LinuxQuestions.org
Did you know LQ has a Linux Hardware Compatibility List?
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Hardware
User Name
Password
Linux - Hardware This forum is for Hardware issues.
Having trouble installing a piece of hardware? Want to know if that peripheral is compatible with Linux?

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 09-04-2009, 10:10 AM   #1
ufmale
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Posts: 385

Rep: Reputation: 30
machine 32 or 64 bts?


Can i tell if my computer is 32 bits or 64 bits?
It looks like the below result says that it is 32 b, but i installed Ubuntu x86_64 version. It seems to work fine. will there be any problem for doing so?

Code:
$ uname -a
processor	: 0
vendor_id	: GenuineIntel
cpu family	: 15
model		: 4
model name	: Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.80GHz
stepping	: 4
cpu MHz		: 2793.036
cache size	: 1024 KB
physical id	: 0
siblings	: 1
core id		: 0
cpu cores	: 1
apicid		: 0
initial apicid	: 0
fpu		: yes
fpu_exception	: yes
cpuid level	: 5
wp		: yes
flags		: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc up pebs bts pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl cid cx16 xtpr
bogomips	: 5586.07
clflush size	: 64
cache_alignment	: 128
address sizes	: 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:
 
Old 09-04-2009, 10:22 AM   #2
GrapefruiTgirl
Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Location: underground
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 7,594

Rep: Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550
Since the 64 bit OS is running, it's a good sign that your machine is 64bit capable.

I don't see a 64bit flag on your CPU info though where I would expect to see something like x86_64 or em64t or similar...

Do you by chance have the "dmidecode" tool? Try the following commands:

shell# /usr/sbin/dmidecode

or

shell# /sbin/dmidecode

and look for something like "64-bit capable" in the output.

It may also be helpful to tell us what exact model of CPU you have, and the motherboard you're running.

Sasha

PS - the above output is not what one would expect from the "uname -a" command.. uname -r should tell you what kernel you're running though.

Last edited by GrapefruiTgirl; 09-04-2009 at 10:26 AM.
 
Old 09-04-2009, 10:25 AM   #3
djeikyb
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: California
Distribution: ubuntu 10
Posts: 162

Rep: Reputation: 33
uname -i should tell you the hardware platform. But, first and foremost, you cannot run 64-bit stuff on a 32-bit system. Thus, you have a 64-bit system.

By the by, that doesn't look like any uname -a output I've ever seen. Looks more like cat /proc/cpuinfo
 
Old 09-04-2009, 11:05 AM   #4
johnsfine
Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Distribution: Centos
Posts: 5,083

Rep: Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110
Quote:
Originally Posted by ufmale View Post
Can i tell if my computer is 32 bits or 64 bits?
Yes. The output you quoted shows your CPU is 64 bit.

Quote:
i installed Ubuntu x86_64 version. It seems to work fine.
That is an even more certain way to know your CPU is 64 bit.

Quote:
$ uname -a
processor : 0
I think you messed up your copy/paste. You showed us the uname -a command but not its output and you showed us the contents of /proc/cpuinfo. I assume you intended to show both.

Quote:
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc up pebs bts pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl cid cx16 xtpr
That line tells you it is 64 bit. Notice the lm (meaning "long mode") that I highlighted.

Quote:
address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
That line also tells you your cpu is 64 bit.

All 32 bit x86 cpu's have 32 bit virtual addressing. All current x86-64 cpus have 48 bit virtual addressing. Future 64 bit cpus are expected to have more than 48 bit addressing.

The physical address size is more varied by CPU model. A 32 bit cpu could have 36 bit physical addresses. Apparently a 64 bit cpu also can have 36 bit physical addresses (I think typical 64 bit cpus have 38 or more bits physical address).

Last edited by johnsfine; 09-04-2009 at 11:13 AM.
 
Old 09-04-2009, 11:05 AM   #5
mushroomboy
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Distribution: Debian Testing ALWAYS!!!
Posts: 363

Rep: Reputation: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by djeikyb View Post
uname -i should tell you the hardware platform. But, first and foremost, you cannot run 64-bit stuff on a 32-bit system. Thus, you have a 64-bit system.

By the by, that doesn't look like any uname -a output I've ever seen. Looks more like cat /proc/cpuinfo
Stated perfectly, if the installer and OS runs it's 64 bit. It's impossible to run 64bit code on a 32bit platform, though you can always (well 99.9%) run 32bit on 64bit due how they created the cpu's. In reality they could make the cpu 64bit only but I don't think that's going to come for a while yet.
 
Old 09-04-2009, 11:20 AM   #6
GrapefruiTgirl
Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Location: underground
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 7,594

Rep: Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsfine View Post
That line tells you it is 64 bit. Notice the lm (meaning "long mode") that I highlighted.


That line also tells you your cpu is 64 bit.
Thanks Johnsfine -- always something new to learn around here, every day!
 
Old 09-04-2009, 11:23 AM   #7
lazlow
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,362

Rep: Reputation: 171Reputation: 171
Intel made some goofy motherboards for a while. The CPU was 64bit but the memory controller was only 32bit. Which meant that you could run a 64bit OS but you were stuck with the 32bit memory limit(roughly 3.2 GB). I am GUESSING that is what the "address sizes : 36 bits physical" may be hinting at. All of which means that you are fine unless you need to upgrade your memory beyond 3.2GB and even then I may be wrong in my interpretation of the 36bit stuff.
 
Old 09-04-2009, 11:48 AM   #8
mushroomboy
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Distribution: Debian Testing ALWAYS!!!
Posts: 363

Rep: Reputation: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazlow View Post
Intel made some goofy motherboards for a while. The CPU was 64bit but the memory controller was only 32bit. Which meant that you could run a 64bit OS but you were stuck with the 32bit memory limit(roughly 3.2 GB). I am GUESSING that is what the "address sizes : 36 bits physical" may be hinting at. All of which means that you are fine unless you need to upgrade your memory beyond 3.2GB and even then I may be wrong in my interpretation of the 36bit stuff.
No, I think the 36 bits physical is correct...

Code:
cat /proc/cpuinfo 
processor       : 0
vendor_id       : AuthenticAMD
cpu family      : 15
model           : 12
model name      : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 2800+
stepping        : 0
cpu MHz         : 2204.991
cache size      : 512 KB
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 1
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx mmxext lm 3dnowext 3dnow up rep_good
bogomips        : 4409.98
TLB size        : 1024 4K pages
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management: ts fid vid ttp
I think Intel does there 64bit extentions different than AMD. If you want to get technical neither are pure 64 bit as they run an emulation layer, but by 'definition' they are both 64 bit.

http://www.flexbeta.net/forums/lofiv...php/t5534.html

The address size is probably in refrence to the amount of RAM supported...

Code:
The EM64T chips from intel and the x86-64 chips from AMD are based on the same idea: 32 bit pricessing still works. But
weve hit the memory cap, so we need to increase the maximum amount of memory that it can support. now, if im not 
mistaken, the amd chips support up to 1 terabyte of RAM (40 bit) even though it is marked as 64 bit. another thing, 
though: windows has no support for the 64 bit mem architecture. with the x64 releases, xp has upped its upper memory limit
to 64 bits (not 40 bits) which means that this time around, windows xp supports many exabytes of memory.
I do think he can go over 3.2G of ram as that would probably be 32bit physical if I'm not mistaken.

Last edited by mushroomboy; 09-04-2009 at 11:49 AM.
 
Old 09-04-2009, 11:49 AM   #9
Quakeboy02
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Distribution: Debian Squeeze 2.6.32.9 SMP AMD64
Posts: 3,245

Rep: Reputation: 121Reputation: 121
"address sizes : 36 bits physical" calculates to 64GB. That probably means it's PAE compatible. But, who's to know until they install the OS?
 
Old 09-04-2009, 12:01 PM   #10
johnsfine
Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Distribution: Centos
Posts: 5,083

Rep: Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quakeboy02 View Post
"address sizes : 36 bits physical" calculates to 64GB. That probably means it's PAE compatible. But, who's to know until they install the OS?
The 36 bits refers to the address that the CPU sends to the memory controller. In an Intel design, that doesn't necessarily tell you the size of the address the memory controller receives from the CPU. The CPU might send 36 bits, but the memory controller might only listen to 32 bits (giving you the three point something GB limit of physical ram).

All the x86_64 CPUs are compatible with 32 bit PAE. A 36 bit physical address probably means they haven't change the interface between the CPU and memory controller that was used for earlier 32 bit chips. But other x86-64 chips with more physical address bits are still compatible with 32 bit PAE. You just don't get to use the extra bits (beyond 36) when the OS is 32 bit PAE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mushroomboy View Post
If you want to get technical neither are pure 64 bit
You can define "pure 64 bit" to make that statement true or false. Either way, it isn't a particularly meaningful statement.

Quote:
as they run an emulation layer
That is more fundamentally false (though one can always distort the meaning of words far enough to make such statements true).

http://www.flexbeta.net/forums/lofiv...php/t5534.html

Almost all the posts near the top of that thread are nonsense as clearly explained by some one the later posts.

Quote:
with the x64 releases, xp has upped its upper memory limit
to 64 bits (not 40 bits)
That is also pretty solidly false.

I'm not certain of the xp64 memory limit in x86-64 architecture. I think it is less than the limit in x86-64 architecture itself (which is less than 64 bit). But it certainly is not more than the architecture limit.

Last edited by johnsfine; 09-04-2009 at 12:11 PM.
 
Old 09-04-2009, 12:01 PM   #11
lazlow
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,362

Rep: Reputation: 171Reputation: 171
The chipset I was referring to is Intel 945GM.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...2Fx4x_Chipsets

Quote:
1 Lakeport chipsets lacks support for remapping memory; the size of addressable memory space may be less than 4 GB, regardless whether the processor operates in 64-bit mode.

Last edited by lazlow; 09-04-2009 at 01:14 PM.
 
Old 09-04-2009, 12:29 PM   #12
Shadow_7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Distribution: debian
Posts: 1,529

Rep: Reputation: 238Reputation: 238Reputation: 238
lm on the flags is the main indicator. You have it, so you should be good to go 64 bit.

flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx mmxext lm 3dnowext 3dnow up rep_good
 
Old 09-04-2009, 01:01 PM   #13
mushroomboy
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Distribution: Debian Testing ALWAYS!!!
Posts: 363

Rep: Reputation: 43
Sorry about the mem limit:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64
Code:
* Larger physical address space: Current implementations of the AMD64 architecture can address up to 1 TB (2^40 or 1,099,511,627,776 bytes) of RAM; the architecture permits extending this to 4 PB (2^52 or 4,503,599,627,370,496 bytes) in the future (limited by the page table entry format). In legacy mode, Physical Address Extension (PAE) is included, as it is on most current 32-bit x86 processors, allowing access to a maximum of 64 GB (2^36 or 68,719,476,736 bytes).
I don't know if the math is correct or not, but I'm guessing that's where the 40 and 36 play into effect.
 
Old 09-04-2009, 06:27 PM   #14
Electro
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,042

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
The 36-bit relates to PSE36. PSE36 is similar or PAE, but the memory pages for PSE36 assignment is 4 KiB for the first 4 GiB of RAM and using memory above 4 GiB uses 8 KiB pages. It is nothing do with the processor if it can execute 64-bit instructions.

The utility dmidecode is not good as lshw of telling what hardware you have and its capabilities. I suggest lshw because it is thoroughly when looking up data about your computer.
 
Old 09-04-2009, 06:29 PM   #15
mushroomboy
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Distribution: Debian Testing ALWAYS!!!
Posts: 363

Rep: Reputation: 43
That seems reasonable, as PAE can probably address the same amount of RAM which then you really can't just assume it's 64bit because of how much ram it uses. =S
 
  


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 Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
not able to ping a machine but can do ssh to machine , wanna run vnc client amolgupta Linux - Software 4 07-28-2009 05:17 PM
Restarting Windows machine stops Linux machine mounting/connecting jamespetts Linux - Networking 3 05-29-2008 03:12 AM
mounting samba filesystem on remote machine as /home on local machine shishirkotkar Linux - Software 1 04-28-2008 05:05 AM
how to shutdown,restart and log off windows machine remotely through a linux machine deepak rawat Fedora 1 05-23-2006 01:25 AM
sharing internet from a windows 98 machine to a Red Hat Linux machine ritwiksolutions Linux - Newbie 7 03-14-2006 10:20 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:18 AM.

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