64bit vs. 32bit Ubuntu

[Ockie]

Hey guys. I decided to have a look @ the specs for my processor (AMD Sempron SI-42) and found that it supports AMD64.

I have always used 32bit Ubuntu cause I did not really know what the difference is between the two and people say that if you not sure, then rather use 32bit. Bit now that I looked into it a bit more, I am curious to upgrade to the 64bit version when Ubuntu 10.4 comes out. I might as well run my little old processor @ its designed capacity. The Ubuntu website recommends that you run 64bit if you have a processor that supports it and that most compatibility issues have been sorted. As I understand it, if a 64bit version of a application is not available, then the 32bit version will still work on your 64bit OS? Is this correct?

What is the opinion of you guys? Are many of you running 64bit and have you guys run into any problems perhaps that you can tell me about or look out for?

I would really appreciate your input and experience (good and bad) with Ubuntu 64bit.

 

[kingrob]

The big advantage of using a 64-bit OS is that if you've got more than 3GB RAM in your pc, the 64-bit version will pick it up correctly. The 32-bit version will "see" 3.4 GB RAM max.

Just installed Fedora 12 32-bit on a dual core with 4GB RAM on Friday and got 3.4GB RAM reported by the OS.

 

[Smiley_lauf]

64-bit has some issues with some apps like Adobe flash--also some drivers. But runs like a dream on my emachines AMD X2 64.

 

[Ockie]

Yes that I am aware of that plus point in 64bit. Mine only has 1Gig ram (seen as 875mb by Ubuntu) so that is not really a issue for me. How come u not using 64bit kingrob?

 

[Ockie]

64-bit has some issues with some apps like Adobe flash--also some drivers. But runs like a dream on my emachines AMD X2 64.

like what drivers? I am using Nvidia graphics...do you know if this might pose a problem?

 

[kingrob]

Yes that I am aware of that plus point in 64bit. Mine only has 1Gig ram (seen as 875mb by Ubuntu) so that is not really a issue for me. How come u not using 64bit kingrob?

My pc at work has an Intel dual-core CPU, which doesn't support a 64-bit OS.

 

[koffiejunkie]

64-bit has some issues with some apps like Adobe flash--also some drivers. But runs like a dream on my emachines AMD X2 64.

I've been using the Adobe 64bit ones for more than a year now, without any issues.

Yes that I am aware of that plus point in 64bit. Mine only has 1Gig ram (seen as 875mb by Ubuntu) so that is not really a issue for me. How come u not using 64bit kingrob?

Not much benefit then. With that little memory, 64bit may actually end up costing you in performance, because many apps will use more memory to cope with the larger address space. But really, Firefox on its own can gobble up a gig of memory, even in 32bit mode - you cannot go wrong by adding more RAM.

like what drivers? I am using Nvidia graphics...do you know if this might pose a problem?

Nivida has 64bit drivers for Linux. Again, I've been using them for well over a year - no issues.

 

[Gambit]

I have also been using ubuntu 64bit for more than a year without any problems. Haven't encountered any compatibility issues (flash works fine). No problems with ATI 64 bit drivers.

 

[Ockie]

I've been using the Adobe 64bit ones for more than a year now, without any issues.



Not much benefit then. With that little memory, 64bit may actually end up costing you in performance, because many apps will use more memory to cope with the larger address space. But really, Firefox on its own can gobble up a gig of memory, even in 32bit mode - you cannot go wrong by adding more RAM.



Nivida has 64bit drivers for Linux. Again, I've been using them for well over a year - no issues.

Thanks a mill. I am very happy with my Laptops performance on Ubuntu 32bit. Just thought that as my processor supports 64bit also, maybe I should switch over. But now after your comments regarding my memory etc, I think I might just stay with 32bit. I am also worried that my 3G modme might not work in 64bit.

Thank you guys for your input. Really appreciate it. I might just get a extra 64bit disc for 10.4 ubuntu and give it a shot and if it does not work as I hoped, then I can just install 32bit as a fallback.

 

[Dean]

Dont even mission to do that - get a 64bit ISO, then create a Live CD/Flash Drive.
You can plug that in and boot off of it ("Try Ubuntu without making changes to my computer" menu option), and plug in the modem. If it works - you have your answer.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Haven't had any issues with 64 bit version either. Works like a charm!

 

[MadMailMan]

My pc at work has an Intel dual-core CPU, which doesn't support a 64-bit OS.

Are you sure? Which Intel DC processor dosen't have 64bit?

 

[koffiejunkie]

Are you sure? Which Intel DC processor dosen't have 64bit?

Some of them don't - I don't know the details. Some of them also miss the virtualisation flags in 64bit operation, which is just mean as far as I'm concerned.

 

[ponder]

Are you sure? Which Intel DC processor dosen't have 64bit?

The Yonah based processors.

 

[Ockie]

The Yonah based processors.

Ponder, what is your opinion on my situation? 64 or 32 bit considering that my processor is AMD64 compliant but I have 1Gig memory?
What do you use?

 

[ponder]

:erm: There are pros and cons to both.

With 64-bit you are going to end up using a bit more memory and processor cache might be slightly affected. You might also find the odd application that has issues with 64-bit, Zsnes or flash which might give you a bit of hassles. I actually don't think flash is an issue any more.

The pros however outweigh the cons I reckon. More addressable memory. 64bit registers, floating point (numeric performance) etc are all better. Stuff like encoding video, encryption etc will be faster.

I reckon you must decide for yourself. But if it was me I would slap some more ram in that puppy (it's cheap) and go 64-bit

Been using 64bit for a very long time now and don't have issues with it (early days had many issues), everything works just fine now. Using Arch though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#Pros_and_cons
http://www.tuxradar.com/content/ubuntu-904-32-bit-vs-64-bit-benchmarks

 

[Ockie]

:erm: There are pros and cons to both.

With 64-bit you are going to end up using a bit more memory and processor cache might be slightly affected. You might also find the odd application that has issues with 64-bit, Zsnes or flash which might give you a bit of hassles. I actually don't think flash is an issue any more.

The pros however outweigh the cons I reckon. More addressable memory. 64bit registers, floating point (numeric performance) etc are all better. Stuff like encoding video, encryption etc will be faster.

I reckon you must decide for yourself. But if it was me I would slap some more ram in that puppy (it's cheap) and go 64-bit

Been using 64bit for a very long time now and don't have issues with it (early days had many issues), everything works just fine now. Using Arch though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#Pros_and_cons
http://www.tuxradar.com/content/ubuntu-904-32-bit-vs-64-bit-benchmarks

mmm I think I am going to give it a go when Ubuntu 10.4 is released then. I do tend to encode the odd video now and then so that would be a big plus for me. My sis works for Tarsus so sure she can swing me a memory module for cheap cheap. God knows she owes me lol. hehe

 

[ponder]

I do tend to encode the odd video now and then so that would be a big plus for me.

It makes a big differences there, that and four cores

 

[Ockie]

It makes a big differences there, that and four cores

Great stuff. I will just have to be happy with my little AMD Sempron 1 core 2.4herty thingy magiggy. I am excited now to give it a go. Damn Ubuntu, release 10.4 now!!!!!!!!! hehehe.

I will post here once I have switched over and tell you guys if it works or not.

Thanks again for all your input.

 

[Tassidar]

Phoronix recently did a test of Ubuntu 32 bit vs 32bit PAE vs. 64 bit

You can find it here: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_32_pae&num=1

Only a very small drop in performance can be found with the PAE kernel in the PostMark disk test, but the 64-bit kernel was immensely faster.

In the fourteen tests for this article we did not find using Ubuntu's 32-bit PAE kernel to have a dramatic performance impact whether it be positive or negative. Granted, we were using just 4GB of system memory that is common to many desktops, but if using 8GB, 16GB, or even a greater memory capacity the performance penalties are perhaps higher. By far though exhibiting the best performance was the Ubuntu 64-bit kernel that often ended up being leaps and bounds better than the 32-bit kernel. Unless you have technical or business reasons for not migrating to 64-bit Linux with compatible hardware, there is no reason to stick around with a 32-bit kernel and worrying about physical address extension. If you want to run your own kernel benchmarks, give the Phoronix Test Suite a try that offers more than 120 test profiles and 60 test suites.