Which platform to choose for notebook, x86 or x86_64?

mog

Hi, I have just bought a DELL XPS M1210 and would like to install Gentoo on it (of course :wink:

), however, since the processor is a Core 2 Duo T7400, I am wondering whether I should choose x86 or x86_64. As I don't want to unnecessarily install twice.

Is the overall performance of x86_64 much better than x86? Some references to benchmarks would be great

.

What are the issues associated with x86_64 in terms of software support, instability, availability of drivers, etc?

Overall, is it worth installing x86_64 on a notebook?

Thank you very much for your input :idea:

_________________
To thine own self be true.

massysett · Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:06 am Post subject:

Gentoo's amd64 is the best there is. For example, some programs (like Flash) are only available 32-bit. Gentoo makes it easy to run these programs even in 64 bit. There is a 32-bit Firefox that you can install very easily, in which you can then use Flash.

Sometimes there are minor downsides to amd64, such as packages that haven't been keyworded for amd64. I think I've only had that happen once or twice though. Another downside comes from trying to run 32-bit: for instance once the precompiled 32-bit compatibility libraries that Firefox uses were compiled with a USE flag turned off due to licensing issues. This made the fonts ugly. It was pretty easy to fix though.

Some people say they notice a difference on amd64 performance versus 32-bit. I haven't really noticed. Actually, my AMD 64 X2 with amd64 and 1GB ram is not noticeably faster than my old Pentium 4 with x86 and 512MB ram. I have looked all over for benchmarks but have not really found anything. It seems to me that computers now are so fast that the bottleneck is slow software and slow network bandwidth.

So overall I just don't care about x86 vs amd64. Both seem fine to me. But that is quite a statement because many distros don't have good 64 bit, especially if you want to run 32-bit programs like Flash. Gentoo makes it seamless.
_________________
Draft Windows-to-Linux Guide

mog · Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:15 am Post subject:

I got amd64 deployed on some server boxes and it also worked out better for me than x86 in terms of performance.
However, how does that translate to mobile setups (and of course in particular Intel Core 2 Duo

)?
Is amd64 the same as x86_64? Can I run amd64 on an Intel Core 2 Duo?
And finally, but most importantly, how does 32-bit v.s. 64-bit compare in terms of speed?
_________________
To thine own self be true.

massysett · Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:29 pm Post subject:

Gentoo has "amd64"; other distros call their equivalent version "x86_64". They are effectively the same thing. The short story is that Intel uses AMD's 64-bit instruction set for its new chips, including the Core 2 Duo. However, Intel calls it EM64T. (For more info read up on AMD 64 and on EM64T in Wikipedia.) Core 2 Duo is EM64T so yeah, you can put Gentoo amd64 on it.

There is also IA64. You don't want that for a Core 2 Duo.
_________________
Draft Windows-to-Linux Guide

Cyker · Veteran Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 1746

IMHO, if you use any 32-bit binary-only packages (e.g. rar, flash, opera, ut...) then stick with 32-bits.

If you ONLY use 64-bit source-compiled stuff, then you can go with 64-bits.

mog · Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:06 pm Post subject:

thanks for clarifying

How about kernel/drivers in amd64? Are they a lot behind? Especially things like Dell Laptop extras?

I have been searching, but still no useful benchmarks

_________________
To thine own self be true.

cotcot · Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:02 pm Post subject:

I did not miss anything in the kernel config up till now.
However I checked my menuconfig and I only saw Asus/Medion, IBM and Toshiba laptop extras (kernel 2.6.17-r

mog · Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject:

mhh, well on my desktop I am running x86 with Linux Kernel v2.6.19-gentoo-r5 and under "Processor type and features" there definitely is an option for "Dell laptop support". It actually says its for an Inspiron series laptop, but might work for other Dells, too. Does that mean the amd64 kernel is lagging behind?
_________________
To thine own self be true.

smiffy · Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:16 am Post subject:

I am running 64 bits SMP on my Thinkpad Z61m and wouldn't have any other way.

If you do this, be prepared to have a rather large /etc/portage/package.keywords, but that's a small price to pay for the performance.

You will probably need nspluginwrapper to run 32 bit browser plugins and will need the Blackdown Java implementation (the 64 bit Sun one doesn't have the Netscape plugin or WebStart - coming in a forthcoming version).

To conclude, yes, it is worth it.
_________________
Matthew Smith

mog · Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:21 am Post subject:

alright, well I have read a lot in the last few days and come to the conclusion that amd64 is the way to go

.

Slightly bigger apps, but apparently greater overall efficiency and especially a chunky increase in performance, especially for number cruching.
And as I do a lot of image processing the extra speed will come in handy.

Also, no horrible issues if one installs 32bit compatibility libs and spends some time configuring the beast properly :lol:

.

So, I am gonna give it a go. Just emerging the base system now. Will let you guys know how it went.
_________________
To thine own self be true.

smiffy · Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:46 am Post subject:

Good luck!

Let us know here if you have any problems - odds are we've already seen and worked round (or ignored!) them.
_________________
Matthew Smith

ttuegel · Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject:

bandwidthjunkie · n00b Joined: 07 Jan 2007 Posts: 16

I have been on amd64 for about a year and pretty much everything works fine. All the major packages work, although for firefox you are probably better off with the 32-bit binary as it makes it much easier to get the plugins working, and as far as I know OpenOffice won't compile so you need the binary (probably for the best though! will save a day on the install). However, what I have found is that smaller programs tend to be a bit flakey - so if I find something on sourceforge or listed in portage that sounds interesting it might compile, but then it has unexpected behaviour when/if it runs. On the other hand I use my machine for computation and there genuinely is a huge speed increase from 32-bit, so the niggles are more than worth it for me.

For a while now all new machines have been 64-bit capable and it is only by users going over to 64-bit OS's that developers will put the effort in to tailor their software to 64-bit.

Anyway, your choice.

smiffy · Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject:

Not only does OpenOffice compile, but it does so in quite a short time (under 3 hours in my case compared with 24 hours on an Athlon XP2000 with the same RAM). I posted about this in early January and the thread turned into a "my OpenOffice compiled faster than yours" race. The Core2 Duo did pretty well in those stakes. So, certainly no need for binaries here.

As regards Firefox, there is no big deal about using nspluginwrapper - it's one more thing to emerge and one command to type, if memory serves me correctly. Certainly not a sufficient reason for me to slum it with 32 bit stuff ;-)

_________________
Matthew Smith

ttuegel · Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:10 pm Post subject:

mog · Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:49 am Post subject:

ok, well I have pretty much completed my system install with amd64. Everything went smooth (almost) and compiles where blazing fast :-D

. There were no issues with drivers. The only two problems I had so far were installing Sun's JDK 1.4.2 and compiling OpenOffice.

The Java problem was quickly resolved by editing the ebuild :-)

. However, I am still stuck on OpenOffice failing to comile

.

So far I would say my 64bit experience was pretty good. Now I just need to sort out OO and then I am all happy :-)

.
_________________
To thine own self be true.

Penguin of Wonder · Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject:

I had trouble compiling openoffice on 64 bit install as well. Check bugzilla for your error. Some of the errors have unofficial solutions. At worst you can just use the openoffice-bin. Thats what i've currently got on my install.
_________________
My Linux Blog

AMD64 3700+
2G DDR 3200 Ram
320G HDD

mog · Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:53 am Post subject:

yes, I reverted to using openoffice-bin as well. Works fine and I don't use it too often so I don't really care. Everything else has been sweet

.
_________________
To thine own self be true.

s0rtd · n00b Joined: 21 Feb 2006 Posts: 39

I have just received a new laptop and would like to get gentoo on it asap. According to the system information within the Vista installation it has a Intel core 2 duo T7200 CPU. It also has a Intel 3945ABG wireless adapter that I would really like to have working as well as the and bluetooth adapter.
My question is what do I install? do I go with 64 bit? or stick with 32bit? My guess is 32 bit is going to be a whole lot easier.

cheers
Jurgen

nixnut · Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:43 am Post subject:

merged above post here.
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered

talk is cheap. supply exceeds demand