36 or 64 bit?

[Jerry Feldman]

On 01/05/2010 07:11 PM, Andy Blanchard wrote:
> I'd boot the 32bit LiveCD version and if it sorts your problems out,
> then go ahead and install it, at least until you know your issues with
> the 64bit version are fixed.
>
> The idea that 64bit performs better than 32bit is a bit of a fallacy
> anyway.  There are some advantages, but generally they only come into
> play when dealing with more than 2GB of mapped memory, doing lots of
> math or manipulating large chunks of data that can be processed 64
> bits at a time instead of 32.  For a general purpose desktop or
> laptop, you'll probably not really notice much benefit most of the
> time and the executables are all slightly larger too.
>
>   
Enrico,
While I've been on the 64-bit bandwagon for a long time (15 years),
there are still issues. I totally agree with Andy. With 32-bits you are
essentially limited to 3GB of memory, but if there are driver issues
with both your sound and network drivers, I certainly would recommend
32-bit temporarily.
Additionally in some benchmark testing I did a few years ago, there are
some applications that run better as 32-bit than if they were built 64-bit.

There are, however, some additional advantages of 64-bit systems. First,
there are 8 additional registers available in 64-bit mode. I think you
should see better graphical performance in 64-bit.

All in all, as a desktop workstation, as Andy mentions, you should not
see any significant benefit with a 64-bit OS, specifically in light of
your problems.

-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB  CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20100106/e1472529/attachment-0001.sig>