x86_64 benefits?

YamiFrankc · 2009-06-23 20:12:50

I have an Intel Celeron 530 processor,it can run 64 bits software.

Whats the real benefit,for final users,to run Arch x86_64?

Ive eard that machines with 4GB or more of RAM loves 64 bits,but i have less than 1GB.
Also some packages on AUR doesnt work on x86_64,such as Zsnes.

Whats better for me,stay 64 bits,o return to 32?

Thanks

csstaub · 2009-06-23 20:22:53

Unless you need to use 32-bit-only applications, I would recommend installing Arch64.

Bregol · 2009-06-23 20:30:34

As far as RAM goes, I believe that in order to use >4GB you need to be x86_64. for only 1GB of RAM, I would run 32 bit. With 64 bit, programs will use more ram when running (because the data is doubled in size from 32 bits to 64 bits). IMO any performance gain from 64 bit will be outweighed be the loss from that.

http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/linux- … linux.html
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9354 … eat-my-ram

i'm not an expert on 64 bit, but my brother (who would know better than I would) recommended I stay 32-bit on my machine for something like this reason (1 gb ram on a 64-bit capable P4)

Peasantoid · 2009-06-23 21:40:00

I run Arch64 here with no problems. (4 GB of RAM, you know, so I didn't want to waste that.) Although I haven't tried to use anything 'troublesome' like Wine, Skype, etc.

YamiFrankc · 2009-06-23 21:51:47

Then,as i have only 512 MB Ram,ill go back to 32-bits.

Thanks for the answers

Ranguvar · 2009-06-24 00:18:04

I'd stick with what you have. There's not a lot of advantage besides > 4GB RAM support, and you can even get that (and a very slight speed loss) with PAE on 32-bit, but I'd advise people to go with whatever they have... it's not worth switching, either way.

R00KIE · 2009-06-24 09:57:26

I have found that PAE on 32bit works (and can even use a bit more of of the ram 4050 as opposed to 3950 on my machine) but you will have to recompile some packages (at least I had to) and because I did want to pacman and go I have never used PAE on 32bit seriously.

Skype and wine offer no problem in 64bit, I have both and they work perfectly but as said before, if you have less than 4G it's not really worth the trouble of changing (except for some special cases that have been discussed to death anyway ).

markzzzsmith · 2009-06-24 10:40:58

One advantage of x86-64 is that another 8 general purpose registers become available on the CPU, in addition to the traditional 8. These can be used for storing more working data on the CPU, rather than having to shift it back and forth between RAM (or usually the data cache on the CPU). Accessing data in registers is significantly faster than level 1 cache or RAM, which is why having more registers on the CPU is useful. Other 64 bit CPUs have more registers than that - PowerPC's have 32, as do SPARC CPUs.

markzzzsmith · 2009-06-24 10:44:13

The following link also discusses 64 bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#Pros_and_cons

Intrepid · 2009-07-09 03:25:33

Buddy, I wrote a PKGBUILD for x86_64 zsnes in the aur: bin32-zsnes. Many of the programs you use that are x86 binary only can be repackaged for use on x86_64 systems easily.

Last edited by Intrepid (2009-07-09 03:25:58)

zodmaner · 2009-07-09 05:04:51

Snes9x-GTK is also a good alternative to ZSNES.

It is perfect for 64bit system since it compile and run natively on x86_64 without needing any 32bit libraries.

Last edited by zodmaner (2009-07-09 05:05:59)

Salamander1978 · 2009-07-09 06:50:16

With 64 bit, programs will use more ram when running (because the data is doubled in size from 32 bits to 64 bits)

Regarding the doubled size...

This is true for true/pure 64 Bit CPUs, like Intel's itanium (ia64) or IBM's 64 Bit PowerPC. The x86_64 aka. amd64 is different. It just adds some features to access 64 Bit Memory range and doubles the number of registers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amd64#AMD64
On average the x86_64 memory usage is about 120% of x86_32.

Since memory latency is a major performance bottleneck today, this is the reason why x86_64 won the competition against ia64.

aport · 2009-07-09 07:31:51

when my hard drive died I decided to go to arch 64... no problems here. I even went out and got 6GB of RAM to celebrate. I don't know how I ever lived with less than four gigs. Especially with virtualization!

Themaister · 2009-07-09 08:16:09

zodmaner wrote:

Snes9x-GTK is also a good alternative to ZSNES.
It is perfect for 64bit system since it compile and run natively on x86_64 without needing any 32bit libraries.

It's also a better emulator overall imo

sand_man · 2009-07-10 06:44:33

aportL: I still can't find a way to use the 2GB I have. What will you do with 6? lol

mikesd · 2009-07-10 08:02:34

I run x86_64 mainly because I can. It does everything I need it to and I can't stand the thought of half of my cores sitting idle. Having said that I often forget I am running x86_64 as I don't notice any great difference to x86. If all your applications are x86_64 friendly give it a go. If you don't like it after a month switch back to x86. The freedom of choice.

jelly · 2009-07-10 11:14:36

i also run only x86_64 even with 2 Gb ram. The only real issue's are 32 bit apps where you have just two plain simple solution. The bin32-program one or make a chroot wich both work fine

Themaister · 2009-07-10 12:40:38

sand_man wrote:

aportL: I still can't find a way to use the 2GB I have. What will you do with 6? lol

Hint: Caching and tmpfs

tgc · 2009-07-10 16:27:35

sand_man wrote:

aportL: I still can't find a way to use the 2GB I have. What will you do with 6? lol

Tried Vista?

Bregol · 2009-07-10 16:56:55

sand_man wrote:

aportL: I still can't find a way to use the 2GB I have. What will you do with 6? lol

Run Vista in a virtual machine to be a constant reminder of why you use Arch? Or for the same memory usage, run linux in a virtual machine in linux in a virtual machine in linux in a virtual machine...

Wintervenom · 2009-07-10 19:43:21

Bregol wrote:

sand_man wrote:
aportL: I still can't find a way to use the 2GB I have. What will you do with 6? lol
Run Vista in a virtual machine to be a constant reminder of why you use Arch? Or for the same memory usage, run linux in a virtual machine in linux in a virtual machine in linux in a virtual machine...

Xibit would be proud.

eirik · 2009-07-23 10:06:34

Themaister wrote:

zodmaner wrote:
Snes9x-GTK is also a good alternative to ZSNES.
It is perfect for 64bit system since it compile and run natively on x86_64 without needing any 32bit libraries.
It's also a better emulator overall imo

Yeah, sure, if you prefer speed hacks over emulation accuracy. I'll admit that snes9x-gtk looks pretty damn good, but the classy DOS-like ZSNES GUI is timeless.

sand_man wrote:

aportL: I still can't find a way to use the 2GB I have. What will you do with 6? lol

Virtualization, as many others have said. And then there's OnTV (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=16958), a gnome-panel applet which constantly hogged onto 300MB RAM in my experience. Wonder what that was all about.

Themaister · 2009-07-23 12:47:56

eirik wrote:

Themaister wrote:
zodmaner wrote:
Snes9x-GTK is also a good alternative to ZSNES.
It is perfect for 64bit system since it compile and run natively on x86_64 without needing any 32bit libraries.
It's also a better emulator overall imo
Yeah, sure, if you prefer speed hacks over emulation accuracy. I'll admit that snes9x-gtk looks pretty damn good, but the classy DOS-like ZSNES GUI is timeless.

Well, as long as it looks good (NTSC filter ftw ), sounds good (--enable-libao in zsnes is a must!) and plays well (haven't seen any differences between zsnes and snes9x so far), it's good enough for me. Since I like snes9x's interface better and with 64-bit support, it wins out for me. Well, I gotta admit, the DOS-like interface of ZSNES is classic!

Last edited by Themaister (2009-07-23 12:48:43)

Intrepid · 2009-08-29 20:57:54

Yeah I actually came to linux from dos, hence my preference for zsnes, and hence the fact that I wrote the pkgbuild!

Indeed, there are few compelling reasons to still run 32 bit. The only emulator that is only supported on 32 bit right now is PCSX2; it's a pity because the latest release fixed many linux-related bugs. Likewise, I'm writing this in Google Chromium! Yay minimalism!

Arch Linux

#1 2009-06-23 20:12:50

x86_64 benefits?

#2 2009-06-23 20:22:53

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#3 2009-06-23 20:30:34

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#4 2009-06-23 21:40:00

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#5 2009-06-23 21:51:47

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#6 2009-06-24 00:18:04

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#7 2009-06-24 09:57:26

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#8 2009-06-24 10:40:58

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#9 2009-06-24 10:44:13

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#10 2009-07-09 03:25:33

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#11 2009-07-09 05:04:51

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#12 2009-07-09 06:50:16

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#13 2009-07-09 07:31:51

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#14 2009-07-09 08:16:09

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#15 2009-07-10 06:44:33

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#16 2009-07-10 08:02:34

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#17 2009-07-10 11:14:36

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#18 2009-07-10 12:40:38

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#19 2009-07-10 16:27:35

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#20 2009-07-10 16:56:55

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#21 2009-07-10 19:43:21

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#22 2009-07-23 10:06:34

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#23 2009-07-23 12:47:56

Re: x86_64 benefits?

#24 2009-08-29 20:57:54

Re: x86_64 benefits?

Board footer