Why do newbies go for 64 bits?
in [UK Linux]
|
Prev: ACPI problems with Centrino processor
Next: Just $15
From: Dave Farrance on 23 Nov 2009 05:54 Dave Farrance <DaveFarrance(a)OMiTTHiSyahooANDTHiS.co.uk> wrote: > I'm tempted to install the i586 version of this distro in a > separate partition to do some timing tests. Done that. I've tried running glxgears, and gzip'd a 100Mb file a few times, and there's no difference in the average speeds between the i586 and x86_64 distros with those tests. Ho hum. -- Dave Farrance
From: Szymon von Ulezalka on 23 Nov 2009 06:38 > I've also downloaded and installed the 32-bit Adobe flashplayer and PDF > reader rpms and they both installed with no complaints about dependencies > and both work fine. So I've noticed no actual downside to this particular > x86_64 distro so far. adobe's flashplayer is available in 64bit version- it sucks less compared to 32bit version running in 64bit browser (even despite fact, that it is still alpha/beta) szymon
From: spike1 on 23 Nov 2009 07:36 And verily, didst Tony Houghton <h(a)realh.co.uk> hastily babble thusly: > In <hea119$53v$2(a)localhost.localdomain>, > Martin Gregorie <martin(a)address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:23:09 +0000, Folderol wrote: >> >>> Try using hydrogen + zynaddsubfx + jamin + rosegarden with qjackctl - >>> you'll notice the difference then alright :o >>> >> I know next to nothing about music programs. I can rip vinyl onto CD with >> Audacity, but that's about it, so why do you say that? I mean, how many >> of these programs' memory requirements bust the 32 bit addressing limit. >> IOW does running a 64 bit OS buy you anything with that process mix that >> a few more cores and the odd extra GB of RAM wouldn't also solve? > > But what's the disadvantage of using 64-bit Linux nowadays? 32-bit WINE > works for me on Debian amd64. Certain browser plugins used to be > problematic, but there are decent (well, not really any worse than the > 32-bit versions) 64-bit versions now. One disadvantage is that programs compiled for 64bit require more memory due to the extra instructions, this means more fetches, which means slower programs. Whether the extra registers and extra instructions offset this is questionable. It depends how much RAM you've got to start with. If you've got less than about 3.5gig of RAM, there doesn't really seem to be much of a benefit in going 64bit. If you have more, of course, then that's where 64bit comes into its own, with the ability to address all your RAM. (a large powerful graphics card can also push addressable RAM past the 4gig limit) -- | spike1(a)freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a | | | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit | | Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit | | in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that| | Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
From: Paul Rudin on 23 Nov 2009 07:52 spike1(a)freenet.co.uk writes: > to the extra instructions, this means more fetches, which means slower > programs. Whether the extra registers and extra instructions offset this is > questionable. It depends how much RAM you've got to start with. > > If you've got less than about 3.5gig of RAM, there doesn't really seem to be much of > a benefit in going 64bit. If you have more, of course, then that's where > 64bit comes into its own, with the ability to address all your RAM. > (a large powerful graphics card can also push addressable RAM past the 4gig > limit) But it's just about memory addressability - most things will run faster compiled for native 64 bits on 64 bit hardware see e.g: <http://www.tuxradar.com/content/ubuntu-904-32-bit-vs-64-bit-benchmarks>
From: Johnny B Good on 23 Nov 2009 08:34
The message <l7qkg5pk6b9o38ndoalet6guavctnolrvt(a)4ax.com> from Dave Farrance <DaveFarrance(a)OMiTTHiSyahooANDTHiS.co.uk> contains these words: > Dave Farrance <DaveFarrance(a)OMiTTHiSyahooANDTHiS.co.uk> wrote: > > I'm tempted to install the i586 version of this distro in a > > separate partition to do some timing tests. > Done that. I've tried running glxgears, and gzip'd a 100Mb file a few > times, and there's no difference in the average speeds between the i586 > and x86_64 distros with those tests. Ho hum. Well, you can at least be grateful that there's no performance hit running 32 bit apps on a 64 bit processor. ;-) -- Regards, John. Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying. The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots. |