32 or 64bit for new system

[gj_clt]

I have just been offered a system - Athlon64 AM2 Dual core 5400,2GB memory,and Nvidia 8400GS graphics or 8500GT for an extra £20. Should I move over to the 64bit version or stick with the 32. I'm not a gamer and don't experiment, just bog standard usage. Is there any great difference in the Graphics cards being offered?

[sydbat]

Give 64bit a go. I have been using it without any problems for over a year (Hardy)...of course, your mileage may vary.

Also, if you already have 32bit on another box, you can compare how each works for you.

Remember, if you have a separate /home partition, you should be able to change back to 32bit if you don't like 64bit.

[sadaruwan12]

Hi,

As sydbat says give the 64bit a go 'cos your CPU will support it and there will some difference in performance as well. And if you have the power just use it if you don't then don't in your case use it theres no harm done and I personally recommend using 64bit on a AMD 'cos it takes the full power of processing and utilizes that RAW power of AMD.

(:lolflag:I love AMD:lolflag:)

[eeeek]

I also have had no troubles running my 64-bit system. It looks and acts the same as a 32 bit (a good bit faster, however).

There is a 64-bit section to this forum. Check out the following sticky under that forum:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=765428

That post helped introduce me to the 64-bit world.

Best of luck,

[leonardo_neo]

You have 2 Gb of RAM. It is not like that you can't run 64 bit with 2 Gb RAM, but the thing is the 64 bit system won't be able to show it's performance at it's max.

It is recommended to have minimum 3 Gb RAM for optimum 64 bit system performance. You won't find much difference in performance if RAM is lesser than that.

So if you are going to to stick with 2 Gb, then I recommend you should stay with 32 bit, and if you can increase the RAM, then you can consider 64 bit.

[binbash]

I would go for 64

[Eisenwinter]

You have a 64bit processor, use a 64bit system.

[gn2]

Go with 64 and the cheaper graphics card.
If the PC has on-board graphics you won't even need a graphics card at all.
2gb of RAM is plenty.

[piousp]

The 8400 will suffice if you dont plan to do some gaming.

A RAW difference between the 8400 gpu and the 8500 is the number of features they have enable. THe 8500 will yeild better performance for intensive-graphics apps (like games :P ).

[gj_clt]

Thanks eeeek that was a useful link. I guess more memory and 64bit will be the way. Any thoughts on the graphics cards?

[gj_clt]

Just beaten with ideas on the graphics card. Thanks. As I'm only paying £120 for the unit it won't break the bank to upgrade memory and thre graphics card

[egalvan]

You have 2 Gb of RAM. It is not like that you can't run 64 bit with 2 Gb RAM,
but the thing is the 64 bit system won't be able to show it's performance at it's max.

It is recommended to have minimum 3 Gb RAM for optimum 64 bit system performance.
You won't find much difference in performance if RAM is lesser than that.


So if you are going to to stick with 2 Gb, then I recommend you should stay with 32 bit,
and if you can increase the RAM, then you can consider 64 bit.

Can you cite a (more or less) authoritative source for this information?

[egalvan]

there is a 64-bit section to this forum.
Check out the following sticky under that forum:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=765428

that post helped introduce me to the 64-bit world.


+1

[Paqman]

Can you cite a (more or less) authoritative source for this information?

I think the point he's making is that one of the main advantages is that it can use 4GB or more of RAM, whereas 32-bit can't. There's no actual problem with using smaller amounts of RAM on 64-bit. You'll still see a performance increase on CPU-intensive tasks.

[Therion]

It is recommended to have minimum 3 Gb RAM for optimum 64 bit system performance. You won't find much difference in performance if RAM is lesser than that.

So if you are going to to stick with 2 Gb, then I recommend you should stay with 32 bit, and if you can increase the RAM, then you can consider 64 bit.
I'm going to have to say "No," to that.

I've used both 32 and 64 bit versions of the same Ubuntu distro before on the same PC (about as side by side a comparison as you could hope for using a single system) and I can tell you there IS a difference between the two even with "only" 2GB of RAM. Ohhh yeah there is. 64-bit is, for lack of a better way to put it, a smoother ride.

[Godly]

32bit. And go with the 8500gt, better graphics obviously, but it's worth it in the long run.

[JK3mp]

64 bit is obviouse choice if you can handle it. As said you should notice a big diffrence. If you want PEAK performance though you can max on the amount of RAM available on board. Good thing about 64bit system is you can basically have UNLIMITED RAM it comes down to amount of slots the motherboard can hold. ;)

[wolfen69]

i use 64 bit and am only using 412mb right now. so yeah, give 64 a shot. 2gb should be plenty. i will never go back to 32bit.

[steve101101]

Yes you do but I have 4GB of RAM on my desktop, but Ubuntu never even utilizes this much for me. I see no real benefit right now to deal with the headaches of 64 bit.

[gn2]

There are no headaches with 64-bit any more, that's all in the past.

[steve101101]

okay. I guess I havent tried in in a year or so. So sorry. Maybe ill try to install 64 bit on my desktop instead of 32bit.

[Mazza558]

Do flash and Java now work out-of-the-box on Ubuntu? Really?

[JK3mp]

Do flash and Java now work out-of-the-box on Ubuntu? Really?

Not that i know of :-S

[gn2]

Yes, after installing ubuntu-restricted-extras, but it's better to use the native 64-bit Flashplayer.
It's very easy to set-up, here's how (http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-to-Install-Adobe-Flash-Player-64-bit-on-Ubuntu-8-10-98076.shtml).

Get it here (http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html).

[Mehashi]

I have just been offered a system - Athlon64 AM2 Dual core 5400,2GB memory,and Nvidia 8400GS graphics or 8500GT for an extra £20. Should I move over to the 64bit version or stick with the 32. I'm not a gamer and don't experiment, just bog standard usage. Is there any great difference in the Graphics cards being offered?

Hello!

If you only use bog standard features and are not a techie I would suggest you use 32 bit for ease of everything. If you are a little bit techie though I would use 64 bit for the smoother multi-tasking (but sometimes have to tweak more than usual 32bit).

Either way if you do not game then you would not need that upgrade for the graphics card. The 8500gt is good though, and my friends keeps up with my newer 9500gt ok, so if you may try some games later then 20 pounds is a good price for that card.

I hope you enjoy your new system either way!
^_^

[gn2]

If you only use bog standard features and are not a techie I would suggest you use 32 bit for ease of everything. If you are a little bit techie though I would use 64 bit for the smoother multi-tasking (but sometimes have to tweak more than usual 32bit).

Can you explain what difficulties you have found with 64-bit?
I've been using it on 8.04 since it was released and have not experienced one single problem which was in any way attributable to it being 64-bit.

[Master Chief]

Despite what some people say here, and the fact that I am using the 64 bit edition of 9.04 myself (this after having used the 64 bit editions of 8.04 and 8.10) I would advise you to go for the 32 bit edition.

The reason for this is my experience with the 64 bit editions over time - just do a search in this very forum to find out how many people had troubles with installing certain devices, and the lack of drivers for the 64 bit editions.

The problem is not Ubuntu [1] but the lack of support from third parties like Canon (just to name one). Oh and 2GB of RAM will do, more (like 4) might be better, but is not required - not without knowing the kind/number of programs and services you are going to need, but the Apache webserver and PHP might be a reason to increase memory (less swap).

FYI: I am a old Unix veteran, developer and Ubuntu advocate so there's no conspiracy or lack of knowledge or understanding here, but whatever your choice might be, you will have difficulties somehow since the learning curve for new Ubuntu users (Linux in general) is still rather steep.

[1] There are people, including me, who still have some (serious) issues with 9.04 (64 bit) and this... wait. Let's just add one independent source: a weblog (http://multizilla.mozdev.org/weblog/weblog.html). This is someone who knows Ubuntu inside out - the same guy who introduced the tabs to the Mozilla world (about:credits). And there are more of us (waiting for bug fixes).

[Mehashi]

Can you explain what difficulties you have found with 64-bit?
I've been using it on 8.04 since it was released and have not experienced one single problem which was in any way attributable to it being 64-bit.

The problems I have had ( I admit this was about 6 months ago ) were not with the OS being 64 bit, but rather with everything else seeming to still be 32 (apps and such).
Drivers were a bit of an issue for me too ( I always seemed to get driver probs at first)

I have nothing against 64bit - I just dual booted to use awkward programs, but was preferable to accept slightly slower multi-threading for sake of convenience in my sake. It depends on the patience of the original poster, he may have no problems at all!

If he is new to ubuntu I would still suggest 32bit. If not, then 64.
^_-

[FredB]

The only big issue is flash. Java - OpenJDK - works perfectly in 64 bits. Been using linux distro in 64 bits since Ubuntu Edgy Eft (6.10), and it is far more simpler since 8.04...

[JK3mp]

hmm..interesting enough to know :D

[scheuri]

I guess I am going to make some people rather angry now, but..

DO NOT use 64bit! I would NOT recommend it!

Reasons:
2GB can be easily accessed with a 32bit OS, there is not need to use 64bit. If you had 4GB or more memory then 64bit is the right choice if you do not want to have any loss of performance due to PAE in 32bit systems which try to access more than 3.6 GB of RAM.

So - as a plain fact: You will get NOTHING out of 64bit in the first place. It does NOT run faster even if people want you to believe it. I will not, as long as no one shows me some serious benchmarks ("feelings" do not count).

There are very well still some issues with 64bit.
The issues do generally NOT lay with the drivers, most - if not all - drivers which will ship with the kernel have a version for 32bit and for 64bit. Some closed source drivers MIGHT have some troubles. Nvidia (at least in my experience) seem to work rather well in 64bit.

However, there are some software pieces that will still make troubles. Most of that software is closed source as well and it is up to you to decide whether you want to go trough manuals to (maybe) fix it.
While java and java plugins should not be an issue anymore in newer relases (because it is available in 64bit) there are still issues with flash (plugins are now available in 64bit, but not yet that easy install, at least not that I know of and are still beta as far as I know) and skype.
There might be some other software which will have troubles.

So, considering that there is no real gain for you (with 2 GB of RAM) in 64bit you might want to reconsider using that even though your CPU might very well handle it.

I personally using 64bit Ubuntu and Sidux, because I have 8 GB RAM on each computer.
However, I experience some issues now and then and I am willing to cope with those.
It is up to you if you want to cope with them too.

cheers
scheuri

[FredB]

Sorry to be so short but this is a lot of nonsense.

Why ?

1) Since 2006, every single CPU from AMD / Intel are 64 bits.
2) 64 bits distros are really usable nowadays.
3) Sure, you know better than people themself what they saw on their computers.

Without these kind of speech, we shall be talking of the need to use the wheel...

[scheuri]

Sorry to be so short but this is a lot of nonsense.


I am sorry, but I disagree...(well, of course I do, but I wanted to be polite...:))



Why ?

1) Since 2006, every single CPU from AMD / Intel are 64 bits.
2) 64 bits distros are really usable nowadays.
3) Sure, you know better than people themself what they saw on their computers.

Without these kind of speech, we shall be talking of the need to use the wheel...

1) sure thing. No argument there. I was not aware that I said otherwise. I do not see the CPU as a problem, not at all.
The CPU will very well handle 32bit and 64bit, no problem!
I am sorry if my "speech" might have made the occurence of saying otherwise. That was NOT my intention. CPU is surely fine.

2) They are...with all software they offer in their official repository.
As soon as you use third party software (either in repositories or donwloaded) you still might run into troubles which do not occure when using 32bit. That includes flash, skype and surely some other software. You can not deny that. Simply not.
Why else are there so many threads in forums "Running [software] with 64bit" telling you about workarounds.
I am sorry to point that out, but beginners might get in more troubles than users who know about those potential issues and who know how to handle them.

3) I guess (I am not sure) you are referring to the "it is faster with 64bit" and me saying that this it not true.
Well, yes, then I do know better than people what they "saw" on their computer.
Please point out an *serious* article with benchmarks that shows that the same hardware will gains more performance (and I am not talking about 1 or 2%) just using the 64bit version of a distribution and I will apologize in every form possible.

If a 64bit version MIGHT turn out with a bit of more performance is very much depenend on the hardware and the driver involved.
It is nothing that can be said generelly (unless you have more than 3 GB of RAM, but that is another issue entierly).

The reason why I was so "DONT DO IT" is simple. All other people said that 64bit will be easy and "go for it" and all. And there are not only few posts with (beginners and pros alike) talking about issues with software when using a 64bit version of a distribution.

I am not saying you can not solve those issues. Some issues are easily solved...very easy. Others might need some more knowledge and I know it can be very frustrating and it may make people turn away from linux just because they used unnecessary approaches before they got some knowledge how things work.

In this particular case (with 2 GB RAM) there is simply no reason to go 64bit. Otherwise I am wondering why distributions are still made for i386 (instead of i686 or actually 64bit only), because - as you pointed out exactly - for over two years now the CPUs can handle i686 and 64bit. Just a little opposition to your example with the wheel...:)

Sorry if I have offended anyone, but that is simply how I see it.

cheers
scheuri

[dt_]

Thanks for the insights, scheuri. I need a functional Skype and I found that 32-bit Ubuntu has enough trouble with that as it is :D (audio / mic capture issues mostly) so I will stick to 32-bit with my 3 GB of RAM.

[gj_clt]

I was beginning to think I shouldn't have asked!
As I have always had a /home partition and as a hangover from problems with the other system a disciplined approach to back-ups, reinstalling is not an issue so I will start with 32bit, keep an eye on the 64bit forum and maybe later set up a dual boot with 64bit and see how things go. Thank you all.

[FredB]

I am sorry, but I disagree...(well, of course I do, but I wanted to be polite...:))



1) sure thing. No argument there. I was not aware that I said otherwise. I do not see the CPU as a problem, not at all.
The CPU will very well handle 32bit and 64bit, no problem!

In my opinion, using 32 bits software is using half the power of your cpu.


I am sorry if my "speech" might have made the occurence of saying otherwise. That was NOT my intention. CPU is surely fine.

Ok.


2) They are...with all software they offer in their official repository.

Not only.



As soon as you use third party software (either in repositories or donwloaded) you still might run into troubles which do not occure when using 32bit. That includes flash, skype and surely some other software. You can not deny that. Simply not.

Erh. You're wrong for at least a software : there is a development - and not too badly working - version of 64 bits flash.

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/


Why else are there so many threads in forums "Running [software] with 64bit" telling you about workarounds.
I am sorry to point that out, but beginners might get in more troubles than users who know about those potential issues and who know how to handle them.

And most of them could be considered as not longer useful.



3) I guess (I am not sure) you are referring to the "it is faster with 64bit" and me saying that this it not true.
Well, yes, then I do know better than people what they "saw" on their computer.

Please point out an *serious* article with benchmarks that shows that the same hardware will gains more performance (and I am not talking about 1 or 2%) just using the 64bit version of a distribution and I will apologize in every form possible.

Serious ? Something that doesn't exist, so ?

64 bits will be the basis in a year or two...


If a 64bit version MIGHT turn out with a bit of more performance is very much depenend on the hardware and the driver involved.
It is nothing that can be said generelly (unless you have more than 3 GB of RAM, but that is another issue entierly).

Is fully using a CPU more performance ?


The reason why I was so "DONT DO IT" is simple. All other people said that 64bit will be easy and "go for it" and all. And there are not only few posts with (beginners and pros alike) talking about issues with software when using a 64bit version of a distribution.

Non-free software 99% of the time I guess ?


I am not saying you can not solve those issues. Some issues are easily solved...very easy. Others might need some more knowledge and I know it can be very frustrating and it may make people turn away from linux just because they used unnecessary approaches before they got some knowledge how things work.

As we say in France : just put your fingers out of you *** and find infos.


In this particular case (with 2 GB RAM) there is simply no reason to go 64bit. Otherwise I am wondering why distributions are still made for i386 (instead of i686 or actually 64bit only), because - as you pointed out exactly - for over two years now the CPUs can handle i686 and 64bit. Just a little opposition to your example with the wheel...:)


There is one reason, besides the amount of ram : more 64 bits users, more 64 bits non-free software.


Sorry if I have offended anyone, but that is simply how I see it.

cheers
scheuri

You see it in a wrong way, in my opinion. Is it true also I do computing since 8 bits computers time.

[civillian]

I'm inclined to agree with you, FredB simply because the more users we have on 64bit linux, the better it will become! (Im am using 64bit jaunty with no problems since the beginning of the week)

To my eyes, scheuri, I think rather than saying you get no speed benefits using >4GB of RAM under a 64bit OS, what you should be saying is, when you have >4GB of RAM you experience no slowdown in 32bit linux. (my opinion only)

The only problem I have had is with installing linux drivers for my printer (a Canon Pixma ip2600) and I have installed the drivers using

dpkg -i --force-architecture

which I can report works well!

[scheuri]

Hi FredB

My apologies, but I can not let all of your arguments go uncommented.


In my opinion, using 32 bits software is using half the power of your cpu.


I beg your pardon, but I do not see any connection of CPU power (as in speed and even performance) and the use of (most) 32bit/64bit software.
The way you write it I have to say: "No, that is wrong!".

Reason:
A 3 GHz CPU does not run slower or faster when using 32bit or 64bit software.
It is (for most software) only the issue of addressing more than 4 GB of RAM or being compiled to be considered to be used with 64bit kernels and software around.
I tend to say that 90% (or even more) of the software (closed and open source together) is exactly this.
Of course, if you use specialised software (math stuff usually as encrypting or rendering -not playing - movie/pics stuff) is programmed to actually use the advantage of calculating larger integer, then you are right.
But let us be honest, there is still not this many software explicitly taking advantage of this. Most of the software is just simply compiled to be used in a 64bit enviroment.

As a first source to that subject I would consider:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-Bit-Architektur (german)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit (see chapter 32bit vs 64bit)

So, in other words:
I am still confident that saying 64bit is running faster (in general) is wrong. Simply wrong and therefore wrong advertisement.
And adding the issues which still persist in my opinion (and will be surely take care of in one or two years I guess) promoting 64bit blindly is not the best thing to do in my opinion.


As for flash and closed source software in general:
Yes, you are right. Flash has a development version (which indeed does not work that bad) out. However, it is still development. But then again I am not sure if that is not just the whole 32bit program code rewritten to be compiled in 64bit without any "real" advantage (expect of course the memory adressing).
I agree with you that a lot of companies started to make more and more 64bit software and in a few years (not one or two, but in a few in my opinion) the whole i386 compiling will be narrowed down, maybe even the i686 compiling.

Another thing I agree partially, however I am not sure about the approach to achieve it:
More 64bit users, more 64bit software.
However, it can not happen for the sake of having issues (now and then) and freaking away the users to other OS or back to 32bit.
And of course, it happens only if people start to have 4 GB or more RAM (as it started about a year ago when computers where on sale with 4 GB and more).

Sure, people using linux are aware of the fact that they need to stick their finger out of their...you know...to get facts and info.
And beginners should know that this is one of the most different things to windows...and that they should get started to get used to that soon.
But still...let them running into problems which might not be necessary is a bad thing in my opinion.

And no, sorry...not most of the forum articles which deal with 64bit issues are old and obsolet. I think that most are still very valid and in use even though they might not have been updated for a while now.
But that is probably depending on the point of view.




You see it in a wrong way, in my opinion. Is it true also I do computing since 8 bits computers time.

Please, I do not want to offend you. However, I still do not agree with your point of view. Mostly because it lacks proof (especially the performance part).

cheers
scheuri

[freak42]

You have 2 Gb of RAM. It is not like that you can't run 64 bit with 2 Gb RAM, but the thing is the 64 bit system won't be able to show it's performance at it's max.

It is recommended to have minimum 3 Gb RAM for optimum 64 bit system performance. You won't find much difference in performance if RAM is lesser than that.

So if you are going to to stick with 2 Gb, then I recommend you should stay with 32 bit, and if you can increase the RAM, then you can consider 64 bit.

This guy is confusing things...
* It is recommended to have a 64bit install if you have more than 3 Gigs of memory to address all your memory directly (you can't do that with a 32 gig system.
* I don't think 64bit system performances degrades in any way if you use less than 3 Gigs of memory, to the contrary, I think 64bit system performance will also be better than a 32 bit system even on those systems.

hth

[scheuri]

This guy is confusing things...
* It is recommended to have a 64bit install if you have more than 3 Gigs of memory to address all your memory directly (you can't do that with a 32 gig system.
* I don't think 64bit system performances degrades in any way if you use less than 3 Gigs of memory, to the contrary, I think 64bit system performance will also be better than a 32 bit system even on those systems.

hth

Sorry to point that out again.
Your second point (about 64bit being faster) is not proven.
64bit on a system will be the same performance as 32bit.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

(für di no uf dütsch: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-Bit-Architektur ;))

He can choose 32bit as well as 64bit.
However, I'd say that there are more issues with closed source software (which is commonly used such as skype and flash) in 64bit than in 32bit. There is no gain in this particular setting in using 64bit.

But I guess I will stop now...I made my point...:)
cheers
scheuri

[Mehashi]

I was beginning to think I shouldn't have asked!

Lol! 32 vs 64 = windows vs linux = mod vs rocker and so on! Always a heated discussion with many valid (but conflicting) opinions!


As I have always had a /home partition and as a hangover from problems with the other system a disciplined approach to back-ups, reinstalling is not an issue so I will start with 32bit, keep an eye on the 64bit forum and maybe later set up a dual boot with 64bit and see how things go. Thank you all.

This is your best solution for sure! Keep a seperate /home and dual boot. You are the only person who can say what works best on your system (remember computers seem to have personalities, just because they share specs does not always mean consistent performance with each other!)

I dual booted because I am a little lazy, if something worked in 32 but not in 64 I could simply reboot rather than spend time to fix it. I know that is lazy, but my time on the net = money, so if I get slowed down by problems, I lose potential income.

If you dual boot, take some benchmarks on each architecture for performance on your commonly used programs over a period of time and multitasking, then compare the data. The choice will become obvious for you dependant on your personal data - rather than data from a different system. If you have the hard drive space to dual boot then I highly recommend it until you gain confidence in 64bit-land!

Good luck anyway! I hope you enjoy playing with your new toy!
^_^

[freak42]

Sorry to point that out again.
Your second point (about 64bit being faster) is not proven.
64bit on a system will be the same performance as 32bit.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

(für di no uf dütsch: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-Bit-Architektur ;))

He can choose 32bit as well as 64bit.
However, I'd say that there are more issues with closed source software (which is commonly used such as skype and flash) in 64bit than in 32bit. There is no gain in this particular setting in using 64bit.

But I guess I will stop now...I made my point...:)
cheers
scheuri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#Pros_and_cons
quote: "A common misconception is that 64-bit architectures are no better than 32-bit architectures unless the computer has more than 4 GB of memory. ..."
(oder uf dütsch: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-Bit-Architektur#Vorteile :-P)

[gn2]

Please point out an *serious* article with benchmarks that shows that the same hardware will gains more performance (and I am not talking about 1 or 2%) just using the 64bit version of a distribution and I will apologize in every form possible.

What is generally found is that encoding tasks complete significantly faster in 64 than in 32 bit.

As demonstrated here (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_810_vs_fedora_10&num=4).

Also, I haven't a clue what this benchmark (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_810_vs_fedora_10&num=6) means, but 64 is very definitely better.

Bottom line, in CPU intensive tasks like encoding, it's not unusual to see a 33% performance increase with 64.

EDIT: As for 64-bit Flash, it can be installed very easily without even opening a terminal, as per the links I posted earlier.
It works far better than the 32 bit with nspluginwrapper which tends to go mad with the CPU load making the cooling fans spin up and the PC get noisy.
With the Adobe 64 bit development version, it's stable as a rock and doesn't spin the fans up.

[Paqman]

So - as a plain fact: You will get NOTHING out of 64bit in the first place. It does NOT run faster even if people want you to believe it. I will not, as long as no one shows me some serious benchmarks ("feelings" do not count).


I might just take you up on that. I've been meaning to benchmark it myself for a while. I fail to see how 64-bit could be anything but faster for a CPU-intensive task like video encoding, but i'd like to see the numbers.

It'll mean installing a 32-bit copy of Ubuntu though, so let me get back to you on it.

[scheuri]

What is generally found is that encoding tasks complete significantly faster in 64 than in 32 bit.

As demonstrated here (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_810_vs_fedora_10&num=4).

Also, I haven't a clue what this benchmark (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_810_vs_fedora_10&num=6) means, but 64 is very definitely better.

Bottom line, in CPU intensive tasks like encoding, it's not unusual to see a 33% performance increase with 64.


The benchmarks you are referring to indeed show a better performance. A much better performance indeed.
However, as you already pointed out, this is for calculations in rendering and (see the phoronix benchmark, if I am not mistaken) encryption/decryption. Those software is actually written to take full advantage of 64bit enviroments.
So, yes, you are right!

A "normal" User on the other hand will not do such things often (or at all). That is what I believe and claim and therefore I said that in this case 32bit is likely the better choice.
But those among us doing such things are quite obvious better off with 64bit software/enviroment.
But then again I guess that those people using more than 4 GB of RAM anyway...;)

As for flash, yes...the new 64bit seems to work very well and is surely not much longer an issue.

Thanks for all those information. It was a very interesting read.

cheers
scheuri

[gn2]

A "normal" User on the other hand will not do such things often (or at all).

Have to disagree with that, many people do encoding tasks with their computers, both video and audio.
Does doing so make them abnormal?

RAM amount is a total red herring.
I have 1gb in my 64-bit OS desktop and it does video encoding much faster than it used to when it had 32-bit.

[Mehashi]

Have to disagree with that, many people do encoding tasks with their computers, both video and audio.
Does doing so make them abnormal?

RAM amount is a total red herring.
I have 1gb in my 64-bit OS desktop and it does video encoding much faster than it used to when it had 32-bit.

I have found that when encoding and compiling my ram goes up quite a lot but my cpu goes very high, so I suppose 64bit seems to boost the cpu calculation speed rather than cache more data in ram?

I say this as I have only 2Gb ram in a 64 bit windows/ 32 bit Ibex computer at the moment and Compiling is quicker on windows by far, but when I was using 32 bit windows it was much faster on Ubuntu. So even with only 2gb ram I still seem to be getting a marked improvement in cpu heavy tasks.

I will try the new 64 Jaunty now that it is out and compare with 64bit windows. It should make linux faster again....
^_*