I've always used 32 bit versions on my system but now I'm downloading the 64 bit to see how it is. Is there any special procedure I need to follow when installing if I'm happy my hardware is compatible. BTW my processor is Core 2 Duo E4500 - 2.20 GHz (2 MB L2, 800 MHz FSB), a microATX gigabyte motherboard, nvidia 8800 gt gpu and 2 GB RAM.
-
-
Re: 32 Bit or 64 Bit with Karmic.
What really makes the difference is your CPU. if you have an AMD x64 then your ready to install the 64 Bit. other wise, on Intel CPU's, stay with the 32 Bit version.
as far as differences, i compared both versions since Ubuntu 7 and i can tell you that there is not much difference - at least with my use of the computer. At least most major applications conflicts with 64 Bit systems were solved, and usually you can download applications installation packages for both 32 and 64 Bit OS's (from getdeb.net for example).I'll tell you all my secrets, but I'll lie about my past<br /><br />http://www.thebizneeds.com -
Re: 32 Bit or 64 Bit with Karmic.
I have a core2-duo 64-bit, and there is quite a bit of performance gain. I have Vista running in a Virtualbox, hogging one entire cpu to itself, and the rest of the system is unaffected by it.
We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet. -- Stephen HawkingComment
-
Re: 32 Bit or 64 Bit with Karmic.
The 64-bit OS should run just fine on that platform.*Originally posted by assettt
Don't expect a dramatic difference in overall performance -- most of the software packages are of 32-bit origins, compiled for 64-bit, so they don't run noticeably faster.
* meaning whatever issues you have, will exist for 32-bit as well!
Comment
-
Re: 32 Bit or 64 Bit with Karmic.
Thanks for all the replies. I'll give it a go on a clean install and if it goes Pete tong I'll just download the 32 bit and start all over again. Not really a gamer except for TORCS which was sadly broken in the karmic beta I had.Comment
-
Re: 32 Bit or 64 Bit with Karmic.
Actually, as Teunis points out, this was once a true statement (before Intel implemented a 64-bit CPU architecture and command set) but is not true in recent years. For example, see this spec sheet where they refer to "Intel® 64":Originally posted by Argos
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id...es=SL9UK,SLACP
AMD did release a 64-bit CPU and command set first, and thus it was labeled (by them and others) "AMD-64". Following their lead, Intel originally had a different name for their implementation, "EMT64", and now it seems to be "Intel® 64". And, there are certainly Intel CPUs available today (the mobile and low-power models) that are strictly 32-bit. But the higher-end desktop CPUs from Intel are all 64-bit, and run the 64-bit Linux OS as well as other 64-bit operating systems.
More:
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1736
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64
http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/manual/253668.pdf
Comment
Comment