|
Gone back to 32-bitGone back to 32-bitPosted Sep 13, 2006 8:55 UTC (Wed) by alspnost (subscriber, #2763)Parent article: What you should (and shouldn't) expect from 64-bit Linux (Linux.com) I ran an AMD64 system for a year or so, and very nice it was. But it *was* indeed more hassle as well, and I've now gone back to 32-bit again. Well, I had to as my new machine is a laptop with a Core Duo chip, so no 64-bit support! Overall, during the benchmarks I ran with the 64-bit machine, I honestly found almost zero discernable difference betwee 64/32-bit. There were some exceptions - for a good example, try the OpenSSL crypto benchmarks, which speed up by 3x in 64-bit mode - but nothing that really made a real-life difference. It kind of felt "cool" to be running 64-bit though. But I've not found any disadvantages in going back to 32-bit. What makes a hell of a difference is dual core - now *that* is seriously worth having, and makes me enjoy my dual 32-bit system much more than my single 64-bit one. Two 32s really do equal more than 64 after all :-)
(Log in to post comments)
Gone back to 32-bit Posted Sep 13, 2006 9:15 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Emacs and XEmacs have visible improvements in 64-bit mode: larger buffers and the ability to deal with integers above 2^28 (or 2^30 in XEmacs).
|
Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
Powered by Rackspace Managed Hosting.