32 Bit vs 64 Bit

[gn2]

Last time I did a comparison, (two years ago) converting a 700mb .avi to a DVD .iso took roughly 90 minutes on my laptop with 32 bit Linux and 50 minutes using 64.

Here is an example of a benchmark which documents just such a level of performance advantage.


Source

[linuxviolin]

It is called innovation, progress or at least technical advancement.

"It is called"... yes, but it is really that? About the rest, we might not to be quite sure we have won about food with our chemical, industrial, "organically modified" food...

if you want to use 32 bits on 64 bits, go right ahead

And if you need 64 bit, idem. This is exactly what I said.

I'm happy to be able to use more with virtual machines for example.

Yes, because you use this kind of thing and/or other but not everybody does and needs that.

I was just saying, why buy a 64 bits processor if you aren't going to use it? Then stick to second hand 32 bit processors and systems, which you can get for cheap.

Exactly.

they runs Windows.

Err, there is no 64 Windows version?

All the tests I know show just 10-15% improvement as what you can expect from CPU heavy applications.

For "CPU heavy applications" yes but not everybody uses and really needs them...

converting a 700mb .avi to a DVD .iso took roughly 90 minutes

Hmm, the last time I made this on a 32 bit system here, it did not take such time, I guess...

But as I said, the purpose here is not to denigrate or like 64 bit. If you need 64 bit, good, buy and use 64 bit, it can be the best for you. If not really, well...

[AlbertP]

On many systems the harddisk is often the bottleneck, and 64-bit doesn't speed up the harddisk. For example if I put a 64-bit compatible mobo & CPU in my old desktop I would still be limited by the third-hand harddisk I am using.

[xenopeek]

On many systems the harddisk is often the bottleneck, and 64-bit doesn't speed up the harddisk. For example if I put a 64-bit compatible mobo & CPU in my old desktop I would still be limited by the third-hand harddisk I am using.

Very much true. I'm happy to have saved up for a SSD, best improvement ever for speed

[xenopeek]

they runs Windows.

Err, there is no 64 Windows version?

I'm using Windows 7 64 bits at work.

All the tests I know show just 10-15% improvement as what you can expect from CPU heavy applications.

For "CPU heavy applications" yes but not everybody uses and really needs them...

Your point being? I think we are fully in agreement that anybody who doesn't need 64 bits hardware, shouldn't buy it in the first place but just recycle 32 bits machines Don't waste your money on a car that can go 300 MPH if the legal speed limit is 80 MPH...

converting a 700mb .avi to a DVD .iso took roughly 90 minutes

Wow

[MALsPa]

I think we are fully in agreement that anybody who doesn't need 64 bits hardware, shouldn't buy it in the first place but just recycle 32 bits machines Don't waste your money on a car that can go 300 MPH if the legal speed limit is 80 MPH...

Something tells me, though, that you really don't care what someone else does with their money!

I know you're just making a point, but if someone wants to buy a car that can go 300 MPH just to drive it at 65 or whatever... who cares? Same with the the whole 32 bit/64 bit debate.

[xenopeek]

I think we are fully in agreement that anybody who doesn't need 64 bits hardware, shouldn't buy it in the first place but just recycle 32 bits machines Don't waste your money on a car that can go 300 MPH if the legal speed limit is 80 MPH...

Something tells me, though, that you really don't care what someone else does with their money!

I know you're just making a point, but if someone wants to buy a car that can go 300 MPH just to drive it at 65 or whatever... who cares? Same with the the whole 32 bit/64 bit debate.

Ah well, I'll give ground to this reasoning Well put sir Or we could settle in the middle and just run 48 bit software...

[hinto]

I think we are fully in agreement that anybody who doesn't need 64 bits hardware, shouldn't buy it in the first place but just recycle 32 bits machines Don't waste your money on a car that can go 300 MPH if the legal speed limit is 80 MPH...

Something tells me, though, that you really don't care what someone else does with their money!

I know you're just making a point, but if someone wants to buy a car that can go 300 MPH just to drive it at 65 or whatever... who cares? Same with the the whole 32 bit/64 bit debate.

Ah well, I'll give ground to this reasoning Well put sir Or we could settle in the middle and just run 48 bit software...

I was thinking Thunderdome. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmRAiUPdRjk
-H

[xenopeek]

I was thinking Thunderdome. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmRAiUPdRjk
-H

Yes, let's settle this once and for all

We are derailing the thread a bit

[linuxviolin]

I think we are fully in agreement that anybody who doesn't need 64 bits hardware, shouldn't buy it in the first place but just recycle 32 bits machines Don't waste your money on a car that can go 300 MPH if the legal speed limit is 80 MPH...

Yes, I also think...

Something tells me, though, that you really don't care what someone else does with their money!

I know you're just making a point, but if someone wants to buy a car that can go 300 MPH just to drive it at 65 or whatever... who cares? Same with the the whole 32 bit/64 bit debate.

Well, OK, if someone wants buy a stupid and useless thing and/or if (s)he has enough money, it's his/her right of course. (S)He can do it.

About the 32/64 bit debate, the purpose is just: if you really need 64 bit, of course use 64 bit. If not, why you absolutely would want 64 bit? You could just use 32 bit and be happy with. Of course, as I said, you can if you want but this is unnecessary in this case. In fact, there no real "debate", it is not necessary, I guess...

[catilley1092]

This thread can go on & on, here & other places, there'll always be someone starting it. My last two cents on the issue. If one has 64 bit hardware, it's best to go with 64 bit, regardless of OS brand. There are many apps now on the market for 64 bit, with more on the way.

I've had both, & from what I've seen, a 64 bit computer normally won't be pushed beyond it's limits (as in "crashing"). Note that I stated "normally", there are extremes, in which case the user needs to build/buy another computer. Components are at all time lows for many (such as RAM & HDD's). 8GB desktop RAM kits can oftentimes be found on Newegg for less than $50. That's plenty for most, if not go for 12 or 16GB. CPU's are edging down also, but not at the rate of the components that I've already listed. Mid-sized cases (w/power & fan) can often be found at a great rate. Many brands of optical media are dirt cheap ($20 to $40). MOBO's of one brand or another are always on promo at Newegg, as well as all of the components (many of which are listed above) that's required to build a PC. Solid State Drives (or SSD's), are still quite expensive, some early generation models can be found on sale, but for the most of us, a solid 7200 rpm, 32MB cache, with the size being your choosing, is quite adequate. Note that many 1TB HDD's with these specs can be found for $50, brand new. I mentioned Newegg as a source for parts, but with careful shopping, Amazon delivers many of the same products, sometimes for less, than Newegg.

If one doesn't want to build, then there's plenty of great deals on brand new PC's (as well as notebooks & tablets), and except for netbooks, it's going to be hard to find a brand new 32 bit PC. There may be a few left, but you generally overpay for them, and some of them still runs simple DDR RAM, with a 2GB max for most. One will find it hard to beat today's PC/notebook/tablet prices. 64 bit computing isn't the future, it's today. 128 bit is the future (inside of 5 years). Then where will 32 bit be? Developers are already just coming around to make time to produce more 64 bit apps for us to use. I was running both Linux & Windows when 64 bit computers became the norm, and I know that 64 bit apps/software were being written for Linux, long before they were being written for Windows. I was able to use a 64 bit browser on Mint long before I could use one on Windows 7. Because Flash was available for Linux first, that's why.

With a properly configured/selected 64 bit computer for your needs, you'll see far fewer crashes, if any. With a decent dual core (that's hyperthreaded) CPU, around 3.0GHz & up, along with 6GB DDR3 RAM, a dedicated video card (GPU) along with proper cooling & power, most versions of Linux will cruise on those specs. If you like gaming, then a quad core CPU may be needed, along with a little more RAM, cooling & power. Many Intel quad core CPU's are ready for overclocking out of the box. The Intel brand, while more costly, will run cooler, and a cooler CPU is (usually) a happy, normally long lasting one. Keeping it clean will go a long ways towards it's longevity.

Now, as far as notebooks goes, especially ones designed to run Windows (I'm speaking of new here, not used), there's probably going to be a lot of programs (notably customised audio programs & options for extra CPU "bower boost" (preinstalled) that's just not going to work with Linux. None of the custom features on my MSI FX603 will run on Mint or Ubuntu. It runs considerably hotter, and battery life is cut in half. One would need to find a supplier who builds Linux based notebook computers, just Google "Linux laptops", there are a few companies who builds them. Note they will cost more than most retail purchased notebooks will, with lower specs. The suppliers of Linux based notebooks are in line with iMac books, as far as pricing goes, especially if one wants a powerful one, with a dedicated video card (GPU), plenty of RAM, & a quad core CPU. For $1,000 or more, one should go for no less than quad core, & at least 6GB RAM.

These are just a few points of why a 64 bit system is superior over the 32 bit one, and gives a bit of food for thought. As I've already stated, the real future is yet to come, 128 bit computing, and it's doubtful that all 3 platforms will be supported. From what I've been hearing, it's going to sometime shortly after XP is shot out of the sky on 04/08/2014. Software & hardware goes hand & hand.

Cat

[Nick_Djinn]

I admit I stand corrected. I was using outdated information.

[AlbertP]

With Mint 12 and its new dpkg-multiarch inherited from Ubuntu 11.10, many 64-bit problems are solved. There's no ia32-libs anymore - the libs are having a seperate ":i386" version.

[Nick_Djinn]

What could possibly require 16gb of ram? I have 8gb and people think I am crazy. Its very very rare that I push 4gb. Unless you are in a habit of running operating systems from ram entirely I really really doubt you will benefit from having more than 6gb of ram, even as a heavy gamer.....More useful would be a faster hard drive and lower latency ram with better cooling, and forget wasting money on ram that will not be utilized in the near future by any conceivable activity....It will eventually, but not in the next year.

[xenopeek]

What could possibly require 16gb of ram? I have 8gb and people think I am crazy. Its very very rare that I push 4gb. Unless you are in a habit of running operating systems from ram entirely I really really doubt you will benefit from having more than 6gb of ram, even as a heavy gamer.....More useful would be a faster hard drive and lower latency ram with better cooling, and forget wasting money on ram that will not be utilized in the near future by any conceivable activity....It will eventually, but not in the next year.

If you have enough with 8 GiB, good for you I run a lot of concurrent VMs for playing around with, and push beyond the 8 GiB boundary easily. Getting 16 GiB of memory instead of just 8 GiB of memory was just € 65 extra for me, and that was at least half a year ago so I imagine it is even less now. My old machine had 2 GiB of memory, and though I had wanted to extend it's life with upgrading to 4 GiB, finding the same class memory to add to the machine was almost impossible. The ones I did find would have cost me more than € 65 I'm never making the mistake again of thinking "I can upgrade memory later", it will be ridiculously expensive to do so...

Anyway, I agree that for average use you are not likely to see any benefit from having 16 GiB over 8 GiB for the next year. But let's see in three years time...

[ilovelinux]

What could possibly require 16gb of ram?

Possibly a home server of sorts, either serving websites or running game servers? That's my guess.

[linuxviolin]

What could possibly require 16gb of ram?

Nothing.

If one has 64 bit hardware, it's best to go with 64 bit

No. You just need 64 bit if you *really* need for this and if you have at least 4 GB RAM. If not, no need, 32 bit is quite sufficient. By the way, 32 bit works quite well on 64 bit hardware.

[ilovelinux]

No. You just need 64 bit if you *really* need for this and if you have at least 4 GB RAM. If not, no need, 32 bit is quite sufficient. By the way, 32 bit works quite well on 64 bit hardware.

My laptop has only 3GB RAM, and I run 64bit Mint 10 on it and 64bit OS works much better than any 32bit OS I've used on it.

[AlbertP]

Same goes for me on 2GB, 3GB and 4GB laptops. 64-bit just runs snappier without too much downsides.

[gn2]

No. You just need 64 bit if you *really* need for this and if you have at least 4 GB RAM.

The same erroneous stuff just keeps pouring out, when will it end...?
The performance benefits of 64 can be utilised with less than 4gb of RAM.
More than 4gb of RAM can be utilised by 32.
It all boils down to informed choice.
Sadly on this particular topic there is more misinformation doing the rounds than information.