PDA

View Full Version : [all variants] 64-bit for 600 MB RAM?



Bucic
March 9th, 2011, 09:30 PM
Is it worth it to install 64-bit version of Ubuntu on 600 MB RAM low-end computer? All FAQs and posts mention 3 GB RAM limit as the main culprit of 32-bit versions but obviously it's not my concern.

kerry_s
March 9th, 2011, 09:40 PM
yes, it's fine. i had 64bit with 512mb starting out.
the purpose of 64bit is to take advantage of 64bit features, not just support more ram, it does more than that.

make sure you make at least a gig of swap, 64bit will use about a 100mb more memory than 32bit would use, your system will still be faster with 64bit.

TenPlus1
March 9th, 2011, 10:49 PM
Having a 64-bit Ubuntu running will use more memory than the standard 32-bit version because of the longer memory addresses so it's probably easier to simple use 32-bit ubuntu until you get more than 1gb memory to use...

Bucic
March 10th, 2011, 09:08 AM
So, it looks like a draw and I need more opinions. :)

Hedgehog1
March 10th, 2011, 09:16 AM
Another opinion then:

Buy more RAM, and install the 64 bit.

If you will are not able to buy more RAM, go 32 bit, as this is compatible with even the oldest processors.

The Hedge

:KS

Dutch70
March 10th, 2011, 09:30 AM
I say if your processor can handle 64-bit, why not take advantage of it?
64 bit or 32 bit (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/32bit_and_64bit#What%20should%20I%20choose%20-%2032%20or%2064%20bit?)
As previously suggested, I would go with at least 1GB of swap, or more if you plan to upgrade your RAM in the future.
SwapFAQ's (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SwapFaq#How%20much%20swap%20do%20I%20need?)
You may want to increase the recommended amounts here due to the 64-bit version.

Hedgehog1
March 10th, 2011, 09:34 AM
And the votes are even once again... :D

kerry_s
March 10th, 2011, 11:46 AM
it don't matter, really. performance gains are minimal.

i like the feeling of 64bit on my system, just feels faster.

currently i'm running 32bit 11.04, because i made a usb installer for a friend & figured i'd just use what i got & switch to 64bit when 11.04 is released.

Bucic
March 10th, 2011, 11:59 AM
Buying more RAM is not an option. I bought this zombie-laptop for a reason ;) and the compatible SODIMMs are overpriced as hell! A minimum sensible memory upgrade would cost me ~30% of what I have paid for the laptop.

II:
What I was hoping for is that negligible performance boost due to 64 bit would be followed by a more significant boost due to 64 bit systems and apps being compiled for newer CPU architecture (mine is AMD Turion 64). AFAIK all 32-bit Ubuntus and apps are compiled "to be on teh safe side" i.e. for crappy generic i386 architecture.

If the II is not true I >will< stick to 32-bit and install 64-bit only when I'll be doing a completely fresh Ubuntu install (without restoring any backed up settings).

Dutch70
March 11th, 2011, 04:34 AM
The best thing to do here is try it out first hand on your computer.

If you're creating a partition for /home, then you'll be able to try one out for a few days & if you don't like it. It takes less than an hour to install the other.

Bucic
March 11th, 2011, 08:36 AM
The best thing to do here is try it out first hand on your computer.

If you're creating a partition for /home, then you'll be able to try one out for a few days & if you don't like it. It takes less than an hour to install the other.
You know perfectly well that even in case of one compatibility problem installing is nothing compared to configuring. And I face two compatibility problems on my laptop.

CrooKxD
March 11th, 2011, 08:41 AM
If your processor can handle it I would do it for shits and grins, but I will say this I am using 64 bit Ubuntu and I dare say 90% of whats running in my processes are 32bit apps...Id upgrade the RAM before going 64bit since the 64bit OS isnt as widely supported as the 32bit (Your not going to be taking full advantage of the 64 bit OS if the apps are 32bit and the larger memory addresses will probably hang u up at some point)

Dutch70
March 11th, 2011, 08:59 AM
You know perfectly well that even in case of one compatibility problem installing is nothing compared to configuring. And I face two compatibility problems on my laptop.

You're quite welcome! :roll:

Bucic
March 11th, 2011, 12:50 PM
@CrooKxD
So 64-bit system alone doesn't give considerable benefits? After all system components need memory and CPU too.

@Dutch70
I didn't mean to sound like an ungrateful bustard, sorry ;)

An Sanct
March 11th, 2011, 01:37 PM
I'd say, go for the 64bit option - always. (if the processor supports it)

Bucic
March 11th, 2011, 02:02 PM
I'd say, go for the 64bit option - always. (if the processor supports it)
Why? Lets say I'm marketing-proof :-k

An Sanct
March 11th, 2011, 03:48 PM
64bit ... hm :) well, is more than 32bit ;)

okay, here is an example stolen from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit):


Some 64-bit architectures, such as x86-64 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64), allow for more general purpose registers than their 32-bit counterparts. This is a significant speed increase for tight loops since the processor doesn't have to fetch data from the cache or main memory if the data can fit in the available registers. Example in C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_%28programming_language%29):

for (a=0; a<100; a++)
{
b = a;
c = b;
d = c;
e = d;
}If a processor only has the ability to keep two three values/variables in registers it would need to move some values between the stack and registers to be able to process variable d and e as well; this is a process that takes a lot of CPU cycles. A processor that is capable of holding all the values/variables in registers can simply just loop through this without needing to move data between registers and memory for each iteration. This behavior can easily be compared with virtual memory, although any effects are contingent upon the compiler.
And yes, 64bit OS uses more ram then 32bit OS.

PS. I would go 64bit for sure, even with 512Mb ram...
Take a look at the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit) article, it has a "pro/con" side, so you can choose easier.

Bucic
March 23rd, 2011, 11:29 AM
In the end I bought 1 GB of RAM for the zombie. It used to run on 1x250 MB and 1x512 MB of RAM. I replaced the 250 one with a 1 GB piece. Not only it used to be a low amount of RAM for a contemporary computer but also the 250 piece was running... at 133 MHz! :shock: So my whole memory package used to work at 133 MHz.

Now all work at 333 MHz with 1.3 GB available for system (excluding the portion reserved by graphics). It's a whole new system now.

I was also planning on buying "the fastest HDD for notebooks" (Samsung something) but it turned out that it's not much better than my original one in terms of access times, which parameter is crucial for desktop applications (continuous read/write speed being much less important). A huge thanks to HD Tune team and their database! =D>