LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware > Slackware - Installation
User Name
Password
Slackware - Installation This forum is for the discussion of installation issues with Slackware.

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 03-06-2014, 04:29 PM   #1
pcninja
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2013
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 14

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Would it be smarter to install the 32bit version or the 64bit version?


I am currently using the 32bit version of Slackware 14.1, but I was wondering if (on my hardware) there would be any benefit to using the 64bit version instead.

My hardware:
Intel 495PSN
Intel "Prescott 2M" Pentium-IV 640 (3.2Ghz)
2GB of 533MHz? of RAM (dual channel, 2x 1GB sticks)

(I don't think my video card or what drives I use matter)
 
Old 03-06-2014, 04:38 PM   #2
smallpond
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Distribution: CentOS 6 (pre-systemd)
Posts: 1,773

Rep: Reputation: 454Reputation: 454Reputation: 454Reputation: 454Reputation: 454
I used to think that if you could run either, you should use 32-bit. Addresses are smaller, so more code should fit in cache, which means that 32-bit code ought to have fewer cache misses. So I tried running some CPU benchmarks in 32-bit mode vs. 64-bit mode. Turns out that CPUs spend a lot of time copying data, and they can move twice as many bytes per word in 64-bit mode, so realistic 64-bit benchmarks beat 32-bit benchmarks, despite having more cache misses. Now I always use 64-bit when available.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-06-2014, 04:49 PM   #3
metaschima
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,535

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
It seems to support 64-bit:
http://ark.intel.com/products/27480/...=pentium+4+640

So, yes you should use the 64-bit version, unless you have a good reason not to. If you really need 32-bit apps you can use multilib to run it under 64-bit.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-06-2014, 05:16 PM   #4
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: infinity; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US, Earth
Distribution: any UNIXish that works well on my cheapest with mostly KDE, Xfce, JWM or CLI but open ;-)
Posts: 1,465
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 382Reputation: 382Reputation: 382Reputation: 382
Can run almost all 32-bit apps and\or environments on a 64-bit system 99.9% not the other way around.

Last edited by jamison20000e; 03-06-2014 at 05:20 PM.
 
Old 03-06-2014, 05:53 PM   #5
jmccue
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2008
Location: US
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 137

Rep: Reputation: 36
With 2 gig of ram, I would go with 32 bit and disable PAE if turned on. With that said, I doubt you would see a difference between the two.
 
Old 03-06-2014, 08:03 PM   #6
genss
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Posts: 365

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by smallpond View Post
I used to think that if you could run either, you should use 32-bit. Addresses are smaller, so more code should fit in cache, which means that 32-bit code ought to have fewer cache misses. So I tried running some CPU benchmarks in 32-bit mode vs. 64-bit mode. Turns out that CPUs spend a lot of time copying data, and they can move twice as many bytes per word in 64-bit mode, so realistic 64-bit benchmarks beat 32-bit benchmarks, despite having more cache misses. Now I always use 64-bit when available.
good you did effort

also 64bit instructions are longer (thanks to intel)
not that they have to be used

but 64bit you get twice as much registers and most of them are twice as long, so they can do more in most cases
like you got a loop that does something to some data.. like a picture
the picture probably won't fit in the cache anyway (like i got 2MB per core, my guess is about 75% is useful for a program)
so the code itself... i mean loop unrolling can get better performance despite having more code (depending on a case ofc)

PAE shouldn't influence much


@OP
amd64 all fine unless you run out memory, not that you will save some amazing amount by going 32bit only

Last edited by genss; 03-06-2014 at 08:08 PM.
 
Old 03-06-2014, 10:50 PM   #7
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: LFS-7.6, Slackware 14.1, FreeBSD 10.1
Posts: 3,849
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1189Reputation: 1189Reputation: 1189Reputation: 1189Reputation: 1189Reputation: 1189Reputation: 1189Reputation: 1189Reputation: 1189
Let's make this easy:

If you have 64-bit capable hardware, you should use 64-bit software to get the maximum capabilities from your hardware. If you need 32-bit afterwards, use multilib.

Only use a 32-bit OS if you have 32-bit hardware.

Last edited by ReaperX7; 03-06-2014 at 10:52 PM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-06-2014, 10:59 PM   #8
jefro
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,087

Rep: Reputation: 1521Reputation: 1521Reputation: 1521Reputation: 1521Reputation: 1521Reputation: 1521Reputation: 1521Reputation: 1521Reputation: 1521Reputation: 1521Reputation: 1521
I still say ram is the choice even if you have the ability to run full 64 bit.

At 2G you are at a crossroad. I'd still consider the 32 bit version to leave a bit more real ram. 64 bit helps you with using more ram and larger program access to ram. It wouldn't help you to try to run a 64 bit application needing 4 gig of ram.

In a normal home system, I doubt you'd notice much either choice.
 
Old 03-06-2014, 11:21 PM   #9
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: infinity; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US, Earth
Distribution: any UNIXish that works well on my cheapest with mostly KDE, Xfce, JWM or CLI but open ;-)
Posts: 1,465
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 382Reputation: 382Reputation: 382Reputation: 382
How long until 32-bit systems and\or software gets unsupported? I've only ever have had 4Gs RAM under my 64-bit so can't say but would look at using 32 as going backwards? They are free to try both and see or if you can up the RAM.
 
Old 03-07-2014, 09:48 AM   #10
genss
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Posts: 365

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e View Post
How long until 32-bit systems and\or software gets unsupported?
until we get a all around better cpu architecture then x86

PS on over 1Gig x86_64 should be better
it's not like you are going to run new, memory demanding, games on it (most everything else should run better)

Last edited by genss; 03-07-2014 at 09:51 AM.
 
Old 03-07-2014, 04:54 PM   #11
pcninja
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2013
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 14

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I guess I will stick with 32bit.
 
Old 03-07-2014, 05:12 PM   #12
astrogeek
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Distribution: Slackware [64]X{.0|.1|.2|-current} ::X>=12<=14, FreeBSD_10{.0|.1}
Posts: 2,184

Rep: Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860
I tend to lag everyone else in hardware specs and was excited to get my first 64 bit machines a couple of years ago.

After initially installing 64 bit Slackware 14.0 I eventually reverted them to 32 bit 14.1, both are now running Slackware 14.1+ 32 bit (as are most of my other machines).

I see no notable performance differences (each has 2GB RAM, AMD processors).

My reasons for reverting were due to a single legacy app that requires Wine and a preference to not go multilib, another application that requires Qt3 among other things and the stack did not build well under 64, and the desire for commonality across my own systems which still includes a roomfull of 32 bit machines.

I have a new hard drive in transit for one of them and will likely set up a 64 bit install on a separate partition for fun, but I have no compelling need to run 64 bit... yet.

Conclusion: you'll probably do fine with 32 for now.

Last edited by astrogeek; 03-07-2014 at 05:17 PM.
 
Old 03-07-2014, 05:23 PM   #13
273
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 3,571

Rep: Reputation: 805Reputation: 805Reputation: 805Reputation: 805Reputation: 805Reputation: 805Reputation: 805
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcninja View Post
(I don't think my video card or what drives I use matter)
The size of the drives may. If you want to run multilib you need more hard drive space.



Quote:
Originally Posted by genss View Post
also 64bit instructions are longer (thanks to intel)
<COUGH>Erm, AMD surely? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amd64#History_of_AMD64 <COUGH>
 
Old 03-07-2014, 05:43 PM   #14
genss
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Posts: 365

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by 273 View Post
there a long time war is brewing

in short;
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=25

i don't blame intel, amd would probably do the same (i would)
also designing cpus is a looong process, just wish they talked to each other

Last edited by genss; 03-07-2014 at 05:46 PM.
 
Old 03-07-2014, 05:51 PM   #15
273
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 3,571

Rep: Reputation: 805Reputation: 805Reputation: 805Reputation: 805Reputation: 805Reputation: 805Reputation: 805
Quote:
Originally Posted by genss View Post
there a long time war is brewing

in short;
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=25

i don't blame intel, amd would probably do the same (i would)
also designing cpus is a looong process, just wish they talked to each other
I would like to blame Intel just because, and I'll admit that either could be thought of as being "to blame" but I was referring to this
Quote:
Originally Posted by page linked

In 2001, Intel launched their first 64-bit processor named Itanium with a new parallel instruction set. Instead of accepting the new Itanium instruction set, AMD developed their own 64-bit instruction set which - unlike the Itanium - was backwards compatible with the x86 instruction set. The market favored the backwards compatibility so AMD won this time and Intel had to support the AMD64, or x86-64, instruction set in their next processor.
AMD being the ones to develop the instruction set though I suppose they had their hands tied by the past.
 
  


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
Trying to install 32bit version of a program on Slackware64 (Pure Data) WhiteHotLoveTiger Slackware 8 01-26-2014 10:53 PM
[SOLVED] Is Kubuntu 12.04 64bit version buggy vs 32bit version? esgol Linux - Newbie 3 07-10-2012 04:01 AM
changing from 32bit version to 64bit rafalek *BSD 1 02-10-2008 01:30 PM
64bit version or 32bit version sigiken Linux - Newbie 2 05-21-2007 01:02 PM
REQ:Directions to install 64bit version of java for amd64 Rick069 Mandriva 2 02-01-2006 04:40 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:55 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
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