32 bit vs 64 bit?

[ScottyK]

Right now I'm running the 32bit 10.04.

The computer it's running on is a Dell Vostro 1500, with a Intel Dual core 2, 4GB RAM, and 256MB Nvidia 8500 Geforce video card.

Once 10.10 comes out, I plan to wipe it and install the new release.

Should I keep it at 32 bit, or upgrade to 64 bit?

[wizard10000]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

I haven't seen an advantage to 64-bit for *most* home users. I've got a 32-bit netbook and a 64-bit desktop and their configuration is virtually identical. The netbook uses ~185mb of RAM at idle and the desktop uses well over 500mb.

Of course unless you're hitting the swap partition this doesn't affect much other than application load times but especially on hardware that's a bit older you'd probably get better performance out of a 32-bit distribution unless you actually need to address more than 4gb of RAM.

[ScottyK]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

On this notebook the BIOS maxes out at 4GB RAM anyway!

[GreyGeek]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

I switched to 64bit with Jaunty. All in all, I see about a 15% performance boost, +- 5%.

I still run into incompatibilities with the ia32 libraries and some 32 bit software, but they are becoming few and far between.

A relative of mine is considering switching to quad core. I still have to contemplate that move.

[wizard10000]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

A relative of mine is considering switching to quad core. I still have to contemplate that move.

My desktop PC is a mildly overclocked i7-920 with 6gb RAM and a fairly fast (Corsair Extreme X64) SSD as a boot drive. Four cores with hyperthreading presents itself to the OS as an eight-core processor. *Way* more hardware than most people need but it is kinda fun to play with - and hardware's a hobby for me.

I render a lot of video and with my old 2.8GHz hyperthreading single-core it took about as long to render a two-hour avi to DVD format as it took to watch it - the quad-core does the same job in less than 15 minutes.

I reinstalled Lucid the other day just for fun and seriously considered going back to 32-bit for awhile - but I'd have had to reduce RAM from 6gb to four and would lose a third memory channel and I don't have another machine that can use the RAM. The best part of the install was it took less than ten minutes

With a recent quad-core you may find as I did that the performance bottleneck becomes I/O instead of processor. Modern CPUs spend a whole lot more time waiting for data than older ones did

It wasn't available when I built this i7 but I'm interested in AMD's six-core chip. It benchmarks about as well as a midlevel i7 but I'd rather have six real cores than eight fake ones. There is a point of diminishing return, though - as you add cores you also give up CPU cycles to manage them.

Even a low-end quad core is kinda neat but in order to take full advantage of the extra juice you may find that your I/O subsystems need to be optimized as well. When troubleshooting performance issues the component that's running at 100% capacity is always the bottleneck - and these days that's seldom the CPU itself.

[GreyGeek]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

Interesting comment. Thanks! 8)

[Ole Juul]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

Interesting comment. Thanks! 8)

The wizard is obviously a pro at this stuff.

wizard10000: Even a low-end quad core is kinda neat but in order to take full advantage of the extra juice you may find that your I/O subsystems need to be optimized as well. When troubleshooting performance issues the component that's running at 100% capacity is always the bottleneck - and these days that's seldom the CPU itself.

The next uprade in our house would probably be to a low-end quad core. That machine is expected to render pdfs a lot. Would that be sped up, or would it need a more serious video card (ie. not onboard) to achieve some snappiness? I'm not otherwise that interested in video.

[oshunluvr]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

I have been strictly 64bit since coming to kubuntu - the main reason I switched - and have had no 32 issues. I even play an old Loki games using 32 bit libs.

I also rip dvd's often and my experience is about the same as wizards - roughly 2 hrs using 32 bit PCLinuxos and 8-16 minutes with kubuntu.

My machine specs are in my sig - q6600 oc's and 8 gb ram

[wizard10000]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

The next uprade in our house would probably be to a low-end quad core. That machine is expected to render pdfs a lot. Would that be sped up, or would it need a more serious video card (ie. not onboard) to achieve some snappiness? I'm not otherwise that interested in video.

The short answer is yes, providing the application you use to render pdfs is capable of running multiple threads. Even if the application isn't multithreaded spreading the OS and all your other applications over multiple cores will give you a performance boost.

The long answer is that the performance boost depends on the machine's role. Rendering video or creating a pdf is processor-intensive while most server roles are generally more dependent on disk and network I/O than raw CPU horsepower. The machine's role should dictate where you spend your hardware dollars.

Unless you're gaming under Windows you don't need a bunch of video memory but you can see a performance boost using a video card that'll throw a whole lot of pixels so you can save money getting a video card with a bit less RAM for a given video chipset.

On disk I/O the speed of the interface is pretty much a useless number as once the drive's onboard cache is empty no mechanical drive can transfer data faster than the platter can spin, so the most relevant numbers for disk performance are the size of the onboard cache, the number of sectors per track and track-to-track latency. If everything else is equal a 1TB drive with two platters will always be faster than a 1TB drive with three platters as there are more sectors read per revolution of the disk.

So - a lot of the stuff we hear about PC performance is just hype. Most people will see a performance increase when moving from a dual-core machine to a quad-core but unless your I/O subsystems are also up to scratch buying a new processor gives you a machine that waits for data faster than the old one did

[Yuri sss]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

Right now I'm running the 32bit 10.04.

The computer it's running on is a Dell Vostro 1500, with a Intel Dual core 2, 4GB RAM, and 256MB Nvidia 8500 Geforce video card.

Once 10.10 comes out, I plan to wipe it and install the new release.

Should I keep it at 32 bit, or upgrade to 64 bit?

If you want to make full use of your 4GB Ram, then you *must* use 64-bit.
Due to its architecture, it's *impossible* for 32-bit to use more than 3GB of Ram.
Another limitation of 32-bit is that no application can use more than 2GB of Ram, which brakes out applications using lots of memory, e.g. video processing, dvd ripping, image processing of large files, modern 3D applications etc.

The 32-bit pae kernel is only an ugly hack. It of course can't address more than 3GB of Ram - all it does is doing lots of swapping in and swapping out to access the remaining memory. The result of this is increased hard disk activity because of all the sawpping, causing more wear and tear for the hard disks (and more noise if you have noisy ones). Also, there's of course a performance degradation - while the OS is busy with the swapping, all other processes have to stand back and are only executed at a reduced speed.

I switched to 64bit with Jaunty. All in all, I see about a 15% performance boost, +- 5%.

I have been strictly 64bit since coming to kubuntu - the main reason I switched - and have had no 32 issues. I even play an old Loki games using 32 bit libs.

I also rip dvd's often and my experience is about the same as wizards - roughly 2 hrs using 32 bit PCLinuxos and 8-16 minutes with kubuntu.

My machine specs are in my sig - q6600 oc's and 8 gb ram

There you have it, just what I said.

[ScottyK]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

If you want to make full use of your 4GB Ram, then you *must* use 64-bit.
Due to its architecture, it's *impossible* for 32-bit to use more than 3GB of Ram.
Another limitation of 32-bit is that no application can use more than 2GB of Ram, which brakes out applications using lots of memory, e.g. video processing, dvd ripping, image processing of large files, modern 3D applications etc.

Thanks for the advice, In October I'm going the 64-bit route..

[Detonate]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

I'm no hardware expert like some of these guys, but running both 32 bit Lucid and 64 bit Maverick on my rig I see a definite performance increase with the 64 bit. I'm using a i5 Intel with 4GB of DDR3 ram. A Geforce 9500 Video card with 1GB. I have had no problem with finding a 64 bit version available for every program I wish to use. I use this rig to record old VHS tapes to digital format via a tuner card and VLC. Converting those tapes to a DVD is much faster in 64 bit. Also the CPU temp does not rise nearly as much.

[Yuri sss]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

As Adobe has now raised 64-bit Flash from the dead after seven months and finally released a new 64-bit flash version, the last reason why some didn't want to use 64-bit dissolved into thin air

You can install the 64-bit Flash plugin by simply adding the following repository:
https://launchpad.net/~sevenmachines/+archive/flash

Packages are avaiable for Karmic, Lucid and Maverick.

[toad]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

Due to its architecture, it's *impossible* for 32-bit to use more than 3GB of Ram.

Not true, you are free to cook your own kernel so that even a 32-bit OS can see more than 3GB.

But honestly, what is the point these days? As GG says, problems are few and far between, I've never had one even though I do have that horrible thing called skype on my box which exists only as a 32-bit app. Simply install the 32-bit libs (Kubuntu probably does it by default anyway) and you won't even notice it. 64-bit is the future, nuff said

[GreyGeek]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

The PAE kernel is specifically for 32 bit hardware so that it can use more than 3GB of RAM. So, if you use on on your 4GB RAM box it will be able to use all of the RAM.

However, putting a 32bit OS on 64bit hardware is wasting your hardware resources. There "used to be" some problems with the lib32 libraries and certain 32 bit software running on 64bit OSs, but as far as I can tell, with my experience running the 64bit Karmic, Lynx and Maverick releases on my dual core notebook, such problems are in the past. I haven't had any 32 application problems since I had to use the LD_LIBRARY preload for Skype on Jaunty. Now, Skype is called with "skype-wrapper", which handles Skype beautifully on my 64bit Lucid Lynx.

Bottom line: say goodbye to 32 bit hardware. In fact, dual core may be getting long in the tooth as quad core and higher move out of the server room and onto desktops.