Is the x86_64 really worth it?

ace_w1zard · 2010-07-14 05:50:01

OK, well i have herd both good and bad things on the arch linux x86_64. i just want to know is it really worth it if your computer can run it? or will other software come up todate with it, its actually pretty said though, that 64 bit os's has been out for some time now, and we still dont got wine, firefox, and simple thing like adobe fully working? should i go down to 32?

karol · 2010-07-14 05:56:15

<yawn>
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arc … of_Arch.3F

Edit:
> 64 bit os's has been out for some time now
When most people will have 64-bit, companies will start supporting it too

What's wrong w/ firefox @ 64-bit?

> and simple thing like adobe fully working
Adobe is a company. You mean Adobe Flash, Photoshop or what?

Last edited by karol (2010-07-14 06:00:17)

Mr.Elendig · 2010-07-14 06:00:00

firefox works just fine on my 64bit installs..

tjwoosta · 2010-07-14 06:01:02

ace_w1zard wrote:

OK, well i have herd both good and bad things on the arch linux x86_64. i just want to know is it really worth it if your computer can run it? or will other software come up todate with it, its actually pretty said though, that 64 bit os's has been out for some time now, and we still dont got wine, firefox, and simple thing like adobe fully working? should i go down to 32?

64bit firefox works fine. 32bit wine and flash both work fine on 64bit installs, the bin32 packages are in AUR. Pretty much any apps that don't have native 64bit versions have bin32 packages in AUR.

Adobe flash actually does have a 64bit build but adobe neglected to update it this past release cycle and the version thats availible has known and actively exploited security vulnerabilities. This is why its reccomended to use the bin32 version.

That said the only time youll probably ever notice a performance difference between 32bit and 64bit is with CPU intensive aplications, such as video encoding.

EDIT: Also you should search the forums before making posts. This topic gets brought up like once a day.

Last edited by tjwoosta (2010-07-14 06:05:25)

shemz · 2010-07-14 06:37:38

An x64 complete install of usable OS (not just base utilities from core) would probably take 10-20% more space than an equivalent 32bit install. I do not have a reference for this, but I have tried both versions of Arch several times to verify this in the past. The reason is the requirement of several bin32 dependencies for running 32bit applications like wine,etc. And the only advantage with a 64bit system is the ability to use more than 4 gigs RAM. I also dont find a major performance boost.

Firefox in the repos of all major distros is 32bit version only. But there is a project which creates native 64bit firefox version also (only windows for now), though probably most of your frequently used addons wont work on it.

tjwoosta · 2010-07-14 06:56:12

shemz wrote:

Firefox in the repos of all major distros is 32bit version only. But there is a project which creates native 64bit firefox version also (only windows for now), though probably most of your frequently used addons wont work on it.

What is your source of information? 64bit firefox is definately in arch repos, and last I checked slackware and ubuntu had it too for a long time now. It uses no lib32, and 32bit plugins dont work with it unless you use nspluginwrapper, which is why the whole 64bit flash issue comes up.

karol · 2010-07-14 07:01:58

@ tjwoosta
Slackware went 64-bit a year ago, right?

ngoonee · 2010-07-14 07:10:25

shemz wrote:

Firefox in the repos of all major distros is 32bit version only. But there is a project which creates native 64bit firefox version also (only windows for now), though probably most of your frequently used addons wont work on it.

This is total nonsense, please post your source. I use firefox daily on my 64-bit install. The ONLY current problem is the flash plugin, I just use the old one instead.

tjwoosta · 2010-07-14 07:11:51

karol wrote:

@ tjwoosta
Slackware went 64-bit a year ago, right?

According to the slackware mirrors slackare64 13.0 was released august 28 2009, but slackware was one of the late converters. Not sure the exact date but 64bit buiilds of firefox for linux have been availible quite a while before that.

Last edited by tjwoosta (2010-07-14 07:12:19)

mrunion · 2010-07-14 14:10:46

The only advantage for 64-bit being addressing more then 4GB is NOT correct -- at least for me.

I use Blender 3D for some hobby things and to get decent hair on characters, you need alot of stands -- and 32-bit versions don't let you get more than one or two furry characters in a scene before it runs out of "counts" for the hair strands. 64-bit OS and Blender version does not have this issue. (Sure, there is a point at which that would break too, but I'm definitely not there!)

ozar · 2010-07-14 14:59:50

ace_w1zard wrote:

i just want to know is it really worth it if your computer can run it?

It's worth it for me and highly doubtful that I'll ever be downgrading to 32-bit, but you'd need to try it and decide for yourself if it's worth it for you.

Do let us know what you decide and how it works out.

jdarnold · 2010-07-14 15:37:46

I was never a big 64bit OS fan, save for the >4gb of RAM solution, but without knowing it (or at least thinking about it), when I installed Arch, I installed the 64bit version. I literally didn't notice it was the 64bit version for quite some time. So, to me, 64bit is the way to go these days. It's forward looking and I've run into almost no problems with packages.

alexandrite · 2010-07-14 16:20:29

I just installed Arch x86_64 on my desktop, and everything appears to be working well enough. Firefox works, Flash works (I'm using nspluginwrapper-flash from the AUR), and I get all 4GB of my RAM without compiling PAE into my kernel. Plus, there's the performance advantage of the extra bus width and whatnot.

But is it worth it? I say "why not?" Everything works just about as well as it did on my 32-bit install after some minor configuration (for Flash of course), and there is that extra few milliseconds of response time if you care about such things.

Last edited by alexandrite (2010-07-14 16:22:10)

Proofrific · 2010-07-14 16:27:24

alexandrite wrote:

there is that extra few milliseconds of response time if you care about such things.

There can be a huge speed difference for certain applications, particularly math stuff (numerical work, video rendering, etc.). Having a 64-bit register can really help!

alexandrite · 2010-07-14 16:48:55

Proofrific wrote:

alexandrite wrote:
there is that extra few milliseconds of response time if you care about such things.
There can be a huge speed difference for certain applications, particularly math stuff (numerical work, video rendering, etc.). Having a 64-bit register can really help!

Yeah, that's a good point. Video/Audio editing, crypto ('cause why pay for wifi? ), and stuff would prolly be a fair bit more than a few ms faster.

madalu · 2010-07-14 16:58:22

I have no complaints about x86_64, but I do find that my 64bit system uses twice as much RAM (on average) as my 32bit system. Obviously, the RAM usage increases even more when using 32bit libraries.

Others will likely disagree, but I wouldn't recommend 64bit if you have at least 1GB RAM. For me, the biggest problems occurred when building software (especially C++ and especially C++ with boost). Some 64bit builds used upwards of 1.5GB of RAM, causing my 1GB machine to thrash for an agonizingly long time. The same builds used no more than 500-700MB on my 32bit machine.

Last edited by madalu (2010-07-14 16:59:15)

.:B:. · 2010-07-14 17:08:33

I think we can safely assume the bases of x86_64 vs i686 are covered, so I suggest you search the forum (or read the wiki links) to decide whether or not you want this or that port.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-07-14 05:50:01

Is the x86_64 really worth it?

#2 2010-07-14 05:56:15

Re: Is the x86_64 really worth it?

#3 2010-07-14 06:00:00

Re: Is the x86_64 really worth it?

#4 2010-07-14 06:01:02

Re: Is the x86_64 really worth it?

#5 2010-07-14 06:37:38

Re: Is the x86_64 really worth it?

#6 2010-07-14 06:56:12

Re: Is the x86_64 really worth it?

#7 2010-07-14 07:01:58

Re: Is the x86_64 really worth it?

#8 2010-07-14 07:10:25

Re: Is the x86_64 really worth it?

#9 2010-07-14 07:11:51

Re: Is the x86_64 really worth it?

#10 2010-07-14 14:10:46

Re: Is the x86_64 really worth it?

#11 2010-07-14 14:59:50

Re: Is the x86_64 really worth it?

#12 2010-07-14 15:37:46

Re: Is the x86_64 really worth it?

#13 2010-07-14 16:20:29

Re: Is the x86_64 really worth it?

#14 2010-07-14 16:27:24

Re: Is the x86_64 really worth it?

#15 2010-07-14 16:48:55

Re: Is the x86_64 really worth it?

#16 2010-07-14 16:58:22

Re: Is the x86_64 really worth it?

#17 2010-07-14 17:08:33

Re: Is the x86_64 really worth it?

Board footer