Latest LQ Deal: Latest LQ Deals
Go Back > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!


  Search this Thread
Old 02-01-2007, 08:51 PM   #1
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: Dubuque, Iowa
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 51

Rep: Reputation: 15
AMD Athlon 64 Question

I'm planning on installing Ubuntu Linux to my new computer and I have a question about which ISO to download.

PC (Intel x86) install/live DVD
For almost all PCs. This includes most machines with Intel/AMD/etc type processors and almost all computers that run Microsoft Windows. Choose this if you are at all unsure.

64-bit PC (AMD64) install/live DVD
For computers based on the AMD64 or EM64T architecture (e.g., Athlon64, Opteron, EM64T Xeon). It is not necessary for all (even most) processors made by AMD -- only their 64 bit chips.

My processor is an AMD Athlon 64 3800+ and I currently use Windows Media Center 2005. The way I understand it, I have the option of using the basic PC image or the 64-bit image. The only problem is that I don't know the difference.

Are there any advantages to using the AMD64 version? Is it faster or something? I don't really see a point in having a 64-bit processor if there are no advantages to it...

Which one should I download?
Old 02-01-2007, 09:24 PM   #2
LQ Guru
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Fargo, ND
Distribution: SuSE AMD64
Posts: 15,733

Rep: Reputation: 678Reputation: 678Reputation: 678Reputation: 678Reputation: 678Reputation: 678
The main advantage to installing a 64 bit distro is the ability to install more than 2 GB of memory. Because the AMD64 (x86_64) and also run 32 bit programs, you distro might install 32 bit versions of certain programs. For example, Firefox, so that the 32bit plugins will work. All 64 bit kernels have NX support which prevents code from executing on the stack. Depending on the processor, virtualization support is improved.
Old 02-01-2007, 09:33 PM   #3
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: Dubuque, Iowa
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 51

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
So, unless I'm planning on installing more than 2GB of RAM, I'd be better off with the x86 ISO?
Old 02-01-2007, 09:37 PM   #4
Senior Member
Registered: May 2004
Location: In the DC 'burbs
Distribution: Arch, Scientific Linux, Debian, Ubuntu
Posts: 4,289

Rep: Reputation: 378Reputation: 378Reputation: 378Reputation: 378
Actually, 32 bit systems are gppd up to 4 GB of RAM (actually a little less due to the memory used by peripheral devices). Realistically, unless you are running heavy mathematical applications you won't notice much of a speed boost from having a 64 bit distro running.
Old 02-01-2007, 09:38 PM   #5
Senior Member
Registered: May 2004
Location: Albuquerque, NM USA
Distribution: Debian-Lenny/Sid 32/64 Desktop: Generic AMD64-EVGA 680i Laptop: Generic Intel SIS-AC97
Posts: 4,250

Rep: Reputation: 62
I have a 32-bit / 64-bit dual boot on my desktop, and 32-bit on my laptop. I use the 64-bit about 90% of the time. There are occasions when I really want to see a Flash9 video, or video that requires the w32codes, but for me, those times are fairly infrequent. My kids, on the other hand use the 32-bit OS exclusively for those reasons.

64-bit OSes will soon be the norm, and since Vista is optimized for 64-bit, I think the necessary plugins will soon be available. 64-bit does have advantages, especially in the hardware driver areas, but the actual processing speed improvement is pretty much invisible to the average user.

For Java apps, you can use Konqueror, which doesn't need a java plugin, and the FOSS Flashplayer, Gnash, works fine for older Flash movies. I can't honestly say there is an advantage to using the 64-bit OS, but since it doesn't inhibit my normal usage, I prefer to use it while watching it mature.
Old 02-01-2007, 09:39 PM   #6
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: Dubuque, Iowa
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 51

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Ok, then. I'll go with the x86 one.

Thanks, guys. ^_^


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
AMD athlon 64 ntscuc Linux - Newbie 15 04-25-2006 04:50 PM
AMD athlon xp 1600+ Type-R Linux - Hardware 1 07-25-2005 01:47 AM
AMD athlon xp 1600+ Type-R Linux - General 1 07-25-2005 01:15 AM
AMD Athlon XP hypodermic *BSD 17 03-11-2004 10:33 PM
Just how dodgy is my AMD Athlon? danny678010 Linux - Hardware 17 10-15-2002 08:15 PM > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:35 AM.

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