64 or 32 bit on core2duo

[LaQuirrELL]

Asus P5Q Deluxe c2d[E6850] processor 3.gHZ 4.0 GB ram
opensuse 11.2 32 bit KDE 4.3.5

I am looking for a bit of info/advice.
While browsing around on the net, I found these websites:

Red Hat Knowledgebase: What is the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit?
Red Hat Knowledgebase: How can I find out if I have a 64-bit capable CPU?

and it speaks about 32 bit systems with newer processors that are capable of running 64 bit os.

If you have only have a 32-bit CPU then you can only install the 32-bit version. If you have a 64-bit CPU then you have the option of installing either version.

If you open a terminal and do:

cat /proc/cpuinfo

it gives detailed information about your processor including the model. Mine is Intel E6850 c2d 3.0gHZ
It goes on to say do this in terminal:

grep lm /proc/cpuinfo

and if you get no output you are only capable of 16 or 32 bit, but if the output shows an 'lm' your machine is capable of 64 bit operation. Among others, mine shows the 'lm'.

My questions are:
Does this also apply to opensuse ?
Should I switch to 64 bit opensuse?
If I do, will I notice a performance improvement?[better or worse]
Does this all depend on what other Hardware is in the box?
Does this all depend on what software I am running? [as in non-linux {wine, winmx}]

Generally speaking, the 64-bit version can run 32-bit packages.

I realize these sites are about Redhat, but does the same apply for opensuse?
Are there any other questions I should be finding answers to that would apply.
Thanks for any input.

[ken_yap]

Yes, the Linux kernel is the same all over. You have your choice of 32-bit or 64-bit on that CPU, and in fact most modern CPUs, except perhaps the low-end ones like in netbooks. As for the 32/64 question this is asked all the time, so if you do a search on the forums, you'll find lots of previous opinions.

[jdmcdaniel3]

Well, for what it is worth, I have been running the 64 bit SuSE versions since 10.3 I think on my main computer. I do load some 32 bit apps and they work fine. So, you can mix both programs most of the time while having a 64 bit kernel. I have had no problems with this setup. As for your CPU, it will do 64 bit no problem. If you want the absolute most compatible setup and don't mind being limited in memory, then use 32 bit. On my Linux media center, I run only 32 bit apps. The older the program or the more complex, the more likely 32 bit might be the way to go. Still, my main PC is 64 bit to the max.

Thank You,

[FizzyFanta]

Go for 64-bit.

You will not notice a performance improvement unless you benchmark, compile programs or run mathematical programs such as folding@home.

In my view, there is no reason to use a 32-bit os on a 64-bit processor unless you have a specific need.

[ken_yap]

You will notice the improvement if you do media encoding.

[LaQuirrELL]

@FizzyFanta

I guess what I am trying to figure out is which should I be running, for the best response of the machine.
If the machine is 64 bit capable, should I be running os as that or is it ok as 32 bit os.
I should mention that as a prior WinXP machine I ran it as 32 bit, because of the software constrictions on 64 bit M$, so when I switched to linux, I just kept it that way, but now I am wondering if I should change it to 64 bit, as linux handles these things differently.
Thanks

[ken_yap]

You're not likely to notice any difference offhand, on the same hardware. Only when you run computationally intensive jobs will you notice a small gain in speed.

[Knurpht]

If you have a 64bit capable system, run 64bit. Linux is not windows, don't compare this. I've been running 64bit openSUSE ever since it's there. In the early days there were a lot of apps that only came in 32bit versions.
Today installing 32bit OS on a 64bit machine means that the machine will never be used in full. I do quite some video en- and decoding, 64bit does jobs in about 60% of the time used on 32bit openSUSE. Tested some years ago.

Even todays third party apps like flashplayer, googleearth, opera etc some in 64bit versions. If not, running the 32bit version never has been a problem lately.

[consused]

As 64bit version of the distro becomes the weapon of choice for more & more users, including developers, that's the version that will be exposed to more & more daily use and testing. That could mean earlier improvements and fixes. For that reason, 64bit is now my first choice even if I don't need or see a performance benefit.

[lwfinger]

The reason to run a 32-bit version of Windows with XP or Vista was the
lack of testing for the 64-bit product, particularly for drivers.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, x86_64 is the architecture of
choice for Linux developers, thus the 64-bit version gets more early
testing. My experience is that I find more bugs in the -rc kernels in
the 32-bit flavor than I do with 64 bit, even though I start testing
x86_64 with -rc1 and usually wait until -rc4 for i386 architecture.

I also recommend 64-bit architecture if your system will support it.