32bits or 64bits

[remmas-sido]

Hi guys
I have 32 bits Intel, 3GB RAM. My concern is will I be able to run 64 bits ubuntu version natively? because in the download option in Ubuntu website I read that 32 bits is for laptops with less than 2GB RAM.

[Bucky Ball]

You can not run 64bit OS on a 32bit processor, regardless of the amount of RAM. **bit refers to the processor, not the RAM. Good luck.

[sudodus]

The Intel i3 processor runs with 64-bits.

[Bucky Ball]

The Intel i3 processor runs with 64-bits.

I'm running one right now and it is a 64bit processor. ;)

[remmas-sido]

I'm running one right now and it is a 64bit processor. ;)

Can Intel Core 2 Duo run 64bits?

[sudodus]

Yes

See the overview near the end of this web page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Intel_processors

[remmas-sido]

Yes
Thank you for your quick reply, I now believe that what makes linux different is the background community.

[sudodus]

You are welcome :-)

[grahammechanical]

Since we are muddying the waters - I am running 64bit Ubuntu on a 64 bit Intel CPU but with only 1 GB of RAM.

The important point for the original poster is, as already stated, 64 bit Ubuntu will not run on a 32 bit CPU, which is what the original poster says he has.

As an aside, why is the web site recommending 32 bit for machines with less than 2 GB RAM? Most likely because there is a good chance that a machine sold with less than 2 GB of RAM would also have a 32 bit CPU. There would be exceptions. As 32 bit Ubuntu will run on both 32 bit and 64 bit CPUs the recommendation to use 32 bit Ubuntu on machines with less than 2 GB is a safe recommendation.

My machine is self built. That is why it has a 64 bit CPU but only 1 GB RAM.

Regards.

[v3.xx]

Hi guys
I have 32 bits Intel, 3GB RAM. My concern is will I be able to run 64 bits ubuntu version natively? because in the download option in Ubuntu website I read that 32 bits is for laptops with less than 2GB RAM.

My laptop has a Core 2 and I have ran both 32 & 64bit on it. Can't say that I seen a performance different after switching to 64.

[Topsiho]

The only thing that the OP says is, that he has a 32-bit processor. It is 32 bits, whatever processor other people use. Whatever the amount of RAM. So he can't run a 64-bit OS on it. The choice is simple.

Howgh :)

Topsiho

[remmas-sido]

My laptop has a Core 2 and I have ran both 32 & 64bit on it. Can't say that I seen a performance different after switching to 64.

So, it's better to stick to your processeur architecture?

[Bucky Ball]

So, it's better to stick to your processeur architecture?

Yes. Use the 64bit ISO if you have an i3, as you mentioned was the case in another thread. ;)

[Topsiho]

I did not see the other thread, so my point is pointless ( :) ).

If I have to read all threads before reacting to one, life gets too difficult for me. Poor me ...

If you have a 64 bits processor, best thing to do is use the 64 bit .iso. In the past the 32 bit one was recommended as it was far more used, and so better tested. But those times are gone by now, and the reverse is now true.
It is true that 64 bits versus 32 bits doesn't mean a speed increase of 100%, as one might think ("64 bits" means data are manipulated in the processor in chunks of 64 bits, and "32 bits" ... yes!).

Topsiho

[Penguin360]

If you have a piece of land with 32 square feet area, then you can build a house with 32 square feet area max, and a 64 square feet house will not fit in the land. However, if you land is 64 square feet, then you can choose to build a house of either 32 square feet or 64 square feet. That is how I explain to someone who has little knowledge of computer architecture. Not completely correct metaphor, but usually can get my point made.