PDA

View Full Version : Wait hold on: Core 2 Duo 64 bit?



SomeGuyDude
November 17th, 2007, 06:55 PM
It looks like this hasn't been touched on since Gutsy came out, so here we go again.

I've got a Core 2 Duo proc in my notebook and in looking it up on Wikipedia I noticed it's 64 bit. Surprise, surprise.

So should I be downloading that version of these distros? Could that be part of why things haven't been as responsive as they should have been? Also, it's intel, not AMD, so might that mean I should avoid the 64-bit versions since they all seem to say "AMD64"?

LaRoza
November 17th, 2007, 06:58 PM
All the new processors will be 64 bit. The Intel Core 2 Duo is the latest and greatest Intel processor, which is better than anything AMD has made so far.

If you "should" install 64 bit, is up to you. I would wait for people who use 64 bit, before installing.

mellowd
November 17th, 2007, 06:58 PM
It's called AMD64 because they came out with it first. Intel originally decided to to with IA-64 which just never took off in the desktop market.

You can certainly install the 64bit version but there is hardly any difference to be honest. There should be no problem whatsover running it. Unless you are going to need the ability to map 4GB+ Ram it isn't really needed

helliewm
November 17th, 2007, 07:00 PM
Don't worry 64 bit works fine on my Intel Quad Core Desktop and Core 2 Duo laptop. 64 bit seems more responsive I am totally 64 bit.

Helen

p_quarles
November 17th, 2007, 07:02 PM
I'm running the 64 bit version on an Intel chip (Pentium D), and it's quite nice. Gutsy is one of the easiest 64 bit distros ever made.

And it's not true that 64 bits only make a difference with high levels of RAM. Any processor intensive application (compiling, encoding, rendering) will see a noticeable increase in performance.

miggols99
November 17th, 2007, 07:23 PM
It looks like this hasn't been touched on since Gutsy came out, so here we go again.

I've got a Core 2 Duo proc in my notebook and in looking it up on Wikipedia I noticed it's 64 bit. Surprise, surprise.

So should I be downloading that version of these distros? Could that be part of why things haven't been as responsive as they should have been? Also, it's intel, not AMD, so might that mean I should avoid the 64-bit versions since they all seem to say "AMD64"?
I found out that my Pentium 4 was 64bit, I have definately seen a speed increase and everything feels overall very snappy. I think only the new Pentium 4s are 64bit. I definately recommend using 64bit. Flash and Java are easily solved. And there aren't any apps missing.

SomeGuyDude
November 17th, 2007, 07:23 PM
Hm. Don't think I'll upgrade then. I don't do much compiling or rendering. Thanks for the snappy responses, folks.

p_quarles
November 17th, 2007, 07:32 PM
Hm. Don't think I'll upgrade then. I don't do much compiling or rendering. Thanks for the snappy responses, folks.
Yeah, I decided to upgrade because I wanted to re-rip my CD collection to FLAC.

Lots of people say that they feel like they're "wasting" their processing power by using a 32 bit system, and that's kinda true. On the other hand, if you use closed source apps, you often have to wait longer. The Skype beta 2.0 isn't available in 64 bit yet, and Opera has only released a 64 bit version recently with the 9.5 beta. There are relatively easy workarounds for many of these apps, though.

rsambuca
November 17th, 2007, 07:38 PM
It's called AMD64 because they came out with it first. Intel originally decided to to with IA-64 which just never took off in the desktop market.

You can certainly install the 64bit version but there is hardly any difference to be honest. There should be no problem whatsover running it. Unless you are going to need the ability to map 4GB+ Ram it isn't really needed

This is simply incorrect. It is dependent on your application and tasks. Just because you don't notice a difference doesn't mean that others won't depending on their usage. Prior to telling people there is no difference, you should find out what they will be doing with their computer.

Frankly, with the great work that has been done on the 64bit platform, there really is no reason not to be using 64bit linux OS nowadays.

mellowd
November 17th, 2007, 08:37 PM
Conversely, 64-bit binaries are not twice as fast, either. You are unlikely to notice any discernible speed difference, particularly with desktop apps. Of course, one of the primary advantages of 64-bit Linux is the ability to load your system up with north of four gigabytes of RAM -- and if you do that, things will run pretty smoothly.

But the fact remains that the real performance benefits of 64-bit computing are not found in day-to-day applications. Addressing enormous chunks of memory, working with gargantuan databases -- these tasks are still primarily in the domain of servers.

I doubt this is being done on a laptop?

stimpack
November 17th, 2007, 08:39 PM
Newb semantic question: 64bit is needed for 4GB+ of ram, I see this all the time. Does this include 4GB *exactly* ? :confused: As my next system will have exactly 4GB of ram.

Lostincyberspace
November 17th, 2007, 08:43 PM
I believe it does apply to 4 gig ram but its like hard drives you don't quite get the full amount.

But I may be mistaken.

mellowd
November 17th, 2007, 08:43 PM
I know some of the 32bit servers we have at work have 4GB but only 3.5GB is showing

rsambuca
November 17th, 2007, 08:44 PM
I doubt this is being done on a laptop?

You will actually get upwards of a 30% performance gain just backing up a dvd and transcoding the video using avidemux. To get that type of performance gain from hardware, you would have to up your budget substantially.

Basically, with such little downside, and quite a bit of potential upside, why the resistance?

mellowd
November 17th, 2007, 08:54 PM
There is no resistance, but merely letting him know the facts

mozkill
November 17th, 2007, 08:59 PM
If I want to install a 64-bit Gutsy on my Intel Core2 Quad 2.4ghz, which DVD distro do I download???

Should i download the one labeled "64-bit amd" or should i download the one labeled "intel i386" ???

Right now i am downloading the intel i386 dvd and hoping that I get the 64-bit version from it....

rsambuca
November 17th, 2007, 08:59 PM
There is no resistance, but merely letting him know the facts

But your facts don't describe the entire picture. Not trying to flame things here, but your quote doesn't (and couldn't possibly) go into all possible advantages and disadvantages. That article was very limited in its scope.

rsambuca
November 17th, 2007, 09:01 PM
If I want to install a 64-bit Gutsy on my Intel Core2 Quad 2.4ghz, which DVD distro do I download???

Should i download the one labeled "64-bit amd" or should i download the one labeled "intel i386" ???

Right now i am downloading the intel i386 dvd and hoping that I get the 64-bit version from it....

The i386 is the 32bit version. If you want 64bit, you want the amd64bit version.

Also, usually the cd iso's are sufficient. You can always easily add stuff later, and save yourself downloading a bunch of extra stuff.

LaRoza
November 17th, 2007, 10:12 PM
Also, usually the cd iso's are sufficient. You can always easily add stuff later, and save yourself downloading a bunch of extra stuff.

Is there a way to "upgrade" a 32 bit Ubuntu installation to 64 bit? If I have to reinstall, I'll have to wait until I have a reason to reinstall.

SomeGuyDude
November 17th, 2007, 10:19 PM
Is there a way to "upgrade" a 32 bit Ubuntu installation to 64 bit? If I have to reinstall, I'll have to wait until I have a reason to reinstall.

That's my main thing. I really don't feel like re-downloading, re-burning, and re-installing my OS (and likely having to reformat my HD again unless there's a way to "install it over" the way you can with Windows) for a benefit that will not be immediately noticed.

I have a whole spool of Linux CDs on my desk as it is, I'm running out of blanks!

rsambuca
November 17th, 2007, 10:27 PM
You just reinstall overtop.

Roaster
December 30th, 2007, 12:23 AM
You just reinstall overtop.

And that answers that! I've been considering installing Gutsy 64bit and this thread has convinced me to do just that. Thanks people! You are all great!

gn2
December 30th, 2007, 02:43 AM
I have a whole spool of Linux CDs on my desk as it is, I'm running out of blanks!

Use a CD-RW disc?

gn2
December 30th, 2007, 02:45 AM
there really is no reason not to be using 64bit linux OS nowadays.

Flash?

I tried the 64-bit 7.10 Xubuntu as a Live CD and simply could not get flash video, YouTube etc working.

‹buntuMensch
December 30th, 2007, 02:58 AM
I don't really have an explanation as to why it does not work in the live CD, but even being rather newbish, I found installing 64-bit really easy. Actually I had anticipated some issues in particular with the flash, but it automagically installed itself the first time I launched a browser into a flash page.

I will say that I have not yet been able to get the flash plugin to work correctly on the same machine fresh install of Vista...

I've run both the 32- and 64- bit and have a strong impression that ripping CDs and basic audio editing is noticeably faster. And Skype is working just fine.

rsambuca
December 30th, 2007, 04:37 AM
Flash?

I tried the 64-bit 7.10 Xubuntu as a Live CD and simply could not get flash video, YouTube etc working.

You should be able to install flash by going to a website requiring flash, or by using the following:
sudo apt-get install flashplugin-nonfreeYou just need your multiverse repos enabled.

blithen
December 30th, 2007, 06:20 AM
I'm running the 64 bit version on an Intel chip (Pentium D), and it's quite nice. Gutsy is one of the easiest 64 bit distros ever made.

And it's not true that 64 bits only make a difference with high levels of RAM. Any processor intensive application (compiling, encoding, rendering) will see a noticeable increase in performance.
MAJOR performance in installing packages. Hauls ***. I was so amazed.

toupeiro
December 30th, 2007, 07:16 AM
All The Intel Core 2 Duo is the latest and greatest Intel processor, which is better than anything AMD has made so far.



HIGHLY Debatable.. Totally depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Maybe if you consider within a particular price bracket, but even then I doubt it. For the performance, care to put that core 2 duo up against a dual core 64-bit Opteron?

Just in case it wasn't addressed:

Intel Core Duo = 32 bit

Intel Core 2 Duo = 64-bit

The_Dud
December 30th, 2007, 07:26 AM
I'm using AMD64 (On my AMD 5000+ 2x 64 bit) and it works flawlessly. Only thing I dislike, however, is the lack of the ability for some people to port the software to be compatable with 64 bit OSes

*cough* Opera *cough* I've never really used Opera before, but I decided to try it and when I installed the 32 bit version on Ubuntu 64 bit, it didn't work so I tried it by doing "sudo dpkg --force-archetecture -i opera.deb" and yet, nothing. But I digress.

Apart from that, I prefer it to the 32 bit version. If you've got a spare hard drive lying around, try it on that one first, and if you're happy, then go for it fully.

rsambuca
December 30th, 2007, 07:57 AM
HIGHLY Debatable.. Totally depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Maybe if you consider within a particular price bracket, but even then I doubt it. For the performance, care to put that core 2 duo up against a dual core 64-bit Opteron?

Just in case it wasn't addressed:

Intel Core Duo = 32 bit

Intel Core 2 Duo = 64-bit

Actually not so debatable. I have been an AMD user for quite a while, but there is nothing from AMD to compare with the Core 2 Duo at the moment. Intel simply has a superior architecture right now. And yes, of course you have to compare within a price bracket, otherwise, what are you going to do, compare a $1000 CPU with a $100 CPU?

~LoKe
December 30th, 2007, 08:11 AM
HIGHLY Debatable.. For the performance, care to put that core 2 duo up against a dual core 64-bit Opteron


Super PI 1M:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: 29.156s
Conroe @ 3GHz: 17.015s

Super PI 32M:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: 25m 58.625s
Conroe @ 3GHz: 17m 58.781s

AquaMark 3:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: 120,655
Conroe @ 3GHz: 162,561

3D Mark 2001:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: 37,132
Conroe @ 3GHz: 49,009

3D Mark 2003:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: 33,078
Conroe @ 3GHz: 36,339

3D Mark 2005:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: 15,711
Conroe @ 3GHz: 17,080

3D Mark 2006:
Opteron 165 @ 3GHz: 10,067
Conroe @ 3GHz: 10,805
Highly debatable? :confused:

gn2
December 30th, 2007, 12:21 PM
You should be able to install flash by going to a website requiring flash, or by using the following:
sudo apt-get install flashplugin-nonfreeYou just need your multiverse repos enabled.

Yep, tried all of that with the Xubuntu 7.10 Live CD, just wouldn't work though.

Am a bit reluctant to switch my hard drive installation to 64-bit if I can't get Flash working with the Live CD, but it seems that Flash will work perfectly well once 64-bit is installed on the hard drive?

LaRoza
December 30th, 2007, 12:27 PM
HIGHLY Debatable.. Totally depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Maybe if you consider within a particular price bracket, but even then I doubt it. For the performance, care to put that core 2 duo up against a dual core 64-bit Opteron?

Just in case it wasn't addressed:

Intel Core Duo = 32 bit

Intel Core 2 Duo = 64-bit

At the moment, with competing products, there is no comparison yet.

I have yet to see a desktop processor from AMD that is better than an Intel one.

As for specific processors, I won't stop at the core 2 duos, would you care to put the Opteron up against Intel's a Core 2 Extreme? (With Quad cores...)

rsambuca
December 30th, 2007, 06:02 PM
Yep, tried all of that with the Xubuntu 7.10 Live CD, just wouldn't work though.

Am a bit reluctant to switch my hard drive installation to 64-bit if I can't get Flash working with the Live CD, but it seems that Flash will work perfectly well once 64-bit is installed on the hard drive?

Sorry, I didn't read thoroughly enough. I didn't realize that you were trying to do all of this with the liveCD. It should be trouble-free if you install to your hard drive. The only time people seem to have problems is if they inadvertently install the gnash version first, and then it seems quite difficult to get rid of it before using the adobe version.

gn2
December 30th, 2007, 06:29 PM
The only time people seem to have problems is if they inadvertently install the gnash version first, and then it seems quite difficult to get rid of it before using the adobe version.

Thanks for the tip :)
On January 1st I'm going to re-install with Xubuntu 7.10 64-bit on my main desktop PC and totally remove XP once and for all.
XP's just been taking up space and I never use it any more.

toupeiro
December 30th, 2007, 06:58 PM
At the moment, with competing products, there is no comparison yet.

I have yet to see a desktop processor from AMD that is better than an Intel one.

As for specific processors, I won't stop at the core 2 duos, would you care to put the Opteron up against Intel's a Core 2 Extreme? (With Quad cores...)

Quad core can actually hurt you if you are mult-tasking single and multi-threaded processes.. Guess what most of PC games are? Single Threaded.. So yes, I would in a heartbeat put the hottest opteron up against a quad core in that environment. One core in a dual core chip has a lot more cache available to it than one core in a quad core chip... I'm not necessarily saying it would win, but at the same time you've doubled the amount of cores per socket so its not even in the same class anymore to do a fair multi-threaded comparison. The quad core might have better numbers, but at what cost? 99% of what I work with is multi-threaded, Intel's core cache sharing doesn't help me any because all that means is that a single threaded application will take priority and rob cache from my multi-threaded apps running acros multiple cores. (A.K.A. taking away from what the chip was designed to do.) I haven't benchmarked any quad core blades yet, but I may be able to do so in a few months. If I hadn't said it enough, I'll say it again: it comes down to what you are trying to do.

I support a 36 Opteron (72 core), 18 node infiniband linked parallel cluster with dual chip opteron blades and it finishes the same parallel computational job 2 hours before the same cluster build with core 2 duo chips. This happened because of the bus between sockets and between cores. AMD's architecture better utilizes resources for multi-threaded computations (at least up to Q3 2007)

3dmark -- I don't give two craps about games performance or small little 1GB dataload visualization benchmarks, which is why I said it totally depends on what you are trying to do. I have a Wii... For 3d visual, my systems have to handle sometimes 10GB for a single project. Windows is my bottleneck, not my hardware. The performance that the systems I support have to put out in regards to 3d visual work on 64-bit linux, Opterons, and a Quadro FX, your off the shelf 32 bit windows box couldn't touch without falling on its face. I'm testing Vista 64-bit on an HP xw9400 workstation with 16GB to see what 64-bit windows can do. All that said, over 90% of home users don't leverage even close to what these chips can put out, so it seems silly to consider saying one is better than anything the other has. From most peoples point of view, they wont see any difference unless they are looking at numbers from some application that probably aren't 100% accurate. unless you are doing some serious computing, you won't see the benefit in these numbers, especially if you have a 32-bit OS sitting on top of it.

Super PI.. unless you were measuring both cores simultaneously, super PI will only create a single threaded processes. If I cared how well a dual or quad core chip could shoot out a single thread, I'd have never gone dual core.


... HIGHLY debatable.

~LoKe
December 30th, 2007, 07:18 PM
... HIGHLY debatable.

Yeah, because that's typical desktop use.:rolleyes:

toupeiro
December 30th, 2007, 07:32 PM
The Cluster? No, thats not

The 64-bit workstations? Well, its typical use for the users I support when they work at home? What are you trying to say, that because they are a small percentage that utilize all of the hardware potential that their results shouldn't matter? I'm willing to put a large wager on the fact that Intel, AMD or any computer manufacturer like HP or Dell don't feel that way.

Multi-tasking multi-threaded and single threaded ops? um.. yeah, that very much is typical desktop use.. Much moreso than some benchmark of how fast a single process completes. I explained it on a different scale because hours mean more to people than seconds. It also means, a little bit of a performance gain can go a long way. I'm not knocking the quad core chip, but as you made reference to in "typical desktop use" its hardly going to be utilized in the method it was designed to conceptually. Most consumer software has not caught up with the hardware, which makes it HIGHLY debatable to tell a "typical desktop user" that its better than ANYTHING amd has. I've seen both the Core 2 duo and Opteron "work" the way they were designed to, not using a piece of software to simulate a workload. I'm just sharing my viewpoint, and giving a little history to back it up.

If the core 2 duo or the core 2 extreme play games better than an Opteron, great! Thats awesome. Just keep in mind that some people do more than gaming at home before you tell someone how much "better" something is.

~LoKe
December 30th, 2007, 07:35 PM
The Cluster? No, thats not

Multi-tasking multi-threaded and single threaded ops? um.. yeah, that very much is. I explained it on a different scale because hours mean more to people than seconds. It also means, a little bit of a performance gain can go a long way.

So you picked one area in which the Opteron might specialize, produced it on a mass scale, and used that to back up your claims? Yeah, that's almost a fair comparison...

toupeiro
December 30th, 2007, 08:03 PM
So you picked one area in which the Opteron might specialize, produced it on a mass scale, and used that to back up your claims? Yeah, that's almost a fair comparison...

No, I picked the general focus of multi-core chips in an environment where they are asked to MULTI-TASK software written differently for single and multi-core environments, while also keeping in mind what multi-core chips are designed to do! Its not a specialization, its real world. The results in the cluster still come down to a single blade. its partly just a different approach in core to chip I/O between AMD and Intel chips and chipsets. Nothing stops Intel from doing the same approach, maybe they already are in quad core? Either way, Its more fair than 3dmark, which does not factor resources shared amongst other processes, whether they are single or multi-threaded, or the process affinity. I dont know, maybe I'm a rarity in the fact that I actually do more than one thing at a time on my computer, but I doubt it... Does any of this matter to the average home user, likely not? Does it matter to a technology demanding user, you better believe it does.

Guess what, this forum has its share of both groups of people!

::Edit::

I don't spend time on this forum to try to show off. I don't work that way, I don't get anything out of that. I'm here to help people and debate and discuss technology. When I see something I feel is inaccurate, I'm going to try explain why. If you think what I have said doesn't apply, explain how? I welcome that. Its a waste of time trying to respond to your assumptions about what you think I did or meant unless you have something worthwhile to contribute to this conversation except an eyeroll.

~LoKe
December 30th, 2007, 08:49 PM
Out of curiosity, which C2D's and Opterons were these machines using?

Pethegreat
December 30th, 2007, 09:01 PM
I have an AMD x2 +4800 running 7.10 64bit and I love it. I can rip a CD to FLAC in 3 or 4 minutes. Back in windows with a 2.4ghz p4 it would take me 10 to 15 minutes. I still can't get flash working, but I can go without it,

toupeiro
December 30th, 2007, 09:06 PM
Out of curiosity, which C2D's and Opterons were these machines using?

The 2x Opterons in the cluster were Model 8220. The Intels I'll have to check after the holiday. That cluster is not local to me.

The xw9400's use 2x Opteron Model 2220

If you're trying to research the core bus and affinity differences between Opteron and C2D chips research the core affinity pattern between Intel Dual core and AMD dual core on a dual socket board. The clock speed of the chips would of course have an impact, but its this architecture that gave AMD chips the leverage for larger compute jobs. Again, don't know much about the Quad core and its chipsets in this regard. I would assume hopefully that doing purely multi-threaded jobs the quad core performance would be better. Again, as you have pointed out, this is not your average user workload concerns.

in all regards, I'm sure both chips would rock on WoW and pull up a spreadsheet in ludicrous speed, which although I am generalizing, is what the average user wants, right?

~LoKe
December 30th, 2007, 09:54 PM
I appreciate the information as I don't like to argue points that are incorrect. All I was trying to say is that, for most uses, and in most cases, a C2D would outperform any AMD chip. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. I'm glad AMD is still ahead in certain aspects, as it gives Intel a reason to follow suit (unless they have with the new C2D's and C2Q's).

EDIT: The Opteron 8220 is a $1,200 processor. Hardly a fair comparison. ;)

gn2
December 30th, 2007, 10:25 PM
All I was trying to say is that, for most uses, and in most cases, a C2D would outperform any AMD chip. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule.
EDIT: The Opteron 8220 is a $1,200 processor. Hardly a fair comparison. ;)

For the ordinary home user/hobbyist there is no comparison at the moment, C2D is winning.
Buying an Opteron now is a bad idea as it uses an already obsolete socket.
If you already have an Opteron, then it's an excellent tool and there woud be little point changing it.

I think it's fair to say that the bulk of people posting on these forums are not professional IT administrators, but home PC users.

kvonb
December 30th, 2007, 10:39 PM
-

~LoKe
December 30th, 2007, 10:40 PM
ET didn't work in 64bit? Why not? o_O

I play ET religiously. ;)

Extreme Coder
December 30th, 2007, 11:11 PM
For the ordinary home user/hobbyist there is no comparison at the moment, C2D is winning.
Buying an Opteron now is a bad idea as it uses an already obsolete socket.
If you already have an Opteron, then it's an excellent tool and there woud be little point changing it.

I think it's fair to say that the bulk of people posting on these forums are not professional IT administrators, but home PC users.
But do normal users care if Word starts 0.05 seconds faster? Does that justify them spending more money for an Intel processor?

gn2
December 31st, 2007, 12:29 AM
But do normal users care if Word starts 0.05 seconds faster? Does that justify them spending more money for an Intel processor?

This is the cheapest Opteron available on the site where I buy my hardware:
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/91318

And this is a faster Core 2 Duo CPU with more cache, lower TDP and better future upgrade potential:
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/130485

You'll notice that the C2D is significantly cheaper.

Cheaper still Intel dual-cores are available, starting from £42

toupeiro
December 31st, 2007, 06:55 AM
EDIT: The Opteron 8220 is a $1,200 processor. Hardly a fair comparison. ;)


mmmm try.. less than $500 (http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/opteron_8220.htm)

pretty fair comparison...



Buying an Opteron now is a bad idea as it uses an already obsolete socket.
If you already have an Opteron, then it's an excellent tool and there woud be little point changing it.


Quite the contrary. The 8000 series is the next gen opteron, which can address the AMD quad core chip,


Are we done with the AMD bashing yet? hehe

check the specs on this x4600 server (http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4600/specs.xml)...

LaRoza
December 31st, 2007, 06:57 AM
Ok, what desktop could I buy in any common vendor that has a better AMD processor at the moment for typical desktop use.

When I go to store, I see better Intel processors than AMD processors. If there are more suitable AMD processors why are they not offered?

toupeiro
December 31st, 2007, 07:06 AM
Ok, what desktop could I buy in any common vendor that has a better AMD processor at the moment for typical desktop use.

When I go to store, I see better Intel processors than AMD processors. If there are more suitable AMD processors why are they not offered?

Sounds like a marketing question to me. You should ask whatever store you are going into...

Otherwise, I would check websites.

What Best Buy has on their shelves != C2D is the best processor available.

HP and IBM both offer desktop solutions with next generation Opteron chips.

That being said, I never see Xeon processors in desktops at the local electronics store either. Doesn't mean I can't get one.

kvonb
December 31st, 2007, 09:16 AM
-

~LoKe
January 1st, 2008, 06:53 AM
Blast. I took the plunge and installed 64bit. No ET for me. Fail.

macogw
January 1st, 2008, 07:51 AM
I believe it does apply to 4 gig ram but its like hard drives you don't quite get the full amount.

But I may be mistaken.

No, with RAM you do get the full amount. RAM is measured properly, unlike hard drives. You will probably only see 3.2GB or so with 32bit, since some is taken up by drivers and other junk.

gn2
January 1st, 2008, 01:23 PM
Sorry, I didn't read thoroughly enough. I didn't realize that you were trying to do all of this with the liveCD. It should be trouble-free if you install to your hard drive. The only time people seem to have problems is if they inadvertently install the gnash version first, and then it seems quite difficult to get rid of it before using the adobe version.

Hmmm....

Flash problems after installation of Xubuntu 7.10 64-bit...

The plug-in finder has found and installed Adobe Flash, but it will not work.
When I attempt to use Flash on YouTube etc. I get a message saying I need Flash installed.

It is installed, I've checked Synaptic and it's listed as having been installed.... Confused. :confused:

EDIT: Thanks to Forum member Kilz, got it working using his script for the older version r48(recommended) on this page: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=476924

oldb0y
January 1st, 2008, 07:27 PM
Is there a command I can type in the terminal that shows what type of processor I've got?

p_quarles
January 1st, 2008, 07:31 PM
Is there a command I can type in the terminal that shows what type of processor I've got?

sudo lshw | grep -A 7 cpu
should do it.

Or, you can pipe it to "less" instead of "grep etc." if you want to scroll through all of your hardware.

~LoKe
January 1st, 2008, 07:32 PM
Is there a command I can type in the terminal that shows what type of processor I've got?

cat /proc/cpuinfo

oldb0y
January 1st, 2008, 07:50 PM
Thanks guys!
Could you tell me if Intel T2080 1.73GHz is a 32- or 64-bit processor?

p_quarles
January 1st, 2008, 07:53 PM
Thanks guys!
Could you tell me if Intel T2080 1.73GHz is a 32- or 64-bit processor?
The lshw command should provide you with that info, as well:

sudo lshw | less
then, scroll down to the CPU info and look for the line that says "width" -- it will say either 32 or 64 bits.

~LoKe
January 1st, 2008, 07:53 PM
Thanks guys!
Could you tell me if Intel T2080 1.73GHz is a 32- or 64-bit processor?

I believe that's a Core Duo chip, so it's 32bit.

rsambuca
January 1st, 2008, 07:56 PM
Yeah, according to the Intel product info page (http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/pentium_dual-core.htm), it is 32-bit.

oldb0y
January 1st, 2008, 07:57 PM
Yes it was a 32-bit, thank's alot for the help.

steveneddy
January 1st, 2008, 08:31 PM
I run 64 bit and have a Core 2 Duo with 2 Gig RAM and it runs great!

It's very snappy and responsive. I ran 32 bit for 9 months before I installed 64 bit and I can tell you that I enjoy the snappy-ness and stability of 64 bit.

I really does seem to make a difference.

I edit still pictures, video and multi-track audio on a regular basis, along with regular office operations, and it runs smoother and faster than when I was on 32 bit.

~LoKe
January 1st, 2008, 08:34 PM
I edit still pictures, video and multi-track audio on a regular basis, along with regular office operations, and it runs smoother and faster than when I was on 32 bit.

I'm having a different experience, oddly enough. Converting dvd's from avi -> mpg -> iso brings my computer to its knees (movies skip when reloading a firefox page) and I've got a damn Quad Core. :P

steveneddy
January 1st, 2008, 08:37 PM
I'm having a different experience, oddly enough. Converting dvd's from avi -> mpg -> iso brings my computer to its knees (movies skip when reloading a firefox page) and I've got a damn Quad Core. :P

A quad core laptop or desktop?

I really want a new quad core laptop with 4 Gig RAM.

~LoKe
January 1st, 2008, 08:46 PM
A quad core laptop or desktop?

I really want a new quad core laptop with 4 Gig RAM.

Desktop. Q6600 @ 3.6GHz.

steveneddy
January 1st, 2008, 08:49 PM
Desktop. Q6600 @ 3.6GHz.

Sweet!

:grin:

gn2
January 1st, 2008, 09:01 PM
Desktop. Q6600 @ 3.6GHz.

Maybe things are jittery because it's struggling to cope with the massive overclock/heat problems?

cartisdm
January 1st, 2008, 09:03 PM
I've been interested recently about switching to 64-bit. I don't particularly have a reason to other than to give it a try (that's my reasoning to using Linux anyway, I always want to learn something new).

Currently I'm dual booting with XP and it's very important that I don't lose information on EITHER partition. Is this a simple install or will careful precautions need to be taken?

I'm running an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.00GHz with 2GB DDR2 ram on a laptop. Does anybody see any red flags I should be aware of?

p_quarles
January 1st, 2008, 09:09 PM
I've been interested recently about switching to 64-bit. I don't particularly have a reason to other than to give it a try (that's my reasoning to using Linux anyway, I always want to learn something new).

Currently I'm dual booting with XP and it's very important that I don't lose information on EITHER partition. Is this a simple install or will careful precautions need to be taken?

I'm running an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.00GHz with 2GB DDR2 ram on a laptop. Does anybody see any red flags I should be aware of?
My switch from 32-bit to 64-bit was completely painless (on a Pentium D).

The only problems are with non-free applications. The most popular ones (Flash, Java) are easy to get working, and there are good tutorials for doing so in these forums. Opera 9.50 beta has a native 64 bit version. Non-free games are, from what I hear, the biggest pain.

cartisdm
January 1st, 2008, 10:05 PM
Sorry to sound like a newb but by non-free do you mean price $$ or like non-free as in the repos stuff?

~LoKe
January 1st, 2008, 10:09 PM
Sorry to sound like a newb but by non-free do you mean price $$ or like non-free as in the repos stuff?

Closed-source applications.

steveneddy
January 1st, 2008, 10:11 PM
Installing ia32-libs will make it possible to run 32 bit software on a 64 bit system.

But if you compile it yourself, it will be 64 bit for your machine.

I compile from source when I can.

:popcorn:

~LoKe
January 1st, 2008, 10:14 PM
Installing ia32-libs will make it possible to run 32 bit software on a 64 bit system.

Not all 32bit software. I still can't get enemy territory 2.55 working with ia32-libs and linux32.

steveneddy
January 1st, 2008, 10:21 PM
Not all 32bit software. I still can't get enemy territory 2.55 working with ia32-libs and linux32.

Is this a native Linux game, or something you run via WINE?

~LoKe
January 1st, 2008, 10:31 PM
Is this a native Linux game, or something you run via WINE?

Native linux with a .run installer and all. Complains about glibc-2.0.

cartisdm
January 2nd, 2008, 05:13 AM
Closed-source applications.

Haha thanks

stmiller
January 2nd, 2008, 06:02 AM
Native linux with a .run installer and all. Complains about glibc-2.0.

Probably need to manually get the 32bit glibc dev files it needs and manually place them where it needs them. The ia32* packages don't have 32bit libraries for everything, but you can go fetch what you need.