Page 1 of 1

KDE i386 v AMD64

Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:42 pm
by colyn
Is there any real advantage to installing AMD64 KDE as opposed to the 32 bit i386 KDE?

I've been using the 32 bit i386 and have not had any security issues but hear that AMD 64 is more secure..

Re: KDE i386 v AMD64

Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:45 pm
by dante19992
well im not sure so much at that but 64-bit runs slightly faster. u will need a 64-bit processor to use it and most often u probly wont notice a difference (i havnt really much between the two) but hey. i may be wrong tho i may have just been noticing things. idk about the security stuff so i cant help yha there

Re: KDE i386 v AMD64

Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:59 pm
by ibm450
dante19992 wrote:well im not sure so much at that but 64-bit runs slightly faster. u will need a 64-bit processor to use it and most often u probly wont notice a difference (i havnt really much between the two) but hey. i may be wrong tho i may have just been noticing things. idk about the security stuff so i cant help yha there

no differance at all. 64 number crunches more and utilises all of your installed ram. 32 seems alot more stable as theres more 32bit drivers

Re: KDE i386 v AMD64

Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:01 pm
by red123
Since there are no instructions that actually uses all of the 64 bits, the architecture can use the unused bits for error checking and security. However this is only speculation. Rule of thumb is, if you use 4 Gigs or more of memory, then use a 64-bit OS. Else you're fine with a 32-bit OS. There seems to be a misconception that 32-bit OS only uses ~3.3-3.5 gigs of RAM which really annoys me. 32-bit OS uses exactly 2^32 ~ 4 gigs of memory. The reason why your OS shows 3.5 is because your hardware (GPU, etc) also has its own memory as well.

Re: KDE i386 v AMD64

Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:16 pm
by monkeyboy
This is an interesting read on the topic.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a ... _pae&num=1

Re: KDE i386 v AMD64

Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:12 pm
by Boo
I have found that the 64bit releases are more stable than the 32bit ones.
This has been most evident when installing mythbuntu, the 32bit version would not even install, but the 64bit is great.
I'm wondering if 32 is now an after thought.

cheers
Jamie

Re: KDE i386 v AMD64

Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:42 pm
by colyn
Boo wrote:I have found that the 64bit releases are more stable than the 32bit ones.
This has been most evident when installing mythbuntu, the 32bit version would not even install, but the 64bit is great.
I'm wondering if 32 is now an after thought.

cheers
Jamie
I have a desktop which I just built Saturday that has the 64 bit processor as well as a Dell laptop so it should install fine but what about computers without 64 bit processors. Will it work on them?

Re: KDE i386 v AMD64

Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:07 pm
by dante19992
colyn wrote:
Boo wrote:I have found that the 64bit releases are more stable than the 32bit ones.
This has been most evident when installing mythbuntu, the 32bit version would not even install, but the 64bit is great.
I'm wondering if 32 is now an after thought.

cheers
Jamie
I have a desktop which I just built Saturday that has the 64 bit processor as well as a Dell laptop so it should install fine but what about computers without 64 bit processors. Will it work on them?
hey i CAN answer that one. No. if ur comp doesnt have a 64-bit processor u have to use a 32-bit os.

Re: KDE i386 v AMD64

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:38 am
by colyn
dante19992 wrote:No. if ur comp doesnt have a 64-bit processor u have to use a 32-bit os.
I'm asking because I have gotten conflicting answers to this question. Several people have said yes while others have said no.

I will be installing AMD64 on my two that I know will take it but will in all probability stay with 32 bit on the others..

Re: KDE i386 v AMD64

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:57 am
by dante19992
well the thing is a 64-bit processor cn use either the 64 or 32-bit OS. a 32-bit can only use a 32-bit OS.