LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices

View Poll Results: If you could would you install a 64 bit distro ?
yes 43 78.18%
no 12 21.82%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 08-03-2008, 05:23 PM   #1
rob.rice
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Distribution: slack what ever
Posts: 784

Rep: Reputation: 104Reputation: 104
Are the 64 bit distros worth reinstalling as far as speed goes


I found (through this forum) a 64 bit slackware distro
intel's website says my cpu is a 64 bit
but it has nothing to say about the chipset other than it was made
to go with this cpu
I alredy run slackware so it's not like I will be switching distros
and the computer is new I haven't gotten the install fully configured
yet so it's not that much work that I will be throwing away
 
Old 08-03-2008, 05:38 PM   #2
Doom0r
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 28

Rep: Reputation: 15
It's been addressed quite a bit, both here and on many distro sites.

Easy:
Give a reason you need it if you're on a production system, if you can't, don't switch.
If issues don't affect mission and you're willing to spend time and maybe post some bugs, help it along.

Realistic:
64-bit brings up the issues of extra addressing overhead which is relative to the use and implementation of a specific scenario. i.e. ALL variables must be considered, this is not a which one looks better simple answer thing. ;x
Some things work faster, some slower. Take time, do a little reading on what you use and whether there is any gain in performance/speed.
 
Old 08-16-2008, 06:21 AM   #3
R00KIE
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: May 2007
Posts: 2

Rep: Reputation: 0
I have been using the 64bit version of Ubuntu 7.10 for quite some time now and from my point of view I can't see many benefits, so far it only has caused me grief, there are still some things that are 32bit only >_< and there's the issue of programs taking a bit more space in disk and ram.
If you ask me its better to use a bloat free 32bit linux distro than a regular 64bit one.
Next stop for me most probably is going to be ArchLinux 32bit, I'm now doing a test install in a virtual machine to start getting used to it, its a more demanding distro config wise but it seems to be worth it.
 
Old 08-18-2008, 05:27 PM   #4
replica9000
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: Quahog, Rhode Island
Distribution: Debian 'Sid', FreeBSD, Android
Posts: 647
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 114Reputation: 114
I've been using 64bit Debian for some time, haven;t really seen any performance gains or losses, but it's good if you have a large amount of ram or a really large filesystem.
 
Old 08-18-2008, 07:48 PM   #5
jay73
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04, Debian testing
Posts: 5,019

Rep: Reputation: 130Reputation: 130
I would if I had plenty of RAM. My main box has 4GB so 64 bit is the only proper way to go. The old AMD with 1GB still runs 32 bit, though. I have actually used 32 bits on the main box as well when it had only 2GB - not much of a difference unless you are editing movies or running databases all day long. And even then 64 bit won't be twice as fast - not nearly - contrary to what some people seem to think, more like 20-30%. And it will eat more RAM. Gnome 32 bit after booting 180MB; 64 bit: about 300.

Last edited by jay73; 08-18-2008 at 07:52 PM.
 
Old 08-18-2008, 08:31 PM   #6
darthaxul
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2008
Distribution: Gentoo; Funtoo
Posts: 201

Rep: Reputation: 18
my setup

I did the same software installs from debian's testing packages from both 86 and 86_64.
The 86_64 was chomping on at least 100k more memory than the 86 one.
And with the applications cpu, top was showing 0.2-0.3 more cpu for the same applications on a 86_64.
But I dont mind the overhead because at least i got my ipv6 support and my extra address space for huge filenames.
 
Old 08-18-2008, 09:49 PM   #7
Jevan
Member
 
Registered: May 2007
Location: Southeastern United States
Distribution: Crunchbang, Windows 8.1, Android 3/4
Posts: 34

Rep: Reputation: 16
I always have run 32 bit software on my laptop. Prehaps if I were to get a desktop I would consider it, but my laptop is always used by a lot of people and seen by a lot of people, so I don't want there to be glaring issues such as bad flash support.
 
Old 08-19-2008, 11:04 AM   #8
ayteebee
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Distribution: Originally Suse 9.1 Professional, currently Knoppix 3.7, migrating to Slackware
Posts: 75

Rep: Reputation: 16
I accidentally built my Mum a 64-bit system. She still doesn't have flash support.
 
Old 08-19-2008, 11:30 AM   #9
weibullguy
ReliaFree Maintainer
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Kalamazoo, Michigan
Distribution: Slackware-current, Cross Linux from Scratch, Gentoo
Posts: 2,731
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 224Reputation: 224Reputation: 224
I'd go with a multi-lib distro rather than a "pure" 64-bit distro. I've been using a multi-lib distro for almost three years now without any significant problems. For numerically intensive tasks you will see a performance boost, for day-to-day tasks you likely won't. If a task takes minutes or hours on a 32-bit platform, you can expect to see about a 30% reduction in time it takes to complete the same task on a 64-bit platform.
 
Old 08-19-2008, 02:32 PM   #10
replica9000
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: Quahog, Rhode Island
Distribution: Debian 'Sid', FreeBSD, Android
Posts: 647
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 114Reputation: 114
I have had no problem using flash on my 64bit system. I just install the package "flashplayer-mozilla_9.0.124.0-0.0_amd64.deb" and I'm good to go.
 
Old 09-02-2008, 01:24 PM   #11
FewClues
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Mission TX
Distribution: Ubuntu, Mint
Posts: 122

Rep: Reputation: 20
re; 64bit software

I have a couple of 64bit machines and I can tell you that unless you have 4 GB or more RAM you aren't going to see any improvement - and then its not all that much. The software is currently written in 32bit and then ported to 64bit. Its really not all that its advertised to be.
 
Old 09-02-2008, 02:18 PM   #12
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
Well, would I try it out, yes, in fact I'm running it right now slamd64. Works great so far, just like regular Slackware. My limited testing so far says that many apps will start approximately 1 sec faster (real time). It's just as stable tho, and I also seem to get more FPS using glxgears and also in games. It's not a huge difference, but I definitely noticed it when installing Slackware. Regular Slackware takes at least 50% longer to install than slamd64. You can also run 32-bit apps just fine if you have the 32-bit dependencies installed. Now it is a bit tricky to install some things as 32-bit, they are really stubborn, but many times you can install the Slackware version and it will work fine (not that I recommend it). Also there is the inconvenience that so far you must have a 32-bit FF installed to run java applets as these are not supported by 64-bit java for some stupid reason. But, rest assured that work is being done to correct this soon so that 64-bit distros will no longer have with java applets.

Last edited by H_TeXMeX_H; 09-02-2008 at 02:21 PM.
 
Old 09-02-2008, 02:47 PM   #13
jay73
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04, Debian testing
Posts: 5,019

Rep: Reputation: 130Reputation: 130
You would install openJDK or IcedTea to take care of 64 bit applets.
 
Old 09-02-2008, 07:26 PM   #14
Labman
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Nothern USA
Distribution: Kubuntu 11.10
Posts: 104

Rep: Reputation: 15
I installed 64 bit and couldn't get flash to work, so went back to 32 bit. Since I only have 1 gig of RAM, maybe I should leave well enough alone.
 
Old 09-02-2008, 07:36 PM   #15
FewClues
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Mission TX
Distribution: Ubuntu, Mint
Posts: 122

Rep: Reputation: 20
64 bit no faster

According to the chief editor of Linux Mint (Clem) they have no intentions of creating a 64 bit distribution because their benchmarks prove that you gain absolutely nothing from 64bit under 4 GB or RAM and then it requires good benchmarks to actually see any difference.

Here is one of many threads
on Linux Mint Forum For those who don't know Mint it is a derivative of Ubuntu
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
64 bit worth upgrading? plumpb Linux - Software 1 03-07-2008 01:53 PM
Installing 64-bit linux distros on 32-bit hardware gizmo24 Linux - Software 3 12-14-2007 08:36 PM
64 Bit distros won't install - All 32 bit do? djsennello Linux - Hardware 1 09-25-2005 07:54 PM
64-bit really worth it? Shaun32 Suse/Novell 3 08-03-2005 12:02 PM
bit torrent: dl speed = 1/4 upl speed??? bruno buys Linux - Software 1 05-10-2004 07:37 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:21 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration