PDA

View Full Version : 32 vs 64 bit



GuitarHero
April 25th, 2012, 04:24 AM
I recently installed Precise on a Lenovo Ideapad using hte 32 bit version because I didnt realize I had a 64 bit processor. Everything has been running smoothly but I just realized I should have installed the 64 bit version. Would it be faster with 64 bit? Is there a way to change it?

Lemuriano
April 25th, 2012, 04:36 AM
The 64 bit will use your memory in a more efficient way but will depends on how much you have. Usually over 4g is ok as I understand.
Perhaps another member would be more specific on the subject.

The only way is to do a clean install.

Regards.

QIII
April 25th, 2012, 05:07 AM
Prepare for a move to recurring discussions.

Memory is a relatively minor consideration. 32 bit OSs can address approximately 4GiB (in theory. In practice it's slightly less). Even though a 64 bit OS can address more memory than you can bring home from the computer store in a dump truck, you can't get that much on your motherboard.

The big consideration is that a 64 bit OS takes advantage of the 64 bit machine architecture, which nets a sustantial improvement in performance.

The industry is 64 bit. When we went from 8 to 16 and from 16 to 32, those who clung to the old got left behind.

If you have 64 bit machine architecture, use a 64 bit OS.

NikTh
April 25th, 2012, 05:11 AM
I think that 64bit version will take advantage of your 64bit processor's capabilities . Faster system ? maybe.
That think with RAM installed its valid only with windows. Linux has the 32bit - PAE ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension) kernel who is capable to read up to 64GB's of installed Ram.
As I read (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzM) after 12.04 version of Ubuntu , only PAE kernels will be released.
I cannot illuminate you exactly with pros & cons . Wait for a more knowledgeable user :)

oldfred
April 25th, 2012, 05:31 AM
Moved to recurring discussions. This poor old horse has been beat to death for years.

I run 64bit on my 1.5GB laptop just so I have the same verison as my Desktop with 4GB of RAM. I cannot say I notice any real difference but try not to open too many apps at one time on laptop.

Essentially says if you can use the 64bit kernel you should.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_natty_pae64&num=1

Note these go back to 2008. I did not upgrade to 64bit until 2009.
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/32bit_and_64bit
Ubuntu 32-bit, 32-bit PAE, 64-bit Kernel Benchmarks Dec 2009
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_32_pae&num=1
Advantages and Disadvantages of 64bit. (Plus install Guides) from 2008
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=765428

GuitarHero
April 26th, 2012, 01:00 AM
Is there a way to upgrade it to 64 without reinstalling completely?

Lemuriano
April 26th, 2012, 03:25 AM
Sorry to said that reinstall is the only option.

LemursDontExist
April 26th, 2012, 03:40 AM
I run 64bit on my 1.5GB laptop just so I have the same verison as my Desktop with 4GB of RAM. I cannot say I notice any real difference but try not to open too many apps at one time on laptop.

I've found that under about 2GB of ram 32bit runs a good bit faster. A lot of it has to do with how much you multitask of course.

What it comes down to is that 64bit is faster, and can index more memory, but also uses more ram to perform the same operations. If this loss of ram is pushing you into swap then any performance gains from 64bit are totally overshadowed by the performance hit from waiting for swap reads/writes.

If you generally just run one or two programs at once, or if you've got 3GB+ of ram, then this isn't likely to matter, and 64bit is the way to go!

llanitedave
April 28th, 2012, 03:19 AM
Funny thing is, the Ubuntu download page still labels the 32 bit download as "recommended". If we all agree that the 64 bit version is preferable for a 64 bit system (And I have a 3-processor Athlon w/8G of memory), why not update the recommendation?

LemursDontExist
April 28th, 2012, 03:56 AM
Funny thing is, the Ubuntu download page still labels the 32 bit download as "recommended". If we all agree that the 64 bit version is preferable for a 64 bit system (And I have a 3-processor Athlon w/8G of memory), why not update the recommendation?

I read somewhere that they were planning to switch to 64 bit as the "recommended" download this time around... guess that was wrong!

For what it's worth, I think the reasoning is that while 64 bit is usually better, for people who don't know what they're doing, the mistake of installing the 32bit version on a modern system is going to be a lot less painful and confusing than the mistake of trying to install the 64bit version on an old system.

oldos2er
April 29th, 2012, 04:13 AM
I read somewhere that they were planning to switch to 64 bit as the "recommended" download this time around... guess that was wrong!


They were, but: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-April/035088.html

wolfen69
April 29th, 2012, 07:51 AM
For the most part, unless you have a specific reason to use 32 bit ubuntu, you should use 64 bit. In ubuntu-land 64 bit is the norm.

MadmanRB
May 23rd, 2012, 06:25 AM
32bit for me too, honestly there is not that much of a difference between the two other then 32bit has more apps and its a pain getting some of them running in 64bit last time I checked as it required a terminal.

Paqman
May 23rd, 2012, 07:15 AM
32bit for me too, honestly there is not that much of a difference between the two other then 32bit has more apps and its a pain getting some of them running in 64bit last time I checked as it required a terminal.

When was the last time you checked? Five years ago?

There are just as many apps for 64-bit, and you haven't needed to run any 32-bit apps for years. Gone are the days of running a 32-bit browser to get Flash.

MadmanRB
May 23rd, 2012, 07:23 AM
When was the last time you checked? Five years ago?

There are just as many apps for 64-bit, and you haven't needed to run any 32-bit apps for years. Gone are the days of running a 32-bit browser to get Flash.

There are still some apps here and there that are 32bit only though.
Besides with PAE the 3GB limit is rendered moot.

Paqman
May 23rd, 2012, 08:10 AM
There are still some apps here and there that are 32bit only though.


Such as? I honestly haven't bumped into any for as long as I can remember. You might find some decrepit old package that's 32-bit only if you go rummaging around outside the repos, but anything that's being properly maintained will be available in 64-bit.



Besides with PAE the 3GB limit is rendered moot.


PAE is slower than being able to address that memory natively.
A 64-bit chip is just plain faster at number crunching. Why throttle it down to 32-bit speeds?

MadmanRB
May 23rd, 2012, 09:07 AM
Such as? I honestly haven't bumped into any for as long as I can remember. You might find some decrepit old package that's 32-bit only if you go rummaging around outside the repos, but anything that's being properly maintained will be available in 64-bit.




PAE is slower than being able to address that memory natively.
A 64-bit chip is just plain faster at number crunching. Why throttle it down to 32-bit speeds?


Cause its not at low speeds, this is a hex core baby :D

Redblade20XX
May 23rd, 2012, 09:08 AM
Just my opinion,
For the average user: 64 bit if you can.
For usb distributions: 32 bit is the better choice for better cross-computer compatibility.

-Red

Paqman
May 23rd, 2012, 01:03 PM
Cause its not at low speeds, this is a hex core baby :D

Fair enough. It would be even quicker with 64-bit though.

mips
May 23rd, 2012, 04:45 PM
There are still some apps here and there that are 32bit only though.
Besides with PAE the 3GB limit is rendered moot.

You really do need to get with the times Rip Van Winkle ;)

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=11937364


If you have a 64-bit CPU there is no reason why you should not run 64-bit linux.

Things like audio & video encoding are faster, compressing & uncompressing files are faster, encryption based apps are faster, compiling source code is faster, memory reads & writes are faster and a few other things I have forgotten about.

Software availability on Linux has not been a issue for several years now, everything in the 32-bit repos is available in the 64-bit repos. Do not confuse generalised statements which refer more to windows with linux, currently windows lags linux in 64-bit support (apps & drivers hence running 32-bit apps on windows 64-bit).

I've been running 64-bit linux since 2006, back then there were a few issues you had to work around but these days there is absolutely no reason not to go 64-bit if you have the hardware.

mips
May 23rd, 2012, 04:47 PM
For usb distributions: 32 bit is the better choice for better cross-computer compatibility.


Huh?

mips
May 23rd, 2012, 04:49 PM
Next thing you know we are gonna have is people telling us how they walked 10km and back to school every day in the snow without shoes...

roelforg
May 23rd, 2012, 04:52 PM
Huh?

He's right.
You don't know if the computer you're taking the usb to is 64bit or 32bit.
So with 32, you're safe.

MadmanRB
May 23rd, 2012, 05:59 PM
You really do need to get with the times Rip Van Winkle ;)

Sorry but as I said there are several apps that are 32bit only. I use several emulators for gaming and one of them is zsnes and its 32bit only and I am not going to use the command like each time just to use it.

Gens/GS the same deal and I am not going to compile from source and or anything to make it work in 64bit unless I really have to.
I dont like BSNES and I use emulation to get around that whole "Not many games for linux" thing, sure I can get clones or a Wii or something but I am not opposed to emulation especially for games that cannot be downloaded on the major consoles (such as earthbound)

Paqman
May 24th, 2012, 12:16 PM
I use several emulators for gaming and one of them is zsnes and its 32bit only and I am not going to use the command like each time just to use it.


You need to revisit 64-bit, it sounds like you're basing your opinion on old information.

Here's a screenshot of Synaptic on my 64-bit system taken about one minute ago:

MadmanRB
May 25th, 2012, 02:37 AM
The package is there and yesd you can install it but last time I used 64bit linux it needed a terminal

Harpot
June 5th, 2012, 07:06 AM
Well now finally, next year we will start to see programs that are 64 bit only.

For example (admittedly a Windows-specific one, but presumably Linux will follow): http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-05-21-some-frostbite-games-will-require-a-64-bit-os-in-2013-dice

And even 3 years ago MS contemplated a 128 bit Win 8: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/10/microsoft-mulling-128-bit-versions-of-windows-8-windows-9/

I don't know about the general public (although it's difficult to buy a new computer that's not 64 bit), but for Steam users the majority are now using a 64 bit OS: 54%
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

In short, anyone not using 64 bit is behind the eightball. Those who insist (for whatever strange reason) that 32 bit can be preferable will shortly be dragged kicking and screaming up to 64 bit, while the rest of us start thinking about 128 bit.

screaminj3sus
June 6th, 2012, 03:16 PM
Such as? I honestly haven't bumped into any for as long as I can remember. You might find some decrepit old package that's 32-bit only if you go rummaging around outside the repos, but anything that's being properly maintained will be available in 64-bit.




PAE is slower than being able to address that memory natively.
A 64-bit chip is just plain faster at number crunching. Why throttle it down to 32-bit speeds?

There are still some current apps that are 32 bit only. Amazon mp3 downloader for example.

LemursDontExist
June 6th, 2012, 03:57 PM
There are still some current apps that are 32 bit only. Amazon mp3 downloader for example.

Yeah... but at this point they're the weird exceptions, and almost by definition are poorly maintained projects.

If a company or group can't be bothered to provide a 64-bit package nowadays it's pretty much a sure thing that the project has been more or less abandoned and you should be looking for an alternative to use as a replacement.

mips
June 6th, 2012, 06:36 PM
Sorry but as I said there are several apps that are 32bit only. I use several emulators for gaming and one of them is zsnes and its 32bit only and I am not going to use the command like each time just to use it.
)

Erm, I have zsnes installed on my 64-bit system. Works just fine ;)

philinux
June 6th, 2012, 07:12 PM
Erm, I have zsnes installed on my 64-bit system. Works just fine ;)

That'll be multiarch doing its thing. :)

MasterNetra
June 6th, 2012, 07:13 PM
My laptop can handle 64bit, BUT I currently have 1GB of ram thus I won't personally be using 64bit until I eventully get the money to spare to upgrade my ram as I usually push my ram usage to near its limits with games like minecraft. But obviously if you have 3GB+ of ram and/or your not taxing it to near its max then by all means switch to 64bit.

mips
June 7th, 2012, 08:48 AM
That'll be multiarch doing its thing. :)

Correct. I think people still rely on impressions of days gone past when it comes to 64-bit.

I could be wrong on this but the one thing I don't like about the multiarch thing is that the repo updates are so big these days. About 40MB just to update your repos.

thatguruguy
June 7th, 2012, 01:17 PM
Sorry but as I said there are several apps that are 32bit only. I use several emulators for gaming and one of them is zsnes and its 32bit only and I am not going to use the command like each time just to use it.

Gens/GS the same deal and I am not going to compile from source and or anything to make it work in 64bit unless I really have to.
I dont like BSNES and I use emulation to get around that whole "Not many games for linux" thing, sure I can get clones or a Wii or something but I am not opposed to emulation especially for games that cannot be downloaded on the major consoles (such as earthbound)

One of the reasons I moved converted my HTPC running Mythbuntu from 32-bit to 64-bit is because of the console emulators I run. The 64-bit Dolphin-emu runs significantly faster than its 32-bit cousin.

But then again, I run everything from the Mythbuntu frontend, and have had no problems running my SNES games through BSNES using bsnes-performance.

philinux
June 7th, 2012, 01:41 PM
Correct. I think people still rely on impressions of days gone past when it comes to 64-bit.

I could be wrong on this but the one thing I don't like about the multiarch thing is that the repo updates are so big these days. About 40MB just to update your repos.

I think it varies. Some have complained about bandwidth. In that case I would recommend security updates daily and manually update weekly if it's a problem. I think I'm on 40gig a month so I'm not fussed.


sudo apt-get update .....

Fetched 13.5 MB in 17s (793 kB/s)
Reading package lists... Done

mips
June 7th, 2012, 02:57 PM
I think it varies. Some have complained about bandwidth. In that case I would recommend security updates daily and manually update weekly if it's a problem. I think I'm on 40gig a month so I'm not fussed.


sudo apt-get update .....

Fetched 13.5 MB in 17s (793 kB/s)
Reading package lists... Done


Just checked now again and it's gone down to 13.8MB, way less than in the initial days after the release of 12.04. Something I would really like to see implemented in Debian based distros is debdeltas but I understand there are technical issues wrt that currently. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-o-debdelta

Paqman
June 7th, 2012, 04:31 PM
Just checked now again and it's gone down to 13.8MB, way less than in the initial days after the release of 12.04. Something I would really like to see implemented in Debian based distros is debdeltas but I understand there are technical issues wrt that currently. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-o-debdelta

+1

It seems like it's been in the pipeline forever. I'd written it off as vapourware tbh.

subjugater
June 7th, 2012, 10:01 PM
Hi guys,

I am planing to install 64 bit Ubuntu for my new quadcore 6GB-memory laptop and still use my 32 bit Ubuntu desktop. Will there be any conflict using 64 and 32 simultaneously? For example, file transfer between them using dropbox (dropbox is my biggest concern!) or flash drive?

Thanks very much if anybody can let me know.

Paqman
June 8th, 2012, 07:17 AM
Nope, files are the same on any system. It's only software that has to be compiled for a particular architecture.

subjugater
June 8th, 2012, 02:20 PM
Nope, files are the same on any system. It's only software that has to be compiled for a particular architecture.

Thanks for your comments!