Are You Switching to 64-bit Processors? 252
chip_whisperer asks: "I used to be a big time custom desktop builder, making many working boxes per year, but I've been off the bandwagon for about four years now and am trying to get back into it now that Ars Technica has just released their recommendations. The standard seems to be heading towards 64-bit processors, but I'm wondering if it worth it to run a box on XP-64? I've heard that driver support for 64-bit processors can be a hassle. Also, for you fellow Linux geeks, how are current distros (like Suse, Ubuntu, Debian, and others) doing in supporting 64 bit processors?"
Make a list (Score:5, Informative)
Make a list of what XP-64 will do for you that XP won't. If there's anything on that list that really entices you, consider XP-64. If not, forget it, and go along your merry way. XP-64 is guaranteed to give you more driver problems than XP, so if there are no added benefits in using it (which there probably aren't for you, unless you want to use over 2GB of memory), there's no reason for the headache.
Perhaps a more interesting question would be whether the Windows-users in the Slashdot community plan to run 64-bit Vista, considering its enhanced security (PatchGuard et al.) as well as its enhanced possibilities of restricting you from doing things on your own computer.
switched already (Score:3, Informative)
Only 32-bit systems left are my laptops and I'm not in hurry to replace those.
After selling the old components, I was left to pay $50-100 per system for the upgrade.
As for XP-64, don't bother, its utter crap. No drivers whatsoever, and the ones you can find are buggy as hell.
If you want 64bit win, you'll have to wait for vista.
For linux, I'd recommend gentoo, but if you're unsure and don't want to compile the entire system, suse or ubuntu works aswell.
Not right now (Score:3, Informative)
large virtual address spaces (Score:4, Informative)
my personal belief is that the future, the nebulous area Stroustroupe outlines as "better concurrency," is really going to be implemented at a platform level as this kind of deeply nested transactional data structuring, where instead of overwriting your object to change its state, you simply append the new state in a new part of memory. thus each object accumulates address space (referentiability) as it changes across time. i'll leave the full details implementation & ramifications of Copy on Update up to the user for now.
otoh, a lot of science people want double floats and 64 bit words, but look at the big boys, nvidia. it may bite them in the @#$@# someday, but for now they're sticking to a strong party line: 32bit floating point is sufficient. this works alright for video cards & games, since 4 channels of 32bit fp is an 128bit fp buffer. thats large, but still not entirely that accurate. i'd like to see a time when even game worlds are so massive they straight up require 64bit fp. i'd like to see nvidia release consumer cards with 64bit float performance sometime soon, but i dont think the odds of that happening are very big: its new technology with only a couple scientifc users making any use of it. just as it took the boys at Epic, Sweeny & CliffyB both stating the xbox needed more video ram, without vocal powreful demand we probably wont see it for a while.
hopefully we'll be doing more distributed dispatching with gpus in the future. 64 bit ints are going to be required there.
lordmyren
by 2012 -- the end of time
Exchange 2007 requires 64-bit (Score:1, Informative)
The answer is: because you don't have a choice. (Score:5, Informative)
All the new processors from AMD and Intel (and IBM, for that matter) are 64-bit. Therefore, if you get a new PC, you have no choice but to get a 64-bit processor in it. And since they're all backwards-compatible to 32-bit, there's no downside.
The only relevant issue here is whether you want to run 64-bit or 32-bit software on it.
But 64-bit is overkill for a lot of us (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a desktop user with 2GB RAM, the server is a PowerPC with 1.5GB RAM. I've never seen a system munch memory like this box when it was running 64-bit Linux. Running all those compatability libraries (for Firefox, OpenOffice, and several other apps) seemed to eat a ton of RAM.
Until every app and plugin I use is 64-bit native, I think I'll stay with 32-bit operating systems.
As for 64-bit hardware, you really don't have much choice if you want to buy new hardware. There's no reason NOT to buy 64-bit processors these days, you get the best bang for your buck with AMD64 or EMT64 CPUs. 32-bit operating systems benefit from the new processors almost as much as 64-bit systems do, so go ahead and 'go 32 on 64' if you want a modern computer.
Re:Why would I? (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, you will even lose out - 64 bit systems waste more memory than 32 bit systems. That's primarily because the 32-bit structures take up 64 bits on 64 bit system, while not carrying any more data. And all the pointers are suddenly 64 bit in length, etc.
In other words, it's worth switching only if you have and plan to use a reasonably larger amount of RAM/HD space than the 32 bit max limit. (in other words, if you want to switch to use 5gb, i'd recommend sticking with 32 bit system, but for 6gb or 8gb the pros start outweighing the cons)
x86-64 is a piece of cake (Score:3, Informative)
64-bit Gentoo and SuSE both worked like a charm too - but you asked about Windows. Nice to have multiple HDD chassis. (grin)
The thing that you might have problems with were programs. I found that the 'default' install path for the 32-bit stuff would cause some of my programs to trip up. Things like the 32-bit DVD/CD burning software and a few other programs. But anyhow - should you go with a 64-bit CPU? Yes. Win64 is probably more trouble than it is worth for 'generic' gaming rig today. As Vista goes into mainstream, those using a 32-bit processor will be the odd man out.
What doesn't work... (Score:3, Informative)
You can get by pretty well with 64 bit Linux. I see no compelling reason to run 64 bit Windows yet, unless you need lots of memory. Yeah, you could get a small boost from having more registers, and yeah, it's cool; but the Windows world is just not used to porting to other architectures :). The CPUs have been out, what, 3 years? And it is still a royal pain. And if you game... get used to things like Neverwinter Nights 2 going through the entire 6 cd install, only to tell you "Oh, by the way, 64 bit doesn't work. Ha-ha!"
Yes! It's faster even on moderately sized problems (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why would I? (Score:3, Informative)
I can't speak for x86-64 because I've never seen it, but I've played around with 64-bit PowerPC, and that's really not true. Or not necessarily, anyway. Note that in 64-bit PowerPC, there are no "modes"; all registers are 64 bits in width. However, that doesn't stop 32-bit code from running unmodified.
Basically what it comes down to is: it's not the size of your register; it's the size of your load/store. Having 64-bit registers doesn't stop you from doing a "store word" (32-bit store). It would even be somewhat natural to have 48-bit pointers if you wanted. What defines the size of data in your data structures is what conventions you (as an assembly programmer) decide for your loads and stores. As a C programmer, of course, it then comes down to your compiler implementation. On OS X, anyway, the convention is to use 32-bit pointers in 64-bit code.
So it's misleading to say everything is 64 bits in size. You get to play around with 64 bits when it's in your register, but that doesn't dictate how much memory you'll consume.
Re:Make a list (Score:1, Informative)
I have to agree with the other post who said "who cares about XP". I've been using 64-bit gentoo for maybe 2 years now (something like that), without driver issues.
Also, instead of just making a list of what 64 bits will do for you NOW, you should consider the fact you'll have your computer for a number of years. What might you need 64 bits for in the future?
Re:Why would I? (Score:1, Informative)
Some algorithms can be sped up greatly by using 64-bit integers instead of 32-bit integers. OTOH one such class of algorithms, encryption/hashing, is improved even better by on-chip hardware implementations like in the VIA C3/C7 chips.
It shouldn't affect HD space, only the filesystem code which can now use a single 64-bit int, instead of two 32-bit ints to simulate 64-bit capacities. Most filesystems have supported >4GB filesystems for many a year.
Pointers in AMD64 are 48bits IIRC, even though it is 64-bit overall. I may be wrong here, but AMD64 can only virtually address 48-bits anyway (at least in the current implementations) so they didn't want to waste space needlessly. It also doesn't stop you using 32-bit integers where they are sensible.
Don't Bother With XP64 Especially on Corp Network (Score:2, Informative)
XP-64 (Score:5, Informative)
XP 64 is based on the WinServer 2003 x64 base, and IMO, Server 2003 x64 makes a better 64 bit workstation OS. I guess M$ frucked up big time when adding all the consumer end stuff to it. Pity 2003 x64 doesn't have the full multimedia support that its 32 bit version does.
No issues here.. (Score:2, Informative)
The only potential hiccup I encountered was finding an x64 driver for my HP printer; but there is a nice group that came out with drivers that while they claim aren't perfect, I have never had any problems with (both printing and scanning).
If you've ever low-level coded for x64 it can be slightly more painful or new; but its definitely worth it in the end (as well as multi-core).
Ubuntu x64 here (Score:5, Informative)
Add me to the tally of folks running 64 bit Linux. For most purposes, the performance boost is unnoticable. However, I do get a few more FPS when transcoding video and I've noticed no other difficulties compared to 32bit Ubuntu. As others, I run 32 bit Firefox, but this is a breeze to install via automatix. About the only things that don't work for me are Google Earth and RealPlayer. I haven't bothered to look for others having similar troubles with Google Earth (app loads just fine, but imagery is all scrambled) and I don't care that much that RealPlayer barely runs (skips, audio out of sync, hangs inexplicably . . . but it did that on 32bits too).
As far as general day to day use goes, if you've got a 64 bit proc w/ a 32 bit OS, it's probably not worth the hassle to reinstall 64 bit builds. If you're starting over from scratch anyway, you might want to give it a shot.
Re:The answer is: because you don't have a choice. (Score:4, Informative)
So for this significant portion of the notebook market, I think the transition to 64-bit will probably stretch out past Q2 2007. It might go quicker than most, however, because Merom uses the same chipset as Yonah.
Re:Make a list (Score:5, Informative)
The default apps and such defaulted to the 32-bit versions, so I had to make some changes to the paths but after that all works well. It has been running non-stop for over 7 days, without a single problem. Actually, I haven't rebooted it at all after the installation, so I haven't much experience. This evening I ran through Windows Update and it updated a few things, but didn't require a reboot which was surprising.
The speed isn't bad for a 64-bit system but Vista is ram-hungry, so I won't be able to see much improvement until I add the extra memory.
In the future, I will not buy anymore new 32-bit systems, only 64-bit. I will, however, continue to check out vintage 32-bit systems for a good price, if necessary. At Christmas, Santa Clause is bringing me 2 DL-360s, which he only paid Euro 250.00 each. I'll use these for W2K3, and all the server-related apps.
But the future is 64-bit and so far, so good.
Just my 2 centimes,
Mark-Allen
64-bit Vista works well (Score:2, Informative)
I can't speak to WinXP 64-bit, but I can highly recommend it on Vista.
64 bit - drivers (Score:3, Informative)
This laptop is 64-bit... (Score:1, Informative)
Other than it going faster & being able to drive more RAM than I could afford, there’s no obvious difference between 32 & 64 bit machines as far as Linux was concerned. I had a couple of driver issues at the start, but that’s because the laptop maker chose fancier, better-integrated chips than they had to, not because of 64-bitness. It still uses less power than Windows even though not all of the ACPI stuff is perfectly happy (again, motherboard-too-fancy, not 64-bitness).
The built-in modem works. The wireless works. The wired LAN-card works. The USB2 works. The SATA DVD works. The video works. The sound works (even the crappy little built-in mic works). The SATA hard-drive works. The IEEE488 and FireWire and serial port all work. It all lights up as it should. What more could I ask?
Re:Not right now (Score:2, Informative)
Why? Did VideoDL [videodl.org] start requiring flash?
hardware yes - software no(t yet) (Score:2, Informative)
Just forward planning. For a serious server application, of course. But for a real workstation, you are going to have all kinds of problems for a while.. xp and linux.
"People get ready"... for a while probably.
ok shit. Believe it.
Re:Debian AMD64 is Awesome (Score:3, Informative)
Debian Sarge for x86_64 is perfectly well supported; you don't have to run testing/unstable.
Without a chroot? How? Opera is my only problem -- I don't want to bother with chroot environments, so I'm stuck with the statically linked 32-bit version. The Opera people don't make it a priority to release a 64-bit version, unfortunately.
Re:Make a list (Score:5, Informative)
Vista is more RAM hungry than XP, but not by a vast amount.
If you see that you have very little free memory, this is probably because Vista has a completely new memory management system that learns the apps you most often use and pre-loads them into RAM to speed things up. As soon as you actually need any of that memory it starts unloading things.
Granted, 1 gig won't really cut it if you're using Visual Studio or SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition (that's why I'm still on XP - plus I'm waiting on SP2 for SQL Server for Vista Compat), but for most tasks and gaming 1 gig will still be ample.
Re:Windows user (Score:4, Informative)
WRONG... it's not the tine count. It's the shape.
I have used a three-pronged pitchfork (as well as 4 and 5-tined pitchforks, and a 12-tined ensilage fork). A trident is a three-head spear (with the heads in a line instead of a triangle), and as such, the axis of the heads is parallel to the shaft. You don't want to stab and have the impact offset from the thrust, or worse, have an impaled opponent fall in such a way as to trap your weapon. A pitchfork is a material-handling tool, with the tines offset from the shaft in order to permit better retention of the load.
Re:Make a list (Score:3, Informative)
XP-64 doesnt matter. It kinda sucks and I dont use it on this box. If I wanted a 64bit, I would boot linux and be confidant in the fact that it would run just as well as it does on my 32bit linux box (unlike XP where there are huge differances)
Re:The answer is: because you don't have a choice. (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, I hate to break it to you, but the newer chips have other virtues than just being 64-bit: they're also considerably faster (and possibly dual-core). Why are you going out of your way to get a slower chip?
Re:But 64-bit is overkill for a lot of us (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed, once it was all up and running, I did notice some great speed benefits - OpenSSL simply flies, and many CPU-heavy multimedia apps such as LAME and mplayer showed slight improvments.
But the userland was another story. Since so much near-essential stuff* is still 32bit (thanks, mainly to sloppy coding [hello OOo...!] and closed source stuff [Flash]) you pretty much have to keep an almost entire 32b userland running at the same time as your 64bit DE. I guess I was kinda lucky in that Opera is my fave browser, and it being 32bit only I had no problems with 32bit flash, and it was still fairly quick to load. Starting a 32bit FF when you're running a 64bit KDE installation required me to load all of the 32b GTK libs before firefox could begin to think about executing. Combine that with the (slightly) inflated binary sizes of 64b executables and the higher memory requirements of running applications in a 64b envionment and you end up with a machine that is slower overall.
So, to cut a long story short, marginal improvements in some apps were countered by horrendous usability problems on the desktop.
If you're running a server (or any other machine that doesn't require 32bt niceties), 64bit Linux just rocks.
DISCLAIMER: I relaise that issues with 64b Linux on the desktop aren't Linux's fault, just like XP64's problems with drivers aren't MS's fault either. They're just issues that most would like to avoid
* Yes, I'm aware that Flash can be ignored by many people, but it's a deal breaker for the WAF. Similarly OpenOffice, whilst techically replaceable with things like Koffice that don't hog so many resources, is still the de-facto standard that all other office apps have to measure up to.
Re:Make a list (Score:4, Informative)
4GB is the amount of addressable memory, but that number doesn't take into account the way Windows handles that memory. Because of the way its memory management scheme works, 32-bit Windows can only address a total of 2GB of kernel memory and 2GB of memory for a single application. With 4GB of memory, a single application could not access 3GB. Additionally, the limitation of 2GB of kernel memory poses problems for terminal servers and other applications that may use more than 2GB of kernel memory. See The 4GB Windows Memory Limit: What does it really mean? [brianmadden.com] for more information.
My point in recommending the consideration of 64-bit Windows for amounts of memory over 2GB is that you may start to run into these limitations in 32-bit Windows with over 2GB of memory. If you actually have a reason for putting more than 2GB of memory in your computer, these limitations, and a 64-bit operating system, are things worth considering depending on your application.
/3G (Re:Make a list) (Score:3, Informative)
You can start many applications with the additional switch /3G, which will cause Windows to split the 4Gb of the process' address space 3:1 between user and kernel space instead of the default 2:2. But that's it...
Windows is not the only OS like this. On AIX 32-bit processes are also limited to 2Gb, for example, while on Solaris you have your entire 4Gb.
That said, if maximum memory is not an issue for your program (as is usually the case), it is quite convenient (and fast) to have the same address space across user and kernel parts of the process. And 64-bit gives you both (even if all the pointer-fields in your structures double in size...)