# [Closed] 64-bit vs 32



## irkkaaja (Mar 6, 2009)

I've heard that using a 64-bit base system (kernel+shell+libc) can lead to issues with drivers and some applications, though I'm not sure of the extent. I have an amd64 cpu (well, an intel em64t, but they're the same thing), so is there any reason for me to _not_ use the amd64 version of FreeBSD?


----------



## fronclynne (Mar 6, 2009)

I use my laptop on a 64bit world & kernel and it hasn't barfed yet.

If I were concerned, I would just build a 32bit partition and share /home & /ports between them.


----------



## trev (Mar 6, 2009)

There's no 64 bit nVidia video card driver... yet.


----------



## irkkaaja (Mar 6, 2009)

trev said:
			
		

> There's no 64 bit nVidia video card driver... yet.



I'm guessing, then, that 32-bit drivers and 64-bit kernels don't play nice?


----------



## trev (Mar 6, 2009)

Correct.


----------



## Brandybuck (Mar 6, 2009)

Everything I have is open source, except Flash. I think the flashwrapper can handle that for 64-bit systems, but I'm not sure. Another issue is Linux compatibility. I'm assuming a 64-bit FreeBSD can handle 32-bit Linux binaries (from linux-base)?


----------



## fronclynne (Mar 7, 2009)

Brandybuck said:
			
		

> Another issue is Linux compatibility. I'm assuming a 64-bit FreeBSD can handle 32-bit Linux binaries (from linux-base)?


It would appear that 32bit linux is about it for the moment, vis:

```
> grep LINUX /sys/amd64/conf/NOTES
# To enable Linuxulator support, one must also include COMPAT_LINUX in the
#XXX#options    COMPAT_LINUX
options         COMPAT_LINUX32
# Enable the linux-like proc filesystem support (requires COMPAT_LINUX32
#Enable the linux-like sys filesystem support (requires COMPAT_LINUX32
>
```
But who knows what the future holds?


----------



## macbias (Mar 7, 2009)

besides the drivers as mentioned, amd64 does not have wine yet. i find it a neccessity and have used it for microsoft office for work, plus games. (still i'm on amd64 now - better performance on any platform, no matter what most ppl think. )


----------



## oliverh (Mar 7, 2009)

>better performance on any platform, no matter what most ppl think

Well prove it then. Others don't believe, but the can indeed prove the opposite - as far as the very desktop is concerned. And even on some scientific workstations I have access to it's a mixed bag. So resist the hype and use the "force" where it is actually applicable - after some thorough tests in _your_ environment.


----------



## macbias (Mar 7, 2009)

i had a feeling someone would come up with this, but firstly, from your post you don't sound you are being so open minded because anyone who ever prefers 64-bit over 32, and had the debate, knows there is no *huge* difference, in fact any differences are very slight; and mostly only go as far as to make things just feel smoother.

i know what you mean, but most ppl that prefer 64-bit (and not out of requirements) do so for that little extra and not for any technical reason or some non-existent huge leap in performance; and it is somewhat a matter of preference that i doubt anyone will ever agree upon. it doesn't matter to some, and it definately does to others. it's just that a lot of times ppl argue that technically 64-bit is only better for systems with larger amounts of ram, and i hands down i *can't* prove anything; but you just have to use it to know; and the benefits are mainly with multimedia and other desktop use, but who doesn't use their computer for that at all.

in that respect, with freebsd you can't really tell unless you have a supported video card on amd64 (intel??). even if you are not using graphics intensive apps, because any graphic interface to the app would be misleading. but with linux or windows xp you are  bound to notice things run smoother, and graphics look crisp compared to their 32-bit counterpart.

try rotating the compiz-fusion cube like crazy on linux 64 & 32, try games like ut2004 and ut2004_x64 on windows and linux, try farcry x64 on windows, try ableton live, cubase, reaktor,etc, with a truckload of clips and effects,or adobe premiere on windowsxp 64.

in conclusion, i only mentioned that in the earlier post to be a snob, just because some ppl say there is no difference, and true there is no real big difference, but you just have to use it (x64) to know, and still remains ppl's taste and preference. to me 32 is a compromise and it is the only reason i have a dual-boot freebsd + ubuntu64, since no wine and nvidia driver yet. also the difference is more negligible on higher powered systems than on somewhat entry levels. i have an athlon64 X2 with only DDR ram and a core 2 duo with DDR2. on the athlon the difference is more noticable, especially if i rotate the compiz cube while compiling anything in a terminal emulator. the cube still rotates smoothly. the core 2 can handle that in 32-bit OSes, bit still has that extra edge with 64 bit.

as i said, i can't prove anything.


----------



## oliverh (Mar 7, 2009)

Compiz? Nvidia? Did I mention desktop glitter and games? Work! I can even work on a desktop, we call this workstation. You know laboratories etc. Well with huge data-intensive applications there is of course a massive difference I can see without comparing any numbers. Your mileage may vary on the desktop with office etc., this I call "noise". 

>and graphics look crisp compared to their 32-bit counterpart

I see, well if you want so actually "see" something, you _will_ "see" something. Buy yourself a proper graphics card and some TFT from Eizo for example, I guarantee you the best picture you can get in both worlds.

>from your post you don't sound you are being so open minded

Are we talking about religion? I don't think so, it's about technology and the proper use of it.  64 bit nowadays comes free of charge, so usually it doesn't matter whether you're using it or not. Apart from some incompatibilities in some drivers, applications etc., it really depends on your personal needs. We're using 64 bit at our institute due satellite pictures and so on in really scary resolutions. Well we don't get better graphics, but you actually see the difference in performance while working with or acquiring the data.

At my desktop at home I don't use 64 bit, because I need certain things and the reliability is to some degree better - in FreeBSD and Linux. So if you're happy with it, be happy. But this is just an advice for people who think they would miss something on the desktop in terms of huge performance differences. So it's now law, it's just an advice to think about it - more "data-overhead" Vs "less to none" performance gains.

64 bit is the (near) future, but not everyone has to do a time travel now ;-)


----------



## macbias (Mar 7, 2009)

oh jesus,
i was just making conversation with no offense, but you don't have to be talking about religion to realise someone is just going to make *assumptions*; which isn't being open minded.
where did i mention what graphics card or monitor i have? for all you know i could have anything from crap to high end.
what makes you think i wouldn't be skeptical if someone said that the same game in x64 version has better graphics than its 32bit counterpart; and what makes you think i was hallucinating, blinded by my own opinion?. 
likewise if you _don't_want_to_see you _will_not_see.

you are not arguing that 64 is (to any degree) better, you are arguing that *common ppl with simple desktop use* should not have to be concerned and leave it to whoever knows best. you mentioned lab computers users compared to *noise* users, like saying "hey at a powerstation, gold conducts electricity better than copper, but in households, you shouldn't worry, or it's irrelevant...!"
i have a better than avarage cd player in my car, worth twice the average player, i have stereo equipment with cables more expensive than the average joe's hifi and an audio interface attached to this pc worth about as much as the computer itself, but i don't go around ppl's house shrugging my shoulds at their hifi,cd player or what have you. if it sounds decent, i am honestly going to say it sounds decent and not dismiss it because there are better sounding big boy's toys in that area.

like i said previously, i was just being a bit snobbish with some pun intended, because, (and my main point in all of this), most ppl with little desktops that prefer x64 system, do so in spite of only just a small difference, and that is what makes them happy. some other ppl prefer 32 bit, but a lot of times, some of those impose their beliefs that it's irrelevant.
when you imply i wanted_to_see, did you actually test if there eally is a difference or not?
and honestly do you think certain software is more reliable on 32 bit systems because 32 bit just is, or because it has been either better test, developed, etc, since much more ppl have and work on those systems and 64bit can never cut it?

i'll stop here cuz i rest my case, and @ irkkaaja i apologize for flooding your thread. if it matters to you irkkaaja, stick to the i386 version for now because it is the better system overall for a desktop right now. i use amd64 only because i have a dual-boot and can rely on that for graphics intensive apps and wine. all i do with this is simple net stuff, email, maybe watch some movies and listen to net radio and mp3s while i await nvidia drivers someday. i am still learning on freebsd and made the switch to amd64 about a month ago because i don't want to have to build everything from scratch when that happens.

rgds


----------



## DutchDaemon (Mar 7, 2009)

Ok guys. Each has had their say, and the thread's gone off the rails a little. Thread closed.


----------

