Why is it so hard to find a 64bit download??

[mikewhatever]

A 2X increase in performance on some tasks is insignificant?

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...u_32_pae&num=1

O rly?

These tests are rather conclusive indeed. Do you have more from other sources to confirm the results? Searching Phoronix turned up more 64bit vs 32bit tests none of which were clearly in favor of the former.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item=616&num=1
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item=998&num=2

Now, what do these findings mean for end users anyway. Let's say I have a T5650 core2duo notebook with 1-2GB of RAM. Would my programs start and perform faster, would boot times decrease, would the notebook run cooler and battery time increase? Anything else?
I've tested a 64 bit Ubuntu 9.04 last year, and the only advantage was a barely noticeable performance boots. On the other hand, I had to deal with nspluginwrapper, ia32 and other such nonsense, that made my computing experience worse.
I honestly don't care about 10,000 apache requests per second, so give me a 'real' reason to consider 64bit.

[NEUR0M4NCER]

I don't know what to say - I made a moronic mistake.

Forgive my previous ire, I think I was so stressed at my computer spazzing out that I was getting click happy, and needed to vent somewhere. To clarify the final line of my comment:

... or should I take this as a none-too-subtle hint that I should go back to 32bit?

That was slightly tongue in cheek - I only have 2GB memory, but I've been happily using Ubuntu AMD64 for quite some time now, and don't intend to go back to 32bit any time soon.

On the plus side, I inadvertently created yet another 32bit vs AMD64 war - can never have too many of those, right?

[mikewhatever]

......

On the plus side, I inadvertently created yet another 32bit vs AMD64 war - can never have too many of those, right?

How about an exchange of opinions? I mean, if we really had all these so called wars, 64 vs 32, browsers, Linux vs Windows, then where are the killed, the wounded and the captured? Where are the destruction and the ruins, so very much characteristic of any war? Not blaming anyone in particular, I think the English oriented media ridicules itself by alluding to wars on most inappropriate occasions. But that's just me, anyway.

[NEUR0M4NCER]

For the most part, everyday English language is based upon allusions, assumptions and sheer incorrect grammar...

As for the English oriented media (thanks for not using the word 'orientated' - makes me wanna claw my eyes out!), they cater to nations that are very much insulated from the horror of war; when the word's used the way I used it, it's meant to refer to the basic concept of conflict, & groups with opposing ideas/ideals/beliefs.

So if you prefer I use the more politically correct 'conflict', that's fine, but an 'exchange of ideas' is certainly not what tends to occur when discussing 32bit vs AMD64 on web based forums.

/ot

Regards!

[cascade9]

Now, what do these findings mean for end users anyway. Let's say I have a T5650 core2duo notebook with 1-2GB of RAM. Would my programs start and perform faster, would boot times decrease, would the notebook run cooler and battery time increase? Anything else?

Missed my previous link?

Well, its with a dual-core Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB of RAM. (not copied at test results, just a few. Apart from the point of flash, covered below, 64bit is faster in every test)
32bit vs 64bit
Start time - slightly faster - 49sec vs 47sec
Unzipping- faster - 22.9sec vs 21.2sec
Ogg encoding- way faster- 145sec vs 83sec
Flash Benchmark- Slower -1843 vs 1804 (32bit in 64bit), pure 64bit alpha is faster- 1982

No, they didnt test program start times (its a right pain to do that and never reliable). Battery times also not tested, but they should increase slightly, as the 64bit core does more work per cycle,and therefore it should finish any given task faster and drop back to idle (low power usage).

These tests are rather conclusive indeed. Do you have more from other sources to confirm the results? Searching Phoronix turned up more 64bit vs 32bit tests none of which were clearly in favor of the former.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item=616&num=1

December, 2006 test with ubuntu 6.10 and 7.04 (alpha).Hardly current, and really only worth using as a comparison to later 64bit builds. Everything apart from compilation is faster in 32bit, (with a 49/51 result in favour of 64bit in RAM speed). What is interesting is that the kernel compilation increase for 64bit over 32bit is similar to the current advantage in 64bit for the same task.

But that test is so old that its not funny.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item=998&num=2

February, 2008 using ubuntu 8.04 alpha. Newer, but alpha software is never a real world comparison.

5 framerate tests that show nothing but inconsistency that you could easily explain away as game code/ATI driver issues. Encoding and gzip compression are showing advantages to 64bit again though.

I've tested a 64 bit Ubuntu 9.04 last year, and the only advantage was a barely noticeable performance boots. On the other hand, I had to deal with nspluginwrapper, ia32 and other such nonsense, that made my computing experience worse.
I honestly don't care about 10,000 apache requests per second, so give me a 'real' reason to consider 64bit.

nspluginwrapper should be needed far less, if at all, by 'average' users once adobe actually gets the real 64bit flash out of alpha/beta. Which shouldnt be that long now.

Yeah, you can call at the advantages enjoyed by 32bit over 64bit as 'not real world effective', 'not worth it' etc. But people pay lots more dollars for a scant 5-10% increase in performance when they buy CPUs all the time, and here you can get similar (or far greater gains) in many tasks, for nothing more than a reinstall or even just picking the right version to download.

I'll admit that flash can be a pain. But personally I've had no more issues with it than under 32bit, using the standard 32bit flash or the 64bit alpha. Like they say though, YMMV (your mileage may vary).