I heard, as long as the memory is less than 4GB, it does not matter if the OS is 64-bit or 32-bit....

Which type of OS would you recommend running under i5 2.26 Ghz and 3 GB of RAM? 64-bit or 32-bit?

thanks

Hi,

Actually if you use 'PAE' then access to memory greater than 3GB is possible for a 32 bit kernel. Sure you would either have to get a kernel with that enabled or compile a new kernel.

I do suggest that a 'LiveCD' from 'The LiveCD List' would allow you to test drive a distribution.


The above links and others can be found at 'Slackware-Links'. More than just Slackware® links!

...

32 bit because 64 bit even though it can access more memory, it uses more also.
Meaning if you have less then 4 gb ram, always use 32 bit or you will get less out of your ram.

1 members found this post helpful.

??? - explain please smeezekitty.

It probably will make only a small net difference. Probably 64bit will run a little faster. It depends on what programs you will be running, but even if you could tell us what programs you would be running, there aren't good controlled experiment data available to say which programs run how much faster or slower in 64 bit.

The 64 bit build of a program tends to be a slightly larger binary, so it will use a little more memory for code. Pointers are twice as large in 64 bit, so depending on how heavily a program uses pointers it might use a lot more memory for that. Many 64 bit systems need a few 32 bit applications, so they often have both the 32 and 64 bit build of a shared object in ram at once, when a 32 bit system would need only one.

If you have very little ram, the above factors would be a good reason to not use 64 bit. But for most home users 3GB is a lot of ram. So the extra used by 64 bit won't have a noticeable effect.

You care whether you get more or less out of your computer, not whether you get more or less out of your ram. If you are running some program that gets a big performance boost from SSE and/or the extra registers of 64 bit mode, that extra speed would overwhelm the tiny performance loss from having slightly list caching because executing programs are slightly larger.

For what it's worth, at 3GB I didn't see any significant difference 32 vs 64, or with 6GB using a 32bit/PAE kernel vs a 64 bit kernel....at least as far as basic desktop (surfing the net, watching youtube etc, playing music). Build times and things of that nature, seem to be better using a 64 bit kernel, although I have no hard data.

32 bit systems will be more compatible with more software at the present moment, but you can always use a multilib OS or if slackware is your choice use BOB'S scripts and tutorials to make your 64 system multilib.

Personally I've been running a 64 bit system since Vista came out (THAT was compatibility HELL) with no serious consequences.

Hi,

There are plenty of benchmarks to support the 64 kernel over the 32 bit kernel.

The point that everyone should look at is the number of 32 bit machines overall as compared to the number of 64 bit based systems in the world. That's why we will still find 32 bit applications thus the multilib capability for a 64 bit kernel system to use the same app. Not all developers will move to a 64 bit kernel. Some will at a point in time but most will just remain 32.

I do use Slackware with 32 & 64 bit systems. The need to provide 32 multilib on my 64 machines hasn't come up at this time. Plus I keep test benches for 32 bit work, just because the hardware is available.

Bit flipping or just plain balancing doesn't turn me on. My machines meet the needs they were designed for thus why argue the point of 64 vs 32 or even 'PAE' on 32 to gain that extra memory address-ability.