32-bit vs. 64-bit

All Gurus once were Newbies
Forum rules
There are no such things as "stupid" questions. However if you think your question is a bit stupid, then this is the right place for you to post it. Please stick to easy to-the-point questions that you feel people can answer fast. For long and complicated questions prefer the other forums within the support section.
Before you post please read this

Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Postby magician11 on Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:03 am

tdockery97 wrote:
jesica wrote:I say 23 bit

:lol: This whole discussion makes about that much sense. Unless you are doing scientific calculations, heavy number crunching, video encoding etc. that most of us aren't doing, 32 bit works just as well as 64 bit. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it :P

:lol: Thanks guys. this has been a most entertaining (and yet informative!!) discussion.

I'm leaning to agree with tdockery97... keeping it simple and staying with 32bit for now.
magician11
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:51 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand

Linux Mint is funded by ads and donations.
 

Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Postby gjringo on Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:52 am

See this Phoronix report for a more detailed comparison ..Ubuntu 32-bit, 32-bit PAE, 64-bit Kernel Benchmarks
("Coming up in our forums was a testing request to compare the performance of Linux between using 32-bit, 32-bit PAE, and 64-bit kernels. This is coming after Linus Torvalds has spoke of 25% performance differences between kernels using CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G and those without this option that allows 32-bit builds to address up to 4GB of physical RAM on a system. We decided to compare the performance of the 32-bit, 32-bit PAE, and 64-bit kernels on a modern desktop system and here are the results.")....http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a ... _pae&num=1
Image
User avatar
gjringo
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:39 am
Location: Upwey,Victoria,Australia

Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Postby jesica on Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:54 am

tdockery97 wrote:
jesica wrote:I say 23 bit

:lol: This whole discussion makes about that much sense. Unless you are doing scientific calculations, heavy number crunching, video encoding etc. that most of us aren't doing, 32 bit works just as well as 64 bit. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it :P



hey, sorry my friend :mrgreen:

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

I check out a couple of websites that shows the test they have done between the two,

I know it will not break you system or anyting, but I just feel, we have not get to the point were we really know what 64bit can do and 64bit machines that can handle it to its full.
Image

My Linux Counter number # 566377
Mate
IT Ninja
Happy apt-get-ing!
Linux Mint Donar # 2159


Security is the separation of an asset from a threat.
User avatar
jesica
Level 9
Level 9
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:54 am
Location: South Africa

Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Postby Aging Technogeek on Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:48 pm

I had not seen the Tuxradar benchmark comparison of 32 band 64 bit Ubuntu. The Phoronix tests I had seen before. To my eyes, there is not a truly significant speed advantage with the 64 bit system. At least, for me, not enough to override the fact that due to its longer memory address format and 64 bit rather than32 bit word lengths 64 bit uses 25-33 % more memory to do the same tasks as 32 bit.

I have done some simple benchmark testing using the tests included in hardinfo (in Menu as System Profiler and Benchmark) and , on my systems, 64 bit Mint 9 runs less than 10 % faster than 32 bit Mint 9. LMDE runs faster than 64 bit Mint 9. and 32 bit Peppermint runs faster yet. So I came to the conclusion that it is better to run a stripped down, minimal OS if all you are looking for is speed. I like the ease of configuration I get with the Gnome or Xfce desktop more than I love the speed of a light OS like Crunchbang or Peppermint One. (I like both of those OS also, but neither will ever be my daily driver)

The bottom line is I do not see the need to use a 64 bit OS just because my computer has a 64 bit architecture. I know of others on this forum who have seen significant improvements in speed and stability on their 64 bit computers when using a 64 bit OS. They have a good reason to use the 64 bit system - it makes their computer happy.

So far, I have not run into this on any of the 64 bit machines I own or set up for others so I will stay with 32 bit for the present. After all, Linux is about choices; and this is mine.
Image

Registered Linux User 483387
User avatar
Aging Technogeek
Level 13
Level 13
 
Posts: 4605
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:54 am
Location: Right about here

Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Postby jesica on Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:57 am

Thanks Aging Technogeek , that is the same way I feel, :mrgreen:

then again I would love to try out LMDE 64 bit,

Just a quick one, will we be able to expect 128 bit and up in the future
Image

My Linux Counter number # 566377
Mate
IT Ninja
Happy apt-get-ing!
Linux Mint Donar # 2159


Security is the separation of an asset from a threat.
User avatar
jesica
Level 9
Level 9
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:54 am
Location: South Africa

Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Postby grey1960envoy on Sun Oct 31, 2010 12:22 am

No to the 128 version they are going straight to a 512 version instead as someone wants to re-visit the moon LOL
In a perfect world everything has it's place, Linux on my computer, windows on the wall, and M$ in the trash!
CrunchBang, LMDE, Mint 9 ,Peppermint Hackintosh and a few others :) Registered ...Machine; #432150 user ;#530829
User avatar
grey1960envoy
Level 4
Level 4
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:21 pm
Location: 3rd rock from the sun

Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Postby tdockery97 on Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:02 am

I guess another way to look at the question is: How many people use applications/software that must use 4, 6, 8 Gigabytes of ram to work properly and efficiently? I don't think there is too much of that software out there unless you are using your computer for truly scientific or complex mathematical calculations.
Image

HP Pavilion 17 Notebook, 8GB DDR3, 2.5GHZ A10-APU, Radeon HD 8650G
Registered Linux User #520972
User avatar
tdockery97
Level 13
Level 13
 
Posts: 4844
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:54 am
Location: Salem, Oregon

Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Postby Gramps50 on Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:58 pm

Up until I got my new laptop with the i7 740QM I thought that 32 bit was better and used less ram and I really didn't see any speed difference between the 2 I have also used the PAE module for the kernal so I felt that I wasn't wasting any of the ram I had pad for. WIth this laptop it seems to me that the 64 bit is more responsive. I will admit I'm not really comparing apples to apples as for 32 bit I was using LMDE and 64 bit I have LM 10 RC 1. Don't have any cold hard facts to support this other that how it feels while driving it.

Actually it's not that hard to just install both versions and see which one you like best. This week I like the 64 bit version but next week who knows. :D
LMDE ROCKS!!!
User avatar
Gramps50
Level 4
Level 4
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:36 am

Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Postby tinca on Mon Nov 01, 2010 4:19 am

Hi all,

as this subject has come up again I will give you my take on it.

I built this computer four years ago, and in that time it has been running "Protein Folding" for Stamford University.I have to have a 64 bit operating system to get the best folding performance. I have "Kpowersaver installed and it is set to "Performance". This means that the computer runs flat out twenty four seven. The only time it is shut down is when I have to give it an internal clean as the "Antec 900" case has NO filters at all.

Even when the computer is flat out folding, I do video capture from the TV, I use "Projectx", "Mplex", "Openshot" and "Devede" to make DVD, all supposedly ram intensive tasks. All of this is done with just 2 gig of ram.

I have NO Desktop effects enabled and I do not run Conky or any icon docks, as they all downgrade my "Protein Folding".

I can,t imagine what programs you run that requires so much ram, as my lowly 2 gig does all I want.

Best regards Keith
Case Antec 900 | Motherboard Abit ip35 Pro | CPU Q6600 (GO) | PSU Zippy P5L-6720P | Graphic Card XFX 7300 GS | Cooler Corsair T50 water cooled cpu | Ram 2x1GB sticks | Monitor Samsung Syncmaster 323t
tinca
Level 4
Level 4
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:23 am
Location: England U.K.

Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Postby JonM33 on Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:45 am

Okay, I am running the Mint 10 64-bit live DVD on my primary desktop that has a Core 2 Quad Q9450 and 6GB DDR2-800. Any idea why it's showing up as 5.8GB? Sort of odd...

Image
"Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches." -Steve Ballmer
User avatar
JonM33
Level 5
Level 5
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:40 am
Location: Ohio

Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Postby magician11 on Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:14 am

Mine does the same.. I have 4Gb of RAM, and it shows up as 3.8Gb.

When I use sysinfo, it shows up as 3885 MiB

I think that's right. When I buy harddisks and they say I have 320Gb, when I view the properties, it's always a bit less.

I found this online...

Decimal vs. Binary:
For simplicity and consistency, hard drive manufacturers define a megabyte as 1,000,000 bytes and a gigabyte as 1,000,000,000 bytes. This is a decimal (base 10) measurement and is the industry standard. However, certain system BIOSs, FDISK and Windows define a megabyte as 1,048,576 bytes and a gigabyte as 1,073,741,824 bytes. Mac systems also use these values. These are binary (base 2) measurements.

To Determine Decimal Capacity:
A decimal capacity is determined by dividing the total number of bytes, by the number of bytes per gigabyte (1,000,000,000 using base 10).

To Determine Binary Capacity:
A binary capacity is determined by dividing the total number of bytes, by the number of bytes per gigabyte (1,073,741,824 using base 2).
This is why different utilities will report different capacities for the same drive. The number of bytes is the same, but a different number of bytes is used to make a megabyte and a gigabyte. This is similar to the difference between 0 degrees Celsius and 32 degrees Fahrenheit. It is the same temperature, but will be reported differently depending on the scale you are using.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Various Drive Sizes and their Binary and Decimal Capacities


Drive Size in GB Approximate Total Bytes Decimal Capacity
(bytes/1,000,000,000)
Approximate Binary Capacity (bytes/1,073,724,841)
10 GB 10,000,000,000 10 GB 9.31 GB
20 GB 20,000,000,000 20 GB 18.63 GB
30 GB 30,000,000,000 30 GB 27.94 GB
36 GB 36,000,000,000 36 GB 33.53 GB
40 GB 40,000,000,000 40 GB 37.25 GB
60 GB 60,000,000,000 60 GB 55.88 GB
74 GB 74,000,000,000 74 GB 68.91 GB
80 GB 80,000,000,000 80 GB 74.51 GB
100 GB 100,000,000,000 100 GB 93.13 GB
120 GB 120,000,000,000 120 GB 111.76 GB
160 GB 160,000,000,000 160 GB 149.01 GB
180 GB 180,000,000,000 180 GB 167.64 GB
200 GB 200,000,000,000 200 GB 186.26 GB
250 GB 250,000,000,000 250 GB 232.83 GB
300 GB 300,000,000,000 300 GB 279.40 GB
320 GB 320,000,000,000 320 GB 298.02 GB


from http://www.techimo.com/forum/storage-re ... u-pay.html
magician11
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:51 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand

Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Postby ej64 on Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:05 am

JonM33 wrote:Okay, I am running the Mint 10 64-bit live DVD on my primary desktop that has a Core 2 Quad Q9450 and 6GB DDR2-800. Any idea why it's showing up as 5.8GB? Sort of odd...

This has nothing to do with GB vs. GiB.

The reason is "memory mapping". On most machines any physical device is mapped to a memory address below the 4 GB barrier for compatibility reasons. If this wasn't the case you wouldn't be able to boot a 32bit OS (or below). Usually the biggest memory eater usually is the video card. To address the memory on the card, this memory has to have an address within the 4 GB address space. So I you have RAM within this address space it's just lost. This is the reason why many systems are sold with 3 GB RAM -- 4 GB often do not make a big difference in usable RAM (and why 1 GB video cards aren't consumer ready atm since they eat a whole GB of address space).

Most new BIOSes are able to use memory addresses within the 64 bit address space for memory mapping purposes (option called "memory hole remapping" or similar) to avoid this kind of RAM wastage. But with this option set you won't be able to boot any below 64 bit OS.

Wikipedia about PCI memory hole

A lengthy article can be found here: Ask Dan: What's with the 3Gb memory barrier?

Unfortuantely there is also some (minor) Linux memory wasting
Thinkpad X220 with Samsung SSD running Xubuntu 13.04
I'm getting old gladly -- I don't like to die young ...
ej64
Level 4
Level 4
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:43 am
Location: somewhere in Germany

Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Postby JonM33 on Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:56 pm

It's not the memory mapping thing as Windows 7 doesn't do this.

Image

If I check the Task Manager Performance tab I see 6143MB physical memory. When divided by 1024 that comes to 5.99GB.

I guess it's not a serious issue as 6GB is a LOT of memory and I doubt I'll ever be doing anything in Linux to warrant a need for that much anyway.
"Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches." -Steve Ballmer
User avatar
JonM33
Level 5
Level 5
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:40 am
Location: Ohio

Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Postby Memoox on Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:57 pm

a 32 bit processor running more than 3.2 gb of ram by just using a patch???????????

that's awesome, although i think it has a catch, because what ever OS you're running, memory has to be mapped, and 32 bit processors can't map more memory that their capabilities, maybe is a patch for using a 64 bit processor.

i've been using LM for a while with both versions, i must say, just moving data, like copying and moving etc, it's faster on 64 bit, for the rest of apps of "normal" use, no difference, even slower on 64 bit. For hungry applications, i guess, because i haven't used one, haha, it's better the 64 bit edition.

maybe it's just me but i changed LM 9 to 10 "Julia" a few weeks back, looks great but feels not as responsive as "Isadora", so after this post i'm going to the LTS version.

So for your setup, use 64 bit, you won't regret it.
Memoox
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Postby maxtheitpro on Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:00 pm

I have a laptop with a Pentium Dual Core (T3400) running at 2.16 GHz & 2 GB RAM. It's supposed to be Intel64. Would I be able to run Ubuntu 64bit on this machine?
maxtheitpro
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:55 pm

Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Postby proxima_centauri on Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:10 pm

maxtheitpro wrote:I have a laptop with a Pentium Dual Core (T3400) running at 2.16 GHz & 2 GB RAM. It's supposed to be Intel64. Would I be able to run Ubuntu 64bit on this machine?

Yes.
User avatar
proxima_centauri
Level 11
Level 11
 
Posts: 3968
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 3:24 pm
Location: NB, Canada

Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Postby ntg_sf on Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:32 am

32 bits is limited to 2^32 bits(4GB) PER-PROCESS. This means the memory of any process cannot be more than 4GB.
Also, for 64bit, the same process will take approx +50% of memory due to fragmentation and size of vars.
This means that if you have less than 8GB, and you plan to use the pc for general purpose, you should use 32 bit.
For more info:
http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... 1&t=105736
ntg_sf
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:25 am

Linux Mint is funded by ads and donations.
 
Previous

Return to Newbie Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mute Ant and 29 guests