• From: London
  • Registered: 2009-07-19
  • Posts: 96

Topic: x86 vs. x64 performance and compatibility

Hi Crunchbangers!

I'm currently using #! 9.04 32bit on a fairly decent spec Dell Latitude with 8GB RAM. It gets used mostly for scripting and running vm's and of course quite a bit of web surfing.

In the past I've found it difficult getting things like Flash and Java to work properly on the 64-bit version and didn't really think the minor performance boost was worth it. I recently saw an article on /. about the performance gains on the 64-bit kernel and thought I should review my decision.

I'd like to hear the community's feedback on what your experience has been with #! 9.04 64bit and what problems (if any) you've run into.

Thanks,
/mattatron

Last edited by mattatron (2010-01-21 20:50:45)

Registered Linux user #503837

2 Reply by Pi

  • Pi
  • #! Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2009-10-12
  • Posts: 72

Re: x86 vs. x64 performance and compatibility

I used to run 32-bit all the time until just recently. I find it about the same, if not slightly better. I haven't had any problems with flash. Haven't tried anything in Java yet. I recommend you give it a shot, I'm glad I did.

Toadsworth on #crunchbang
  • Registered: 2009-12-11
  • Posts: 220

Re: x86 vs. x64 performance and compatibility

Firefox either doesn't work on the 64bit version, or it takes a lot of messing around to get it to work. I forget which.

  • KFC
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Luton / London , UK
  • Registered: 2009-01-22
  • Posts: 42

Re: x86 vs. x64 performance and compatibility

I've been running the 64 bit version since it was released and have had no problems whatsoever. Firefox works fine for me and I haven't had to do any unusual setting up just for day-to-day use, including some testing of other distro's in virtualbox. Unfortunately I can't comment on performance as I haven't used a 32-bit OS on this machine for longer than an hour or so.

  • Registered: 2009-12-11
  • Posts: 220

Re: x86 vs. x64 performance and compatibility

Hmmm.

There is a reason I went back to 32bit that involved Firefox but I can't recall the details. Perhaps it's Ubuntuzilla that has the problem. Which version of FF do you run, KFC, and do you use Ubuntuzilla to get it?

(Sorry for the slight jihack)

  • From: London
  • Registered: 2009-07-19
  • Posts: 96

Re: x86 vs. x64 performance and compatibility

Thanks for the replies so far.

I'm not too concerned about using a 64bit version of Firefox as it doesn't really offer any benefit (for me). I know that Windows runs a 32bit version of IE by default and that seems to also be for compatibility with plug-ins etc.

Registered Linux user #503837
  • From: trying not to blow up the lab!
  • Registered: 2009-11-29
  • Posts: 68

Re: x86 vs. x64 performance and compatibility

I run the 64-bit on my Lenovo T400 and I haven't noticed any ongoing problems. The only thing that happened early on was file manager would disappear when I was copying-and-pasting stuff. It seems that updates or something resolved that problem as it hasn't happened again.

I don't notice a huge difference between this and the 32-bit I've installed on my sisters R52 with Intel GPU(runs beautiful on that machine smile) Of course when I start doing heavy duty work like encoding and major multi-tasking all that will change but for my everyday needs it's fine!

Last edited by turqoisegirl08 (2010-01-20 13:36:51)

Socrates: I drank what?

turqoisegirl08's Website

  • KFC
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Luton / London , UK
  • Registered: 2009-01-22
  • Posts: 42

Re: x86 vs. x64 performance and compatibility

zen: I'm using 3.0.17, but i seem to remember using 3.5 briefly when trying a mint 8 liveCD (also 64-bit) although I haven't used that nearly as much. "If it aint broke" and all that. smile Also, I have no idea what ubuntuzilla is - I used the FF that came with #! and have just applied updates when prompted.

  • qbrick
  • #! CrunchBanger
  • Offline
  • From: Hannover, Germany
  • Registered: 2009-07-20
  • Posts: 199

Re: x86 vs. x64 performance and compatibility

Never had any problems with Firefox on 64-bit. With Crunchbang installed, you automatically have Flash in 64-bit, don't you? And every other Firefox version is going to use it.
Currently I use Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2pre) Gecko/20100120 Namoroka/3.6pre. It's a nightly build. Javascript for example is noticably faster.

  • From: UK
  • Registered: 2010-01-19
  • Posts: 26

Re: x86 vs. x64 performance and compatibility

I've been using 64-bit linux distros, mainly Ubuntu, Xubuntu and now Crunchbang, for a year or so. I encountered a couple of problems, mainly Flash related when I first started with 64-bit, and so I did switch back. But I've now come back to 64-bit and haven't seen problems since.

If you can go for 64-bit, and you have no known compatibility issues, then I see no reason why you shouldn't. I think it's more a case of personal choice really.

If a door can be ajar, why can a jar not be adoor?
  • From: London
  • Registered: 2009-07-19
  • Posts: 96

Re: x86 vs. x64 performance and compatibility

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I reinstalled my Thinkpad T61 to the x86_64 version and it's running like a charm. Seems like the issues I had before with flash are now no longer an issue.

w00t! big_smile

Registered Linux user #503837

12 Reply by ~HP

  • ~HP
  • #! CrunchBanger
  • Offline
  • From: Elsaß (fr_FR)
  • Registered: 2010-01-01
  • Posts: 178

Re: x86 vs. x64 performance and compatibility

I always use my OS in 64 bit version when hardware is compatible.

Last edited by ~HP (2010-01-25 20:25:58)

~HP's Website