I have a 2008 Lenovo T61 Thinkpad. I think my processor is Intel Core 2 Duo (this might be on my signature which I can’t see while I type this). The research I did said that the x86_64 version of openSuse was the correct version. Not i686 and not i586.
Also, could an incorrect version cause a slow system? Ie., a 32-bit version on a 64-bit processor (I think the Intel Core 2 Duo is 64 bit) might cause things to take twice as long. Or a 64-bit version on a 32-bit processor might cause things to take twice as long?
I just recently switched to openSuse 11.1-KDE from SLED 10.3-Gnome. And in the process installed a dual boot system on a new drive with Windows XP SP3.
So I am able to pop back in my old harddrive when things get screwy, and be exactly back where I was before.
64 bit processors have been the norm for several years now (I dont think you can buy a 32 bit processor anymore) that said ALL 64 bit CPU’s both Intel and AMD are designed to run BOTH 32 and 64 bit instructions.
You can choose to install either a 32 or 64 bit Operating system, the choice depends on Software Applications you want to use are they 32 or 64 bit. Most applications are still 32 bit as most of the world still run 32 bit OS and that is where the money is. There are vary few 64 bit only apps.
Abobe Photoshop for example can be had in either 32 or 64 bit the main difference 32 bit apps and OS have a 4 gig memory address limit. 64 bit apps and OS can use more memory and CAN be faster if written to use 64 bit instructions.
Most Linux distros come in both flavors, Windows XP and Vista also have both 32 and 64 bit versions. (I dual boot Win XP 64bit Edition and OpenSuse 11.1 x64)
First, allow me to address the previous posters. I believe that sometimes the “elite” Linux users, forget, that while we strive to make Linux more desktop friendly, that we might just get people who aren’t “computer savvy”.
To answer your questions, 64 bit software(including OS) will not run on a 32 bit processor at all. 32 bit software(including OS) will run on a 64 bit processor, but won’t run faster because of it. 64 bit operating systems are a great thing, and use more of the hardware power that is available, but as was hinted at by a previous poster, not only does the hardware and OS have to be 64 bit, the software your running has to be 64 bit, and optimized to take advantage of the 64 bit environment. What this basically means, is I can have openSUSE x86_64, running on a 64 bit processor, but if I am running 32 bit software, than I receive absolutely no performance boost in the software itself.
While 64 bit Processors have been out long before the OS, and the OS are now starting to make an emergence in the mainstream of things, a majority of the end user software, is still 32 bit. Unfortunately, the “shift” of the software companies is still way behind the rest of the market, for the simple reason of, if you sell a 64 bit program at the store, and someone buys it that doesn’t have a 64 bit setup, than they have in essence bought something they cannot use. The software companies aren’t going to make the “jump” until they are sure a majority of the market is running 64 bit hardware, as well as OS.
My suggestion to you, is to go ahead and install the x86_64. It won’t “harm” you in any way. To this end, with a 64bit OS, and 64 bit hardware, you can only benefit from it, since the 64 bit OS is backwards compatible with the 32 bit software.
I’m a fairly competent software engineer here, so I don’t see it as complete nonsense, although if that is the case, I stand enlightened (although rebuffed a bit by my “puzzled penguin” status). Maybe I’m not that competent. I don’t know.
From my electrical engineering degree, I believe a x-bit system has a data bus of x-bits, no? What is your background expert penguin? If a 32-bit app is running on a 64-bit processor, is it not totally nonsense to think that half of the processor data bus is not being utilized? And if 64-bit processors were designed to benefit from 64-bit apps, wouldn’t it stand to reason that some overhead is incurred in running those 64-bit apps? And that same overhead would exist for 32-bit apps as well?
But my situation is a 64-bit processor running on a 64-bit app, so a mute point for me. I still think there are performance issues with ANY kind of “mismatch” between x-bit processors and x-bit apps. E.g., a 64-bit app wouldn’t run too well on a 32-bit processor (if it would at all?).
No there isn’t any problems running 32bit on a 64bit chip, backwards compatability. Now if you google long enough and look at bench marks you just may find a benchmark that runs a 32bit app slower on 64bit(But minimal loss/gain and made up else where). As for the other way yes impossible afaik.
Now my understanding and limited at the best. Is you have to chop the packet in 2 for a 32bit app in a 64bit OS.
Perfomance benchmarks with 64bit are all over the place, now not the best source but certainly a good starting point…
I really can’t be bothered finding the optimisation docs. But as stated earlier there is very few truely optimised 64bit apps. Now I believe but could stand corrected that mplayer has some 64bit optimisation.
You would need to google optimising for 64bit, to see exactly what is needed.
Unless as the other thread and wiki said
While 64-bit architectures indisputably make working with large data sets in applications such as digital video, scientific computing, and large databases easier, there has been considerable debate as to whether they or their 32-bit compatibility modes will be faster than comparably-priced 32-bit systems for other tasks
And the debate won’t be ended in this forum.
What this basically means, is I can have openSUSE x86_64, running on a 64 bit processor, but if I am running 32 bit software, than I receive absolutely no performance boost in the software itself.
But no deterioration either?
…
Thanks for the support! I am using Firefox, and it is taking 2x - 3x as long for videos on youtube to load, and often I have to restart Firefox (which came with openSuse 11.1) when the videos start hanging. Also, my PC has crashed when trying to re-enter from screensaver, at which I hard re-boot.
Also, when I ran the “Test Firmware” option from the openSuse installer, I get poor grades in CPU performance. And no, I haven’t run this same tool for openSuse 10.3.
from the test:
“Kernel too old; kernel does not support microcode version”
"PCI Express:
MaxReadReq for device pci://00:00:1b:0 is low (128)"
“Firmware not implementing hardware coordination cleanly. Firmware using SW_ALL or SW_ANY?”
Well, maybe you guys get enough experience and you take everything to the literal T. My mistake. I guess I needed to get my post out there, and my examples are poor ones regarding any possible “mismatch” between processors and sw. Sorry.
That should bring you back some hits, I’m not having much joy with the native 64bit flash either… The other option is 32bit firefox or nspluginwrapper. The search should give you some idea where next.
Yeah, Flash is an excellent example on those “What’s better, 32 or 64 bit versions”? discussions.
There is no real difference, they both suck horribly under linux, no matter if 64 or 32 Bit version, because they are not optimized for anything at all.
AFAIR no real direct rendering (at least in older versions), no openGL or Xvideo support.
Nice experiment:
Normally flash videos are stored temporarily in the browsers disk cache (don’t know which folder is used by firefox, but Konqueror stores them directly in /tmp).
Try playing one of those flash videos (i.e from youtube) first with flashplugin in your browser and then (don’t close the browser before you got your hands on the flv-file in /tmp) play the same flv with mplayer/vlc/kaffeine and compare.
Guess which one will run more fluently and use less CPU.
I agree mostly with those comments for Flash 10, particularly on openSUSE 11.1 e.g 90+% cpu on a streaming TV video (not fullscreen even), results in unstable picture. However, on the same hardware, same TV stream and connection, on several other distros I can knock off 20% to 30% with stable picture.
Obviously, I have a problem on openSUSE 11.1 and it may have a direct rendering component, and h/w upgrading would improve it. However, openSUSE 10.3 with Flash 9 used 60% cpu with the same video - rock solid and still use it. However, the other component to the problem is the bloat introduced into Flash 10. New features Adobe calls it, but I haven’t noticed any, and the video stream comes from a leading TV site;).
Any performance hit you would take(if you took any at all) would be so small, you would have to measure it with extremely precise benchmarking tools.
To state this more simply, unless your using a super computer, to compute extremely complex equations, or your a software engineer compiling HUGE amounts of data, Any performance gain/loss, would be so infinitesimal, you would never be able to measure it in a normal computing environment.
As I stated previously, there are no real “down sides” of a 64 bit system, So why not use one?
As far as Videos/Flash/Firefox, the problem there is likely flash, My current set up is AMD Phenom II 940, 4 gigs DDD-2-1066, and I’m running openSUSE 11.1 x86_64. My videos load almost instantly, and play smoothly.
If you have any questions, feel free to shoot me a PM, and I’d be happy to help.
You can install a 32 bit OS on a 64 bit machine. You can’t install a 64 bit OS on a 32 bit machine.
A 64 bit OS consumes more resources because the variables have a double lent. According With M----soft, if they didn’t change opinion, the only advantage would be in graphic and sound quality, assuming the application uses actively the 64 feature, what means really filling such giant variables.
Concerning Linux, I never wrote serious code for this OS, so no idea!
Dual cores can use a x86_64 kernel, as Dual cores support the 64 bit architecture.
Also its possible to run the ix86 versions too, neither have any real advantage or disadvantage for your system but there are a few things to learn:
1: a 64bit kernel is not a true upgrade over a 32bit kernel, by all accounts they are the same except the the 64bit kernel can use more then 4GB of memory.
There is a limit in a 32bit kernel to how much memory is recognized by default, so if you use more then 4GB of memory then a 64bit kernel is right for you.
2: there are disadvantages to a 64bit system though, most codecs, drivers, hardware is geared for a 32bit system, heck there are still some applications that are still 32bit only.
If you need every aspect of the system to work and you are a heavy multimedia user then a 32bit system is better in this case.
Try both though, if anything the 64bit version will increase performance not decrease it though like I said there are advantages and disadvantages to both.
In the end, the argument is between the "why?"s and the "why not?"s.
The “why” people bring up issues such as compatibility with plugins, codecs, drivers, etc. (which may or may not be an issue for you, only you can say), increased file sizes, etc.
The “why not” people point to the increased performance, no need for handstands to get more than 3GB RAM visible, making better use of hardware, that you can still run most 32-binaries as well, the fact that it has been working for a while, etc.
In the end it’s up to you to try it out. I personally have had no issues with 64-bit for a few years now, but then I don’t have the problematic plugins/drivers that others have.