Linux - 64 or 32 bit system, pros and cons?

Question

linux

I'm thinking of installing Archlinux for myself and then a dilemma arose, 32 or 64 bits with 4 gigabytes of frames and Intel Core 2 duo?
On the one hand, the hardware fully supports the 64-bit distro, on the other hand, the pae kernel in Linux does its job perfectly and sees all 4 gigs without dancing with a tambourine. (At least in Ubuntu 10.10), 64-bit flash is even more flawed than 32-bit, but still statistically more people use 64-bit systems, see www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/09/what-architecture-is -y... and habrahabr.ru/blogs/personal/98179/ , it is also known that under 64 bits, programs consume a little more resources.
So, how justified is the installation of a 64-bit system on Linux?
I would be glad to hear the opinion of Khabrovchan on this issue.

Answer 1

Disadvantages x86_64:
1) Higher memory consumption (5-10%)
2) More space on the hard drive due to installed 32-bit libraries.
3) Memory is also occupied by 32-bit libraries.
Advantages of x86_64
1) In binary distributions (like ubunta) most of the applications are built with compatibility from i486 to i686. At the same time, most processor extensions, such as sse and mmx, are turned off there. In Arch, this is not so significant. the assembly comes with i686, nevertheless, there is still a difference.
When using an x86_64 system, all packages will be built with x86_64 compatibility, which includes a much larger set of extensions, such as sse2, which means increased system responsiveness and noticeable performance improvements to the naked eye.
2) No need to use pae type brake crutches.
3) On some operations, such as encoding / decoding video / audio, the performance gain will be very significant.
As you can see, there is no big difference. Using x86_64 you gain in performance and lose in memory. Using x32 is the opposite. Considering that you have 4GB of memory, I would choose performance. it is never enough.
Fairy tales about mythical glitches of 64-bit systems are just fairy tales. Flash has long been completely normal (as far as it is possible for flash) to work either through nspluginwrapper, or you can generally use the native x64 beta version from adobe-labs.
All sorts of blobs, such as skype and google-earth, also work without any problems, although they drag a bunch of 32-bit garbage along with them.

Answer 2

put x32 with PAE on the desktop and don't suffer.

Answer 3

Now I'm on Arch 64bit. 4 GB of RAM and x4 hair dryer.
I didn't feel any particular difficulty.
skype pulled up some 32 bit libs... works without problems. the rest is not really something annoying. for me, as for the end user, in general, there were no more problems than 32.
I won't say anything about speed. I put the system on new hardware.

Answer 4

>I'm thinking of installing Archlinux for myself and then a dilemma arose, 32 or 64 bits with 4 gigabytes of frames and Intel Core 2 duo?
Only 64 bits and nothing else. PAE is a crutch, and even a brake, and all sorts of skypes and flashes work perfectly.

Answer 5

In general, in my experience, on the desktop it is always better to set x86. There is very little software out there that requires memory per process beyond the x86 limit. More precisely, it is almost non-existent. This architecture is used by a lot of desktop users, so it is more debugged in terms of desktops.
In x86_64 on the desktop, bugs with drivers, flashes of all sorts, etc. usually appear often. Applications on this architecture consume more RAM and disk space, so you often have to set x86 emulation for compatibility.
x86_64 is good on servers, it goes without any LowMem/HighMem there, it is more tailored for server loads, and again, it is tested more on servers.

Answer 6

arch amd64, no problems.

Answer 7

At first I tested 64-bit, but after suffering with a flash player, Skype and something else (including, like, with firewood for ATI), I decided that a bird in my hands is more reliable%)
I did not feel a particular increase in performance, although I must say that I I did not use serious programs and games. Mainly programming for web and office software. from heavy only virtualbox :)
This is purely my IMHO

Answer 8

To be honest, it didn’t get any easier, I fell even more into doubt.

Answer 9

Ubuntu 10.10 64. No problems with flash, skype, or drivers.

Answer 10

Theoretically, I won’t tell you, but from experience (Ubuntu 10.04, 64-bit, the same processor, the same amount of memory), I can say the following:

1. Skype works perfectly, albeit a wildly ancient version;
2. Flash works wrong (sometimes it freezes, sometimes it consumes 100% of the CPU) - but I don’t really need it;
3. Haven't experienced any more problems. Oh yes, well, Google Earth, or something, did not start, but, again, I don’t really need it.

Answer 11

Arch, 64 bits, gig (single) frames. There are no problems, the video (by the processor) is encoded / decoded faster. Well, and some other things get faster (in 64-bit mode there are more registers and the registers themselves are larger, but some things require more RAM ⇒ software (not all) is accelerated, but caches work less efficiently (although even on my Celeron it’s tolerable)). As a result, the system eats slightly more memory, but not too noticeably. The advantages of 64 bits are quite tangible.
The multilib in Arch is not bad, there should not be any special problems with Skype and other problems. There is also a native 64-bit flash (10.3.162.29 in Aura, Prerelease, no crashes).

Answer 12

Having a 4G frame makes no sense in x86, because working with this memory through PAE is a crutch on a crutch, and the speed of working with video / audio / graphics is felt, in some places even by eye (well, although, of course, it depends on the user). Again, compiling new packages on Arch is faster))

Answer 13

Surprised that someone is still asking these questions. For many years I have been using x86_64 exclusively, where possible.

Answer 14

The calculation of such heavy things as frame-by-frame video in Nuka or Mike came out 30-50% faster for me.
Skype and flash work almost flawlessly.
Yes, it eats a little more memory, that is, one gig of RAM will not be enough for an average system, but do you have more?
Another advantage - I use qemu + kvm virtual machines with vigorous acceleration - subjectively, the work of a 32-bit linux in a virtual machine (for example, compiling the kernel) feels faster than it was on the same computer, but in a 32-bit system.

$ yaourt -Qs flashplugin
==> Query installed packages
local/flashplugin-prerelease 10.3.162.29-1
    Adobe Flash Player Square

$ yaourt -Qs skype
==> Query installed packages
local/bin32-skype-staticqt 2.1.0.81-2
    P2P software for high-quality voice communication

$ cat ~/bin/skype 
#!/bin/bash
SKYPE_BIN_PATH="/usr/bin"
LIBV4L="/usr/lib32/libv4l/v4l1compat.so"
LD_PRELOAD=$LIBV4L skype
exit 0

Answer 15

>> perfectly copes with its task and sees all 4 GB without dancing with a tambourine
So the 32-bit kernel sees 4 GB perfectly, the problem is solved by rebuilding the kernel.