32 bit vs 64 bit?

[GS2]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

I agree, my Core i7 with 6 Gig of RAM would be a waste on 32 bit. The only issue with this desktop is outside of Kubuntu's remit, and that is Flash - but I'm just downloading the 'new' 64 bit offering so lets see.

So my advice is if you have 64bit enabled architecture, then go for it, trust me its solid as a rock

[kapil]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

i am currently using the 64 bit kubuntu. but with 10.10 coming.. i am thinking of shifting to 32-bit.
Mine is 5 years old laptop with AMD athelon 64x2 and 1 gb ram.
the only reason i am shifting to 32 bit is the amount of RAM usage.. 400Mb in idle mode.(which i was unaware of till i read this thread )
with firefox,eclipse and amarok working it is using whopping 790Mbs.
i am asking the pro guys in this forum... Will it be good move to switch to 32-bit.. or using close to 90% RAM is "ok".. if that so i will continue to 64bit 10.10 kubu.
thanks in advance..

[Ole Juul]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

Unused ram is wasted ram.

[wizard10000]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

Unused ram is wasted ram.

True dat.

IMO the only real arguments against 64-bit are increased application load times with larger binaries and if your machine is a little short on RAM you'd have less memory available for disk caching but if you're that close to the edge you need more RAM, not a 32-bit OS

I still wanna do a 32- vs. 64-bit mencoder comparison.

[wizard10000]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

i am currently using the 64 bit kubuntu. but with 10.10 coming.. i am thinking of shifting to 32-bit.
Mine is 5 years old laptop with AMD athelon 64x2 and 1 gb ram.
the only reason i am shifting to 32 bit is the amount of RAM usage.. 400Mb in idle mode.(which i was unaware of till i read this thread )
with firefox,eclipse and amarok working it is using whopping 790Mbs.
i am asking the pro guys in this forum... Will it be good move to switch to 32-bit.. or using close to 90% RAM is "ok".. if that so i will continue to 64bit 10.10 kubu.
thanks in advance..

A 2GB DIMM would be a much better solution than a 32-bit OS, kapil

You want your working set in memory, not on disk - so as long as you're not hitting the swap partition you're okay but if you're using 90% RAM that doesn't leave a whole heck of a lot of memory available for disk caching.

Your machine *might be* more responsive with a 32-bit OS installed but if the problem is lack of RAM the solution is to add more RAM, not to swap out the OS

[oshunluvr]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

IMO: RAM vs. OS

The real questions are: What effects your performance more, CPU load or RAM "fullness" and Does a 64bit application take more RAM than a 32bit one.

If you're constantly at 90% RAM but not often swapping to disk, I don't see anything wrong with that.

I haven't done a comparison myself but I doubt if there's enough RAM freed up by 32bit apps make much of a difference, if indeed there's any. Might even be the opposite.

It really boils down to your personal usage and budget. No doubt - if you've got the $80us to spare, grab a 4gb SoDIMM and get your RAM on!

[kapil]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

thanks oshunluvr and wizard10000.
@wizard: yes. increasing RAM would be best option but i cant do that. i will be buying a new laptop in a year. so dont want to spend on this old rig.
i read about the less amount of RAM used in 32-bit when system is idle. (ref: 1st page of this thread)
so was curious. as i will be downloading 32/64 bit version of 10.10 based on this discussion.
i will again put some stats:
idle system with no application running: 450Mb RAM (off 1Gb) + 94Mb swap (off 2GB)
system with ff, amarok, eclipse running: 850Mb RAM (off 1Gb) + 185Mb swap (off 2GB)
so.. my question is:
1. is it ok with 80-90% usage of RAM.. or more % of RAM should be empty for quick response of OS?
2. @oshunluvr: does 64bit does same work compared to 32bit using less CPU load?

[oshunluvr]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

I've been strictly 64bit for too long to answer. I suggest a test: burn a 32bit and a 64bit copy of the livecd (version your choice). Boot each one and launch the same programs on both, use ones you might actually use, and run "free" and compare.

[lmilano]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

One gig should be fine for a lappy. Linux uses as much RAM as available for caching. Please see here for more (ansd a tip to measure how much memory left you really have):
http://www.linuxatemyram.com/

[lmilano]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

I still wanna do a 32- vs. 64-bit mencoder comparison.

Encoding is much faster in 64 bit. I posted a link above in the thread, but here:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...sx_64bit&num=3
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...sx_64bit&num=4
http://www.tuxradar.com/content/ubun...bit-benchmarks

But these are at least a year old, folks keep optmizing code all teh time for 64 bit. See here
http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/inde...opic=3104455.0

[oshunluvr]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit?

Sorry just re-read question: I believe 64bit is more CPU efficient - does more with less. How this might translate into RAM usage I don't know.