PDA

View Full Version : 32 with pae kernal bit vs 64 bit



Primefalcon
August 22nd, 2012, 01:47 AM
Ok I've heard it over and over again that the only real advantage 64 bit gives you is that your able to access more than 4gb of ram...

with a 32 bit pae kernal... you can as well? so what advantage does 64 bit give over a 32 bit pae kernal?

Paqman
August 22nd, 2012, 02:22 AM
so what advantage does 64 bit give over a 32 bit pae kernal?

It's heaps faster at anything computationally intensive, such as video transcoding, compression, or encryption. Also, PAE is a bit of a dirty hack. If you want to address lots of RAM, proper 64-bit is the way to go.

Since it's almost impossible to buy anything with a 32-bit only CPU these days, why use 32-bit? I've got a couple of 32-bit netbooks at home, but after they're dead I won't ever be using 32-bit again.

thatguruguy
August 22nd, 2012, 02:39 AM
You should read this (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/32bit_and_64bit). Or, any of the dozens of threads on this topic in recurring discussions, the sub-forum to which this thread will be transported soon.

oldos2er
August 22nd, 2012, 02:45 AM
Moved to Recurring.

thatguruguy
August 22nd, 2012, 03:33 AM
... and by "soon" I apparently meant "in five minutes."

KiwiNZ
August 22nd, 2012, 03:39 AM
... and by "soon" I apparently meant "in five minutes."

Thats because oldos2er is using 64bit :p

thatguruguy
August 22nd, 2012, 04:08 AM
Thats because oldos2er is using 64bit :p

Once 128-bit OS's start being used, threads will be moved to Recurring before they're even posted!

KiwiNZ
August 22nd, 2012, 04:11 AM
Once 128-bit OS's start being used, threads will be moved to Recurring before they're even posted!

Thats our goal, we will be writing them in advance for the members :p:D

Primefalcon
August 22nd, 2012, 04:41 AM
Can't wait for 512 bit or 1024 bit :O

zombifier25
August 22nd, 2012, 06:26 AM
Robots AI will be perfected by then :)

synaptix
August 22nd, 2012, 05:32 PM
It's heaps faster at anything

I find 64 bit to be faster at pretty much everything, outside of the normal intensive tasks.

vexorian
August 23rd, 2012, 01:12 AM
I think there is a point at which more bits would give diminishing returns. Most operations in normal life involve not big numbers but a large amount of compound operations. So probably, if we had space in a chip to have 1024 bits, using the space for more cores would be more advantageous.

64 bits and 128 bits are cool because we really do need them for precision in floating point operations and of course native non-hacky access to more than 4GB of RAM. But 64 bits won't be obsolete because of RAM requirements until we reach software requirements of more than 2097152 terabytes of RAM... Then we have 128 bits, and that's more data than the current total storage in earth... It is amazing for cryptography and stuff. But I just think that at some point the architecture's amount of bits is so large, that doubling it becomes an exercise without much benefit beyond number crunching.

64 bits is already so powerful that I wonder how long it would take for 128 bits to be used in desktops and laptops. In fact, it seems that 128 bits is already used on the stuff that really needs it - GPUs .


(Note 64 bits OS is faster than 32 bits OS because the processor's architecture is 64 bits)

QIII
August 23rd, 2012, 01:17 AM
It costs 64 bits for a bad cup of coffee at Starbuck's these days.

oldfred
August 23rd, 2012, 05:33 AM
@QIII

It costs 64 bits for a bad cup of coffee at Starbuck's these days.
:lolflag:
I am glad I looked at this thread this evening and not tomorrow morning or my coffee would be all over the place. Or maybe even then I would have my excuse to build a new system.

pcybill
August 24th, 2012, 12:42 AM
I welcome our new android overlords. ):P