Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit [Solved]

Forum rules
Before you post please read how to get help
User avatar
JoeFootball
Level 9
Level 9
Posts: 2915
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:52 pm
Location: /home/usa/mn/minneapolis/joe

Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit [Solved]

Post by JoeFootball »

Hi friends,

With the upcoming releases of the new 32-bit & 64-bit versions of Mint KDE, I'm faced with making a (delightful) decision. Which one?

From what I've heard/read previously, it's been my understanding that even if you have a 64-bit processor, if you don't have at least 4 GB of RAM, you're not going to see any gain in performance. Furthermore, I've heard/read accounts of 64-bit distributions being less stable and less compatible than their 32-bit counterparts. Even the latest Linux Mint 8 User Manual alludes to this. Therefore, my personal disposition was that I wanted stability & compatibility for my system over performance. I mean, what good is better performance if I can't viably use it?

That all said, from what I've read here in all the excitement of the 64-bit version of Mint KDE coming to light, this information of mine may be dated things of the past, and that the 64-bit version will offer the same stability/compatibility as the 32-bit version, but with better performance for those with 64-bit processors.

True? If so, does this still hold true with 64-bit boxes with less than 4 GB of RAM?

Many thanks in advance. :)

Joe
Last edited by JoeFootball on Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Fred
Level 10
Level 10
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:59 am
Location: NC USA

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by Fred »

JoeFootball,

64 bit systems have made much progress in software compatibility, but they haven't completely caught up with 32 bit systems in this area yet. You are still apt to run into a glitch once in a while trying to find and use an application you are used to on 32 bit.

Below is a link that may help you understand the advantages and disadvantages of 64 bit systems a little better.

http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... me#p224674

Fred
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and each time expecting a different result.

Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on the menu. Liberty is an armed lamb protesting the electoral outcome. A Republic negates the need for an armed protest.
User avatar
bobcollard
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:44 pm
Location: Springfield, IL

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by bobcollard »

JoeFootball wrote:Hi friends,

With the upcoming releases of the new 32-bit & 64-bit versions of Mint KDE, I'm faced with making a (delightful) decision. Which one?

From what I've heard/read previously, it's been my understanding that even if you have a 64-bit processor, if you don't have at least 4 GB of RAM, you're not going to see any gain in performance. Furthermore, I've heard/read accounts of 64-bit distributions being less stable and less compatible than their 32-bit counterparts. Even the latest Linux Mint 8 User Manual alludes to this. Therefore, my personal disposition was that I wanted stability & compatibility for my system over performance. I mean, what good is better performance if I can't viably use it?

That all said, from what I've read here in all the excitement of the 64-bit version of Mint KDE coming to light, this information of mine may be dated things of the past, and that the 64-bit version will offer the same stability/compatibility as the 32-bit version, but with better performance for those with 64-bit processors.

True? If so, does this still hold true with 64-bit boxes with less than 4 GB of RAM?

Many thanks in advance. :)

Joe
From my understanding if you have 4 or more GB of RAM and use the 64bit version it only effects large number crunching or graphics in speed and keeping up with a large graphical array. In other words, the 32bit version will work just fine with a 64bit motherboard and less RAM.
Robert Collard, Springfield, IL
Dell Inspiron 1545 Laptop, Intel Duo T3400 CPUs @2.16 Ghz. 4GB RAM
Linux Mint Debian Edition, Xfce 4.6.2 Desktop, 2.6.37-0.dmz.6-liquorix-amd64
User avatar
rec9140
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by rec9140 »

JoeFootball wrote: True? If so, does this still hold true with 64-bit boxes with less than 4 GB of RAM?
Hmmm...

I am using KMint Elyssa on my 64bit quad core AMD system with 8GB of memory...with no issues.....

32bit on 64bit, just won't get the benefits of 64bit.... really should not be an issue.
Julep....mixing.....KDE Done right, and minty.
http://www.juleplinux.com

Its been a great 3 year run! Thanks for the fish.. but time for new waters....
User avatar
JoeFootball
Level 9
Level 9
Posts: 2915
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:52 pm
Location: /home/usa/mn/minneapolis/joe

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by JoeFootball »

rec9140 wrote:
JoeFootball wrote: True? If so, does this still hold true with 64-bit boxes with less than 4 GB of RAM?
Hmmm...

I am using KMint Elyssa on my 64bit quad core AMD system with 8GB of memory...with no issues.....

32bit on 64bit, just won't get the benefits of 64bit.... really should not be an issue.
I wouldn't imagine it would be an issue. I was asking if it's true that the 64-bit version of Mint KDE will offer the same stability/compatibility as its 32-bit version, but with better performance for those with 64-bit PCs, and if so, would I get any benefit from running the 64-bit Mint KDE on a 64-bit PC with less than 4 GB of RAM.

Joe
olligod
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:29 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by olligod »

bobcollard wrote: From my understanding if you have 4 or more GB of RAM and use the 64bit version it only effects large number crunching or graphics in speed and keeping up with a large graphical array. In other words, the 32bit version will work just fine with a 64bit motherboard and less RAM.
I don't think you are correct here. 32-bit will essentially run fine in systems with a lot of memory -
but if you have more than 4 GB the 32 bit OS should not be able to address those.
To put it simple; with 32 bit you could address 2^32 addresses (equals some 4E9).
I will receive an additional 8 GB RAM in the mail this coming week (exceeding 4GB for the first time) and will try all this out.
I remember when (yes, it was before the Linux heyday, 1994/1995) 32-bit OSses came out (replacing 16-bit).
Soon you essentially *had* to have them.
Granted, we aren't there yet, but KDE distros aren't for the smallest computers either.
Run KDE and run one or two Virtual Machines on top of it, and you need .... MEMORY !
User avatar
bobcollard
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:44 pm
Location: Springfield, IL

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by bobcollard »

olligod wrote:
bobcollard wrote: From my understanding if you have 4 or more GB of RAM and use the 64bit version it only effects large number crunching or graphics in speed and keeping up with a large graphical array. In other words, the 32bit version will work just fine with a 64bit motherboard and less RAM.
I don't think you are correct here. 32-bit will essentially run fine in systems with a lot of memory -
but if you have more than 4 GB the 32 bit OS should not be able to address those.
To put it simple; with 32 bit you could address 2^32 addresses (equals some 4E9).
I will receive an additional 8 GB RAM in the mail this coming week (exceeding 4GB for the first time) and will try all this out.
I remember when (yes, it was before the Linux heyday, 1994/1995) 32-bit OSses came out (replacing 16-bit).
Soon you essentially *had* to have them.
Granted, we aren't there yet, but KDE distros aren't for the smallest computers either.
Run KDE and run one or two Virtual Machines on top of it, and you need .... MEMORY !
Since the original question addressed having less than 4GB of RAM that's the answer I gave him.
Robert Collard, Springfield, IL
Dell Inspiron 1545 Laptop, Intel Duo T3400 CPUs @2.16 Ghz. 4GB RAM
Linux Mint Debian Edition, Xfce 4.6.2 Desktop, 2.6.37-0.dmz.6-liquorix-amd64
User avatar
Boo
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1634
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:48 am

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by Boo »

Well what ever the question I would use a 64-bit OS if my CPU has the 64-bit extensions.
check out phronix.com.
Here is a great article on 32, 32-pae, 64 comparison.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a ... _pae&num=1

Boo
Image
Now where was i going? Oh yes, crazy!
User avatar
bobcollard
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:44 pm
Location: Springfield, IL

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by bobcollard »

Boo wrote:Well what ever the question I would use a 64-bit OS if my CPU has the 64-bit extensions.
check out phronix.com.
Here is a great article on 32, 32-pae, 64 comparison.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a ... _pae&num=1

Boo
Hmn, I'm not disputing this, BUT, it is not the advice given for 64 bit Linux Mint Main: "This edition supports the X86_64 architecture and it is optimized for 64bit processors. Note that the Main Edition (which is 32bit) is usually more stable and it also supports 64bit processors." He wanted to know which was more stable and he has less that 4GB RAM.
Robert Collard, Springfield, IL
Dell Inspiron 1545 Laptop, Intel Duo T3400 CPUs @2.16 Ghz. 4GB RAM
Linux Mint Debian Edition, Xfce 4.6.2 Desktop, 2.6.37-0.dmz.6-liquorix-amd64
User avatar
JoeFootball
Level 9
Level 9
Posts: 2915
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:52 pm
Location: /home/usa/mn/minneapolis/joe

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by JoeFootball »

First & foremost, this is all excellent information, and I graciously thank all who replied. :)

I myself was able to find these interesting articles...

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/32bit_and_64bit
http://www.tuxradar.com/content/ubuntu- ... benchmarks
http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/linux- ... linux.html

But to bobcollard's point...
bobcollard wrote:...it is not the advice given for 64 bit Linux Mint Main: "This edition supports the X86_64 architecture and it is optimized for 64bit processors. Note that the Main Edition (which is 32bit) is usually more stable and it also supports 64bit processors." He wanted to know which was more stable and he has less that 4GB RAM.
...I think that there may be some contradictory information in the Mint documentation, that maybe once was true at the time of the writing, but perhaps not so today? Another example is the latest Linux Mint 8 User Guide, which directs...
Linux Mint 8 User Guide wrote:If you have less than 4GB of RAM, even if your processor is 64-bit, you should choose the Main Edition. There is no tangible performance gain with the x64 Edition on computers with less than 4GB of RAM and the Main Edition is known to be more stable (X86_64 is quite new and most software actually runs faster and better in a 32-bit environment, no matter whether the CPU actually supports 64-bit or not).
...which I'm told in this post may no longer be accurate these days, and could use a re-write.

Lastly, from what I've read, I think it's fair to say that if you have a 64-bit processor with 4+ GB RAM, then you should go with the 64-bit version of Mint KDE (unless you have a compelling reason not to). That said, I do have a 64-bit processor and have less than 4 GB RAM, and I think that may be the scenario of a significant number of users out there. In that vein, I found this article which demonstrates on a 64-bit box with less than 4 GB RAM, most of its benchmarks were virtually the same for 32-bit vs. 64-bit, but 64-bit was indeed better in a few areas.

So that's my quandary. With 64-bit Mint KDE on my 64-bit PC with less that 4 GB RAM, will I be (1) sacrificing stability & compatibility vs. the 32-bit counterpart; and (2) seeing any real performance gain in my day-to-day, non-kernel-compiling activities.

Again, thanks to all for all their information. As always, this has been a pleasantly educational experience. Good stuff! :)

Joe
olligod
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:29 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by olligod »

Boo wrote:Well what ever the question I would use a 64-bit OS if my CPU has the 64-bit extensions.
check out phronix.com.
Here is a great article on 32, 32-pae, 64 comparison.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a ... _pae&num=1

Boo
YES boo - the right man (and who does the bulk of the work on Mint-KDE, too !)
pointed us to the most convincing quote (the phronix.com article) :wink:
Didn't even know you are so convinced of 64-bit.


...anyways -

I CONCLUDE THEREFORE
WE - WANT - MORE
KDE - SIXTY - FOUR !!!
aelfinn
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:11 pm

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by aelfinn »

Boo wrote:Well what ever the question I would use a 64-bit OS if my CPU has the 64-bit extensions.
Hey Boo, is there any indication yet as to how much longer the 64-bit release will take you? And I mean that in a totally good way, as we're all a bit excited about the upcoming release. :)
User avatar
JoeFootball
Level 9
Level 9
Posts: 2915
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:52 pm
Location: /home/usa/mn/minneapolis/joe

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by JoeFootball »

olligod wrote:...pointed us to the most convincing quote (the phronix.com article)
An excellent article with conclusive results indeed, but as it states, they're using a system with 4 GB of RAM. To that point, I believe it's clear that if you have 4+ GBs of RAM, then 64-bit Mint KDE makes sense.

That said, the other Phoronix article that I cited used a box with less than 4 GB of RAM, and did not reach the same conclusion. Therefore, I'm still curious about the pros & cons of 64-bit Mint KDE on a PC with less than 4GBs of RAM.

Incidentally, all this research is compelling me to actually open my wallet and buy a new set of 4 GBs RAM. :roll: But I'm still curious as to people's opinions, as I think there's a significant subset of our community that has 64-bit hardware with less than 4 GBs RAM, who may be shying away from a 64-bit OS based upon the documentation that may be outdated.

Joe
User avatar
bobcollard
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:44 pm
Location: Springfield, IL

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by bobcollard »

JoeFootball wrote:
olligod wrote:...pointed us to the most convincing quote (the phronix.com article)
An excellent article with conclusive results indeed, but as it states, they're using a system with 4 GB of RAM. To that point, I believe it's clear that if you have 4+ GBs of RAM, then 64-bit Mint KDE makes sense.

That said, the other Phoronix article that I cited used a box with less than 4 GB of RAM, and did not reach the same conclusion. Therefore, I'm still curious about the pros & cons of 64-bit Mint KDE on a PC with less than 4GBs of RAM.

Incidentally, all this research is compelling me to actually open my wallet and buy a new set of 4 GBs RAM. :roll: But I'm still curious as to people's opinions, as I think there's a significant subset of our community that has 64-bit hardware with less than 4 GBs RAM, who may be shying away from a 64-bit OS based upon the documentation that may be outdated.

Joe
IMO my laptop has 3GB RAM and it makes no difference. I've used both in Linux Mint 7. For what it's worth now.
Robert Collard, Springfield, IL
Dell Inspiron 1545 Laptop, Intel Duo T3400 CPUs @2.16 Ghz. 4GB RAM
Linux Mint Debian Edition, Xfce 4.6.2 Desktop, 2.6.37-0.dmz.6-liquorix-amd64
User avatar
JoeFootball
Level 9
Level 9
Posts: 2915
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:52 pm
Location: /home/usa/mn/minneapolis/joe

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by JoeFootball »

bobcollard wrote:IMO my laptop has 3GB RAM and it makes no difference. I've used both in Linux Mint 7. For what it's worth now.
I'm going to give it a try. As long as it's more stable than the documentation makes it appear, then I'd be fine with whatever performance gains it can or can't give me with RAM under 4 GBs.

Again, thanks to everyone! :)

Joe
User avatar
gravelbay
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:49 am
Location: Roatan, Honduras
Contact:

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by gravelbay »

JoeFootball wrote:
bobcollard wrote:IMO my laptop has 3GB RAM and it makes no difference. I've used both in Linux Mint 7. For what it's worth now.
I'm going to give it a try. As long as it's more stable than the documentation makes it appear, then I'd be fine with whatever performance gains it can or can't give me with RAM under 4 GBs.

Again, thanks to everyone! :)

Joe
This way, if you do spring for more ram, you can make full use of it right off the bat. I wonder how many of us don't get more ram because we have a 32-bit OS and then don't get a 64-bit OS because we don't have enough ram to take advantage of it.
You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body. - C. S. Lewis
User avatar
bobcollard
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:44 pm
Location: Springfield, IL

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by bobcollard »

Joe[/quote]
This way, if you do spring for more ram, you can make full use of it right off the bat. I wonder how many of us don't get more ram because we have a 32-bit OS and then don't get a 64-bit OS because we don't have enough ram to take advantage of it.[/quote]
I don't need more than 3GB RAM and as for not using a 64 bit system, it is not available in Linux Mint KDE CE or Linux Mint Xfce CE.
Robert Collard, Springfield, IL
Dell Inspiron 1545 Laptop, Intel Duo T3400 CPUs @2.16 Ghz. 4GB RAM
Linux Mint Debian Edition, Xfce 4.6.2 Desktop, 2.6.37-0.dmz.6-liquorix-amd64
User avatar
JoeFootball
Level 9
Level 9
Posts: 2915
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:52 pm
Location: /home/usa/mn/minneapolis/joe

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by JoeFootball »

gravelbay wrote:I wonder how many of us don't get more ram because we have a 32-bit OS and then don't get a 64-bit OS because we don't have enough ram to take advantage of it.
An interesting paradox, and I'll bet it's a significant number. Starting with me. :)

Joe
User avatar
JoeFootball
Level 9
Level 9
Posts: 2915
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:52 pm
Location: /home/usa/mn/minneapolis/joe

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by JoeFootball »

bobcollard wrote:...as for not using a 64 bit system, it is not available in Linux Mint KDE CE or Linux Mint Xfce CE.
Not yet, but it's my understanding that Mint KDE will soon be offered as a 64-bit. I've also heard that Mint Xfce has no plans to do so.

Joe
mikew57
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:20 pm

Re: Mint KDE: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Post by mikew57 »

JoeFootball wrote:
bobcollard wrote:IMO my laptop has 3GB RAM and it makes no difference. I've used both in Linux Mint 7. For what it's worth now.
I'm going to give it a try. As long as it's more stable than the documentation makes it appear, then I'd be fine with whatever performance gains it can or can't give me with RAM under 4 GBs.

Again, thanks to everyone! :)

Joe
I have been using 64bit Minit 8 since it came out. Before that I was using 32bit Mint 7. I haven't seen any difference in stability between the two and 64bit seems a little faster (subjective, of course). The only incompatibility I have run into is Adobe Air. However, the 32bit version runs fine on the 64bit OS. I am sticking with 64bit. And by the way, I have only 3GB RAM.

Mike
Post Reply

Return to “KDE”