64-Bit Worth it??

[b0uncyfr0]

Ive read around and 64-bit does have advantages but why is almost everyone using 32-bit? Are there somethings that are THAT** horrible compared to 32-bit?

Im planning on building a new rig and i want to go 64-bit but im currently not sure if its the right choice. How well does the .24 kernel support Dual Cores (E8400) and are there 32-bit /64-bit kernels or are they the same thing

[dibl]

Re: 64-Bit Worth it??

Here's the kernel that is running on my 64-bit system:

dibl@cville:~$ uname -a
Linux cville 2.6.24-12-generic #1 SMP Wed Mar 12 22:31:43 UTC 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux

There is full support for dual core CPUs. Here's the first half of the output for my X6800 (the output for processor 1 is identical):

dibl@cville:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor    : 0
vendor_id    : GenuineIntel
cpu family   : 6
model      : 15
model name   : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU     X6800 @ 2.93GHz
stepping    : 6
cpu MHz     : 3466.801
cache size   : 4096 KB
physical id   : 0
siblings    : 2
core id     : 0
cpu cores    : 2
fpu       : yes
fpu_exception  : yes
cpuid level   : 10
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 arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr lahf_lm
bogomips    : 6938.50
clflush size  : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes  : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management:

Notice that it is happy to recognize the overclocking -- the default speed for this CPU is 2.93GHz, but the actual 3.467GHz is detected and reported. Mepis and Sidux don't report it correctly, FYI.

So, if you choose the "AMD64" Desktop or Alternate Install CD, this is how it sets up your system, and there really is nothing special that you need to know or do. Adept Manager shows all the packages, and they're packaged for the 64-bit architecture -- very simple.

There is one thing you need to know -- Sun has not released a 64-bit version of the Java Runtime Environment (JRE), and AFAIK none of the alleged workarounds actually work very well. So, if daily use of JRE is important, you'd better stick with 32-bit for the time being.

[Runaway1956]

Re: 64-Bit Worth it??

The single biggest problem with 64-bit, is that many apps aren't ported to 64-bit. If you are willing to compile from source, this generally isn't a real problem, though.

The number one problem that I've had, is to make browser plugin's work correctly, primarily Sun Java. You can install a 64 bit Java VM, with no problem, but the plugins don't exist yet. The 64-bit browser doesn't behave any differently than 32 bit, so workaround by using 32 bit browser, java, and plugins.

Depending on what you are doing with your machine, you may or may not see any performance difference by switching to 64 bit. A 32 bit OS with all the latest updates and patches makes very good use of the 64 bit architecture, though it is limited in memory addressing, and a few other, less noticeable areas.

At this point in time, there isn't any great advantage to upgrading to a 64 bit OS, but as time goes on, and more applications are ported (JAVA!!!) it will pay off.

[DracoTB]

Re: 64-Bit Worth it??

There is one thing you need to know -- Sun has not released a 64-bit version of the Java Runtime Environment (JRE), and AFAIK none of the alleged workarounds actually work very well. So, if daily use of JRE is important, you'd better stick with 32-bit for the time being.

Adobe doesn't appear to have released a 64 bit version of Macromedia Flash either. There's probably a few other programs around that, although not essential, would be irritating not to have and which is why I'm running the 32 bit version. I did initially install the 64 bit but it's just not fully supported yet.

64 bit support will come but there's still a lot of momentum in the old 32 bit.


My system is an AMD X2 64 bit system - just thought I should clarify that.

[b0uncyfr0]

Re: 64-Bit Worth it??

I think i will be going 64-bit. Worse case scenario i have to format and go back to 32-bit.

Dibl i notice youre using a generic kernel. I read somewhere there are kernels optimised for different CPU's but you have to compile right? Is there anything different between them and the generics?

Im acting very n00bish ( i know) but i want to get the most out of my new system.

[jacksaff]

Re: 64-Bit Worth it??

I installed 64bit on my new machine largely because, as ubuntu is basically debian, I'll only ever have to install it on this machine once.
There were a couple of hiccups. It was harder to get a 64bit livecd to boot though the very latest such as hardy beta worked.
A couple of 32bit apps wouldn't run -kubuntu 64 doesn't install the required 32bit libs by default, easily fixed after a quick google and apt-get.
Browser plug ins haven't been an issue at all yet
Pretty minor hassles, especially as I've installed beta software, and well worth the hassle avoided of having to reinstall and set up my system again later in 64bit which you will do eventually if you go 32bit now.
No really noticeable performance gains from 64bit for me, though my machine is plenty overpowered for what I mainly do so it could be working faster but I never gets stretched to the point where I notice.

[dibl]

Re: 64-Bit Worth it??

Dibl i notice youre using a generic kernel. I read somewhere there are kernels optimised for different CPU's but you have to compile right? Is there anything different between them and the generics?

I'm not into kernel compiling -- I have not heard or seen anything that makes me think there's anything much to gain by doing that, for my purposes. Last year, for a special audio project, I installed the "low latency" kernel on a Ubuntu Feisty setup, and it worked fine for capturing and processing a lot of old recorded music, via a turntable and amp and equalizer. But the generic kernel seems perfectly fine for everyday purposes -- it has been worked on very hard by the Linux developers to support typical desktop use, and I'm very happy with it.

[magikx21]

Re: 64-Bit Worth it??

I would say go 64-bit. My main PC run Gutsy x64 and I've also got a box running Hardy x64 and I haven't seen any issues due to the x64 besides JRE. The way I see it is, if your processor is x64 then you may as well use a x64 OS.

[b0uncyfr0]

Re: 64-Bit Worth it??

Yes i definitely will.

[cacycleworks]

Re: 64-Bit Worth it??

If this data helps anyone, my intel core-duo could compile a kernel in about 20 minutes. This was running x86_64 generic kernel from command line console (no window manager running). I was really banging my head for a few weeks trying to get my Dell D630 laptop working. Ended up just waiting a month and Fiesty 64-bit installed itself.

That and there are/were a few sneaky settings required to make my install happen smoothly.

I'm a tad irritated at the current condition of my install ... had been allowing the updater to do it's thing and somehow a month ago, many areas of my computing life were interrupted by Gutsy and/or a new kernel. I'm still contemplating what's next, but a reinstall is in the cards.

Chris