not at this time since programming is lacking.
I would say that your wrong... If you have over 2GB in a system, you should get a 64bit distro. Or just remove memory until you have 2GBs, because it is wasted otherwise.

not wasted, you can use it fine.

fumbles · 2007-10-17 13:49:57

iphitus wrote:

fumbles wrote:
lilsirecho wrote:
I would say that 4GB RAM is not enough to run a full-bore 64bit system since it uses more ram to begin with.
Much to the point is the need for 16 to 64 GB of RAM for a good 64bit system but not at this time since programming is lacking.
I would say that your wrong... If you have over 2GB in a system, you should get a 64bit distro. Or just remove memory until you have 2GBs, because it is wasted otherwise.
not wasted, you can use it fine.

http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

(not just Windows)

lilsirecho · 2007-10-17 16:49:13

Dan covered the subject well.

I have had 3GB of ram in my archcomputer for several years. ASUS a7v333.

I find it interesting to run fully in ram in Linux whereas to use 3GB in windows 2000 for example you need a special dispensation from Redmond.

Linux loves ram and I don't feel it is ever wasted.

At present, I find it advantageous to boot Faunos and larch boots into ram. The total power while in ram required to run a mobo at 2.8GHZ with a system not having any pc cards nor HDD's is very low with my core duo processor. I have 2GB in that mobo and wish that I had much more but the cost of ram for the 64bit systems is still too high.

Linux loves ram!!!

pirx · 2007-10-23 23:54:01

i would recommend a 64bit system mainly for servers. Database servers for example can improve speed under 64 bit (but not in every usecase of course ..)

Anyway, the kernel should be enough. I do use 64bit only on my linux-vserver machines. The host is a 64bit systeml, but the guests are all 32bit.

LnxArch · 2007-10-26 17:15:11

I have ran 32bit systems in the past, when i bought my AMD 64bits, i said : Why not use an 64bit system? Hell... Arch64 worked just fine, i don't play, i work with it everyday.
Can't say i notice any speed improvement, but i don't see why not use an 64bit system if we have the hardware and software for it. I don't fell limited in any way

LinuxViking · 2007-11-02 02:01:54

I don't see where the idea that you need 4GBs ram comes from, I am running 64 on 1GB ram and an 80GB hard drive and have never noticed a single slow down or any other problem...with an AMD 64 X2 +4400 processor

Although it seems like on the software side older drivers and wine need chroot

Last edited by LinuxViking (2007-11-02 02:04:15)

J_Zar · 2007-11-02 13:00:19

I can only say I was using Arch32 on my Core2 Duo before... Then I reinstalled Arch64 and I see a lot of performance difference.

Arch64 is a lot more faster. I have only 1 Gb of RAM and I think this is absolutely not a problem.
My system is responsive, fast, stable. I use it for work too.

I suppose that a good deal will be gcc 4.3. It will bring -mtune support for the Core2 Duo. This will help probably.

Arch Linux

#1 2007-10-02 21:11:15

Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#2 2007-10-02 21:21:32

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#3 2007-10-02 21:53:36

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#4 2007-10-03 07:43:40

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#5 2007-10-03 22:02:59

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#6 2007-10-03 22:43:23

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#7 2007-10-04 05:44:01

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#8 2007-10-04 08:24:21

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#9 2007-10-04 08:27:43

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#10 2007-10-04 09:21:54

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#11 2007-10-15 03:46:51

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#12 2007-10-15 21:27:05

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#13 2007-10-16 01:25:46

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#14 2007-10-16 02:00:31

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#15 2007-10-16 19:37:39

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#16 2007-10-17 06:32:36

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#17 2007-10-17 13:49:57

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#18 2007-10-17 16:49:13

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#19 2007-10-23 23:54:01

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#20 2007-10-26 17:15:11

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#21 2007-11-02 02:01:54

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

#22 2007-11-02 13:00:19

Re: Intel Core 2 Duo: 64-bit or 32-bit?

Board footer