32 Bit vs 64 Bit

[Reorx]

I use 32 bit LM exclusively... I tried the 64 bit version but I run a piece of software (for Linux) that does not get along with 64 bit Linux OSs... runs just fine under 32 bit... since I need the software for actual work, it's 32 bit for me...

[Melon Bread]

I use 32 bit LM exclusively... I tried the 64 bit version but I run a piece of software (for Linux) that does not get along with 64 bit Linux OSs... runs just fine under 32 bit... since I need the software for actual work, it's 32 bit for me...

Same

[AlbertP]

I use 32 bit LM exclusively... I tried the 64 bit version but I run a piece of software (for Linux) that does not get along with 64 bit Linux OSs... runs just fine under 32 bit... since I need the software for actual work, it's 32 bit for me...

Install ia32-libs from the repo and 32-bit only software runs fine.

[xenopeek]

Install ia32-libs from the repo and 32-bit only software runs fine.

Yup. Wonder why this isn't installed by default...

[linuxviolin]

Install ia32-libs from the repo and 32-bit only software runs fine.

Yup. Wonder why this isn't installed by default...

+1

[proxima_centauri]

FYI
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/OneiricOcelot/T ... 64_systems

Ubuntu 11.10 Beta 1 enables "multiarch" support for installing 32-bit library and application packages on 64-bit systems. For all amd64 installs and upgrades, select 32-bit software, including skype and flash, will be installable directly using the same 32-bit packages that are used on i386 installations, without the need to install the ia32-libs compatibility package. For users this means 32-bit libraries will always be available at the same time as their 64-bit counterparts, even in the case of security updates, and users will only need to install those 32-bit libraries needed by the applications they have installed.

[xenopeek]

That is good for software from those repositories, but doesn't help a bit for software from outside those repositories. ia32-libs should be installed by default on 64 bits. I remember not being able to run games from the recent Humble Bundle offering, until some bright soul on the forums shared you had to install ia32-libs to get them to work. That is what ia32-libs is for, so lets just include it already

[linuxviolin]

That is good for software from those repositories, but doesn't help a bit for software from outside those repositories. ia32-libs should be installed by default on 64 bits. I remember not being able to run games from the recent Humble Bundle offering, until some bright soul on the forums shared you had to install ia32-libs to get them to work. That is what ia32-libs is for, so lets just include it already

Plus, 11.10 is, well, not out yet and future. What for now and for users who use again some old releases or LTS?

[AlbertP]

For the time being, it's just a matter of installing ia32-libs and everything's working. I don't yet exactly know how the dpkg-multiarch will be implemented.

[linuxviolin]

For the time being, it's just a matter of installing ia32-libs and everything's working.

Well, yes. And so this is exactly why Vincent Vermeulen said it should be a part of the default install...

[Nick_Djinn]

There are two reasons why I have used x64 bit.....I have 8gb of ram, and I do video editing.

However, I have seen that many 64 bit systems, depending on hardware and software choices, actually perform WORSE than 32bit....not just "no noticeable improvement", but actually 'not as good of performance' at least in Linux due to everything be lazily ported from 32 to 64 without corresponding tweaks that ACTUALLY take advantage of 64bit hardware.....or else 32bit flash mucking things up. You could actually take a HIT in performance rather than merely not get the gains you want.

However, is this less true with video editing? How many tools for video are actually recompiled to take full advantage of 64bit CPUS and not merely lazily recompiled 'as is' for basic compatibility with 64 systems? I dont know. Maybe most. Maybe hardly any......and I am not a programmer, so maybe the 'point' totally evades me as I dont understand the dynamics between the CPU and the code like some do, so I am sure somebody could correct me on how things work.



However, 4gb of ram is totally standard now and some have up to 16gb of ram for some reason....good for live sessions anyway, booted into ram......32 cant use that, making it terrible for live sessions.

Are there any concerns with the PAE kernel? Why not use that one by default and just release a x32 OS that reads up to 64gb ram by default, and more people would be happy with just having a 32bit system?

[xenopeek]

With all respect, but this is FUD.

Any memory intensive application is faster on 64 bits because twice the amount of memory data can be processed per instruction (getting a real-world speed improvement of 10-15% for memory intensive applications; you won't get a speed increase any application that is not memory intensive). And yeah, you can further optimize software for 64 bits, beyond just recompiling it as-is for 64 bits architecture. That is what modern compilers do for you automatically once you compile for 64 bits. And sure, if programmers have 32 bits mindset, they can program something using low-level code that will not perform better on 64 bits because they are blocking the compiler's options for optimizing.

It is not just about handling more data per instruction. It is also about memory limits. With 32 bits, even with PAE, each application is limited to addressing 3GiB of memory (including it's virtual memory pages). This is starting to be a constraint, especially for high resolution video and photo editing and such. 64 bits increases this to 8 TiB (or, 2730 times as much as on 32 bits). I'm not going to say this is more than you'll ever need, because Bill Gates famously is quoted as having said that "640 KiB is more than you'll ever need" (and here we are with 4 GiB memory, or 6553 times as much as that ).

If you pay to buy a motherboard, CPU, graphics card and memory that all support 64 bits operations--and you then run a 32 bits operating system on it--well, I'd say you are a thief of your own pocket at the least.

[Nick_Djinn]

As I said earlier, Im sure some of you understand the issue better than I do

However, while I was previously convinced that 64 automatically performed better, I started reading about actual benchmarks instead of theory, and it surprised me.

Granted, this is outdated and I am sure things have improved SOMEWHAT, but theory does not always match reality....In Linux, I think things were lazily compiled to just "get it in there" and not optimized, with a few things actually holding BACK performance....maybe we are at a point where the benefits are more drastically outweighing the cons, but if its all around better then 64 should do better in all benchmarks and not just some of them.

Outdated from Prhonix, but still relevant.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a ... =616&num=3

"Looking over the results 64-bit Ubuntu was able to provide a strong advantage in the GCC benchmarks with both LAME and the Linux 2.6.19 kernel compilation. However, a slight advantage had remained with both Unreal Tournament 2004 and the LAME encoding tests in a 32-bit environment. Outside of the i386 and x86_64 analysis, it is also worth noting that at this time there are no real speed increases between Edgy Eft and Feisty Fawn; however, this was only the first Alpha (Herd) release of many to come before the April 2007 release of Ubuntu 7.04."


Then this test was done for Gentoo, which compiles from source which makes it different from other distros....Its more recent. 64 won in all tests, but often as little as 5% and suffered because of the flash issue.

http://tuxradar.com/content/ubuntu-904- ... benchmarks



Just curious, do we have 64bit flash support? How is Gnash catching up?

[xenopeek]

Stop with the FUD The Phoronix site is excellent, but quoting an article from 5 years ago is completely irrelevant today. Even the TuxRadar article is 2.5 years old and less relevant today then when posted.

Read this Phoronix article from April 2011 instead. Comparing Ubuntu 11.04 with 32 bits (i686), 32 bits PAE (i686 PAE) and 64 bits (x86_64) instead: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_natty_pae64&num=1

Final conclusion:

It is not new or surprising that the x86_64 Ubuntu is much faster than i686 Ubuntu on supported hardware, but it is somewhat surprising that Canonical continues to push the 32-bit version as the "recommended" version of Ubuntu from their web-site, etc. Most hardware shipping in recent times is 64-bit capable and there really is no reason not to use the version. Adobe offers a 64-bit Flash Player plug-in that is not updated as regularly as the 32-bit build, but it is available and there are also open-source solutions such as Gnash and Lightspark that operate under 64-bit just fine. Canonical does not even ship the Adobe Flash Player by default -- or any other non-free software that prefers a 32-bit environment -- and they have voted down changing this policy anyways (by checking "install restricted software" as the default). For those with new hardware, they are just impairing the initial Ubuntu experience with reduced performance for those who follow the recommendations/defaults.

Almost anybody buying a new computer today is getting a 64 bits CPU. In 2006 this was completely different, where 32 bits CPUs were mainstream. As the hardware has moved to 64 bits, so has the software. Don't underestimate what advances compilers have made to optimize for 64 bits in the past 5 years, and how programmers have refocused on 64 bits. But yes, there are still applications that outperform 64 bits on 32 bits but this isn't as prevalent or relevant as it was 5 or 2.5 years ago.

[hinto]

I gave up trying to combat the FUD about 64 bit in 2003. Yes the chip has been out since then. I even had one distro maintainer call me a troll since I told him that he needed a 64-bit version given that I had a 64-bit desktop. He also pointed me to the PAE kernel. I pointed to him that the PAE kernel does not execute 64-bit code, which is what I develop.

For now, I usually sigh and think "man I must be an idiot since I've been developing software on a Linux Desktop running 64-bit since 2003, with no prior *nix experience before then."
'scuse me for a minute I've got some cards to punch.... I have a release I need to get out;)

-Hinto

[keithp]

I have a very basic question, please.

My computer is 64bit, but, in my distro hopping days, I never ran the 64bit version of any Linux distro - only 32bit. Now, 32bit Mint10 is my only distro!

If I installed the 64bit version of Mint10, will all the programs on its DVD be 64bit?

Also, is everything on the repositories 32 bit? There's never been a choice of version listed for any program.

A 32bit program on a 64bit system seems to be defeating the speed object as far as I can see. But I am probably wrong.

Thanks.

Keith

[AlbertP]

Every program in the repository has a 32-bit and a 64-bit version: you can only see 32-bit versions on 32-bit Mint, and only 64-bit versions on 64-bit Mint. Sometimes the 64-bit version contains 32-bit code: this is the case at Google Earth and some other closed-source programs.
Wine can't yet run 64-bit Windows programs at the moment; for 64-bit Linux you'll still need the 32-bit version of your Wine programs.

If you want to run 32-bit code on 64-bit Mint, you can install ia32-libs from the repository. This is installed automatically when installing Google Earth or Wine, or any other program from the repository that depends on 32-bit code to work.
When installing a program from outside the repository which doesn't have a 64-bit version, you can install ia32-libs and the program will just run.

Note that 'amd64' programs aren't for AMD processors only. They can run on Intel 64-bit CPU's too.

[keithp]

Thanks, AlbertP for the explanation. I understand now.

Sorry it was such a basic question, but I was rather confused.

Keith

[Nick_Djinn]

I gave the disclaimer that it was an old article.

I also stand by what I said, that it depends on your hardware and software. These tests on this hardware strongly favored the 64bit for these tasks.

The other article I posted was from 2009, 2 years ago. It wasnt based on Ubuntu either but on a source based distro.



Anyway, with the newest Intel processors (I use AMD) newer Ubuntu seems to take a lot more advantage of 64bit than previously. This is the first time I saw that.

[craig10x]

I've run 64 bit and 32 bit versions of mint and find the 64 bit version is peppier...true, not all programs are in 64 bit, but i have NEVER seen any less performance as a result ONLY BETTER OVERALL... i think one is foolish these days running 32 bits since all modern computers run 64 bits for some years now...what those articles said are old and were much more true then, but are no longer true in 2011...

Even windows is 64 bit now