Should I use an i686 or x86-64 install for a PC with only 2GB of RAM?

KaiZ · 2010-08-31 13:48:38

I'm going to be mainly using it for browsing, movies, music, work, and also some Wine gaming.

If it matters, it also has an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz and an ATI HD5770 1GB.

Also, I don't plan on upgrading anytime soon...

karol · 2010-08-31 13:57:31

Performance-wise it doesn't really matter if you're not doing any heavy lifting on a daily basis.
If you can use all your apps while 64-bit, go 64.

cedeel · 2010-08-31 14:00:12

You are aware of the lack of 64-bit flash?

KaiZ · 2010-08-31 14:05:15

cedeel wrote:

You are aware of the lack of 64-bit flash?

Not really actually... So, 64-bit users can't use Flash at all? Can't they just install the 32-bit version and be done with it?

karol · 2010-08-31 14:07:43

KaiZ wrote:

cedeel wrote:
You are aware of the lack of 64-bit flash?
Not really actually... So, 64-bit users can't use Flash at all? Can't they just install the 32-bit version and be done with it?

As I said, if you don't *know* you're fine with 64-bit, stay 32-bit. You're doing no code-breaking, no video editing, plan no hardware upgrades - 64-bit won't speed things up.

vacant · 2010-08-31 14:19:22

I got a 64 bit laptop in jan 2009. That's when I decided to switch to 64. All I can say is that (a) my laptop does everything I want (b) it was easy to make the switch, things are improving and I expect that to continue. Conclusion: go with 64.

However, I have not done any benchmarks to compare 32 vs 64. I doubt I'd notice any subjective difference. I also keep a partition with a "frugal" install of puppy linux and this is way faster day-to-day (loading apps) than any traditionally installed distro.

My main problem could well be something you may encounter: ATI GRAPHICS I use fglrx day-to-day because my laptop operates at a lower temp so I'm hoping to give it a longer life with less fan noise. BUT I get HD video tearing so I have a separate arch partition for video using the radeon driver which works just fine.

cedeel · 2010-08-31 14:20:07

I did not mean to say it's impossible.
There are ways to have flash on 64bits, but I thought you should know that it isn't as straightforward as on i686.

Inxsible · 2010-08-31 14:35:30

There are a huge number of threads discussing this. Search the forums to get more answers.

Closing this to prevent further duplication...

Arch Linux

#1 2010-08-31 13:48:38

Should I use an i686 or x86-64 install for a PC with only 2GB of RAM?

#2 2010-08-31 13:57:31

Re: Should I use an i686 or x86-64 install for a PC with only 2GB of RAM?

#3 2010-08-31 14:00:12

Re: Should I use an i686 or x86-64 install for a PC with only 2GB of RAM?

#4 2010-08-31 14:05:15

Re: Should I use an i686 or x86-64 install for a PC with only 2GB of RAM?

#5 2010-08-31 14:07:43

Re: Should I use an i686 or x86-64 install for a PC with only 2GB of RAM?

#6 2010-08-31 14:19:22

Re: Should I use an i686 or x86-64 install for a PC with only 2GB of RAM?

#7 2010-08-31 14:20:07

Re: Should I use an i686 or x86-64 install for a PC with only 2GB of RAM?

#8 2010-08-31 14:35:30

Re: Should I use an i686 or x86-64 install for a PC with only 2GB of RAM?

Board footer