Arch64 on Intel Core2 CPU laptop with 2GB RAM

postit · 2009-07-23 11:24:45

Hi all, I'm going to install Archlinux and try it for first time. But I'm not totally sure what architecture it's better for me. My computer is a laptop: Asus F3JC with an Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T5600 @ 1.83GHz, 2GB DDR2 SDRAM.

I want to use this laptop mainly as a KDE4 workstation (with some servers for developing purposes: ssshd, apache mysql). I'll use Internet on it (www, mail, irc), office, music, video and common desktop user utilities. And also for developing in C, C++, libSDL, libQt, Java and Web (HTML, CSS, Js, PHP, Python, MySQL), I'll install some IDEs like Netbeans and QtCreator and I need Apache web server with PHP, Python and some other modules. I'll use svn and git too for creating and mantain repositories. My purpose is to use graphic applications and most of them Qt/KDE apps.

I've readed that there is not really differences running Arch i686 or x86_64 if you don't have >4GB RAM. And there are some packages (mainly closed software like Skype, Adobe Reader plugin, etc. or also Wine, Znes, etc.) that haven't got their 64-bit port.

For these reasons I would choose i686 version although my laptop could run x86_64. Am I doing it right if I choose the i686 Arch version? What would you do?

Thanks and sorry for this repetitive question

Cheers

Last edited by postit (2009-07-23 14:34:56)

bangkok_manouel · 2009-07-23 11:36:06

welcome here postit.

What would you do?

i'd go i686 without a doubt given the specs of the machine+what you intent to do with it.
you'll get no userland "complications" (every x84_64 user will testify here to say how easy it is to use chroot or use lib32 ), no real performance difference. i won't install x86_64 on a desktop and if i had more than 4G of RAM i'd just install a 64bit kernel with 32bit userland (which is what i'm doing since months without any issue)

insane_alien · 2009-07-23 11:55:46

you can go with whichever one you want.

i run x86_64 and run skype and wine perfectly fine. it requires installing some 32-bit libraries but this is all done automatically if you install it from the AUR. there are zero practical differences. the only differences are one off and small (like installing bin32-skype instead of skype).

i'd say go x86_64 incase you ever do anything that benefits from 64-bit instructions(movie encoding and such) or upgrade your memory. there's no real disatvantage to x86_64 now and there are some advantages other than >4GB memory support.

eldragon · 2009-07-23 12:02:30

i would use i686

blasse · 2009-07-23 13:26:58

I like to be on edge - that's why we all use Arch So I would go 64bit - in fact i did it already on my core2/2gb ram laptop

postit · 2009-07-23 14:34:29

Thanks a lot for your replies I think that finally i'll install i686 version and may be in a few months i'll try x86_64

benob · 2009-07-23 17:14:04

I don't know about Arch, but Ubuntu 64bit is a little bit faster than 32bit according to this benchmark.
http://www.tuxradar.com/content/ubuntu- … benchmarks

Also the 4GB limit is actually more like 3GB (because the system needs to reserve some addresses for handling memory pages). But I don't remember how the arch32 kernel is configured, so this may not apply.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-07-23 11:24:45

Arch64 on Intel Core2 CPU laptop with 2GB RAM

#2 2009-07-23 11:36:06

Re: Arch64 on Intel Core2 CPU laptop with 2GB RAM

#3 2009-07-23 11:55:46

Re: Arch64 on Intel Core2 CPU laptop with 2GB RAM

#4 2009-07-23 12:02:30

Re: Arch64 on Intel Core2 CPU laptop with 2GB RAM

#5 2009-07-23 13:26:58

Re: Arch64 on Intel Core2 CPU laptop with 2GB RAM

#6 2009-07-23 14:34:29

Re: Arch64 on Intel Core2 CPU laptop with 2GB RAM

#7 2009-07-23 17:14:04

Re: Arch64 on Intel Core2 CPU laptop with 2GB RAM

Board footer