Split from: Installed 64 BIT OS (Ubuntu) on 32 Bit System?!

[cyberlocc]

This is completely miss-leading and incorrect. If you managed to install an ubuntu 64bit and it runs then your system will be fine with it, be aware that when installing drivers outside of the package manager to use 64bit ones (called x86_64 or x64 or AMD64 or similar). Note: there are mutliple "64bit" instruction sets, most common in home pcs is x86_64, by most common I mean it would be hard to find something that was not x86_64, see more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64,

with all do respect your statement is incorrect I ran a 1000+ network for Chandler Gilbert Community College for over 6 years back in the day lol. We had p4 with ht model 630 like he most likely has the 64 bit os with these procs were flaky at best you have to realize that 64bit uses 2 cores while a p4 only has 1 and 1 virtual. Back in those days HT was still very new and not perfected at all I said it would not hurt would it be completely stable no it can and most likely will have issues running 64 bit also he stated he is not using the pc so to expect the users that are probably not as pc literate to know to install 64 bit programs is reaching on linux. The 86-64 verision of linux is not made for ubuntu it has only 64 or 32 bit versions. You can do want you want op of course and maybe with new software it has become more stable all i can speak on is the ones I implemented on CGCC network we made 50 with x64 XP and it was a nightmare and we eventually changed them to 32 bit.

 

Also billibob no offense but Wikipedia is in no world a creditable source ever. Anyone can change that to make it say what they want it too at any time.

And to say my statements are misleading and incorrect without any type of support isn't very nice and a it installed simply does not justify saying that nor quoting a wiki. Also i read that wiki and it in no way disagrees with me the single core cpus that use 64bit os have hyper threading thus 1 physical and 1 virtual. But still in essence 2 cores 32 bits each.

 

Again a single core processor struggles with processing 64bits of data as a core can only really run 32 so you will see very little if any performance increase. A dual core proc can split the work up thus 32 bits to core one and 32 bits to core 2. This is also why there now looking into making 128bit oses with all these quad cores running around 32 bits to each core. 

 

Here is a good example http://showmeprotech.com/?p=90

[Billbob]

I am not interested in a flame war when all the OP wants is a yes/no, the answer here is clearly yes keep what he has. With regards to Wikipedia not being credible, this is well excepted, however reading the AMD64 spec takes much longer and I doubt the OP or the people posting about memory addressing care on that level.

 

Claiming that multiple cores (real or virtual) are needed for single threaded 64bit memory addressing is ludicrous I request your evidence for this.

[cyberlocc]

Well it seems there is some confusion about RAM limitations... so far no one has been right.  The maximum RAM limit just depends on how many addresses can be represented in the system.

 

32-bit system = 2³² = 4,294,967,296 possible addresses, so ~4.3 billion (or 4.3 giga in metrics) is the highest number that can be represented in a 32-bit system, which is why any amount of RAM higher than 4.3GB is ignored in a 32-bit system, the system can't count that high.

 

64-bit system = 2⁶⁴ = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 possible addresses, about 18.5 quintillion (or 18.5 exa in metrics).  The max limit for RAM in a 64-bit system is 18.5 exabytes.

 

That being said Windows imposes a limit of 192GB (except Home Premium which is limited to 16GB).

 

And there is no relation between the width of the instruction sets and how many cores or threads the CPU has.

 

And finally in response to the OP, Pentium 4 did have 64-bit support.  From Wikipedia: "In 2004, the initial 32-bit x86 instruction set of the Pentium 4 microprocessors was extended by the 64-bit x86-64 set."

Im confused as 2 what you mean there is no relation. What im saying is a single core can only read 32bits of data per clock cycle not 64 thus we need a second 32 bit core to read the other 32.

 

What i think everyone is missing here is  x86-64 set and x64 set are different things ubuntu the os in question does not have a x86-64

 version only a x64

 

From wikipedia - Linux was the first operating system kernel to run the x86-64 architecture in long mode, starting with the 2.4 version in 2001 (prior to the physical hardware's availability).^[46][47] Linux also provides backward compatibility for running 32-bit executables. This permits programs to be recompiled into long mode while retaining the use of 32-bit programs. Several Linux distributions currently ship with x86-64-native kernels and userlands. Some, such as Arch Linux,^[48]SUSE, Mandriva, and Debian GNU/Linux, allow users to install a set of 32-bit components and libraries when installing off a 64-bit DVD, thus allowing most existing 32-bit applications to run alongside the 64-bit OS. Other distributions, such as Fedora, Slackware and Ubuntu, are available in one version compiled for a 32-bit architecture and another compiled for a 64-bit architecture. Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise Linux allow concurrent installation of all userland components in both 32 and 64-bit versions on a 64-bit system.

[cyberlocc]

I am not interested in a flame war when all the OP wants is a yes/no, the answer here is clearly yes keep what he has. With regards to Wikipedia not being credible, this is well excepted, however reading the AMD64 spec takes much longer and I doubt the OP or the people posting about memory addressing care on that level.

 

Claiming that multiple cores (real or virtual) are needed for single threaded 64bit memory addressing is ludicrous I request your evidence for this.

The op also stated that he will not being using the pc others will thus they wont know the difference and how to make sure to install correct apps for the system so 32bit would be easier in that regard.

 

Aside from the fact that there is not one cpu that supports 64bit that is single core without HT

 

Without further qualification, a 64-bit computer architecture generally has integer and addressing registers that are 64 bits wide, allowing direct support for 64-bit data types and addresses. However, a CPU might have external data buses or address buses with different sizes from the registers, even larger (the 32-bit Pentium had a 64-bit data bus, for instance). The term may also refer to the size of low-level data types, such as 64-bit floating-point numbers.

 

source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#Current_64-bit_microprocessor_architectures

 

As this says the while the Pentium 4 has a 64bit bandwidth the physical core only has 32 bits thus needing 32 more bits from the virtual core.

[Billbob]

cyberlocc, on 04 May 2013 - 5:30 PM, said:

Im confused as 2 what you mean there is no relation. What im saying is a single core can only read 32bits of data per clock cycle not 64 thus we need a second 32 bit core to read the other 32.

What i think everyone is missing here is x86-64 set and x64 set are different things ubuntu the os in question does not have a x86-64

version only a x64

"x86_64" is "AMD64" is "x64" (In this case, ignoring instruction sets like IA-64), they are different labels for the 64bit extension of IA-32. An AMD64 core can address more than 32bits (this is the one of the main reasons for having "64bit" cores).

in relation to apps, this is only really a problem for drivers obtained outside of the package manager. programs compiled for 32bit will, in most cases, work fine.

[cyberlocc]

"x86_64" is "AMD64" is "x64" (In this case, ignoring instruction sets like IA-64), they are different labels for the 64bit extension of IA-32. An AMD64 core can address more than 32bits (this is the one of the main reasons for having "64bit" cores).

in relation to apps, this is only really a problem for drivers obtained outside of the package manager. programs compiled for 32bit will, in most cases, work fine.

agreed but a Pentium 4 single core cannot process 64bits bit only 32 thus needing a second core or virtual core to address the other 32 bits this is the difference between the first intel and amd x64s.

[Glenwing]

http://ark.intel.com/products/58667/Intel-Celeron-Processor-G440-1M-Cache-1_60-GHz

 

Single-core processor.  64-bit instruction set.

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Sempron%20140%20-%20SDX140HBK13GQ%20(SDX140HBGQBOX).html

 

Single-core processor, no hyperthreading either.  64-bit instruction set.

 

I'm not sure where you get the idea that a single core can only handle a 32-bit wide instruction set, what is the technical reason for this?  I've never heard of that nor do I see any reason why that would be true.

[cyberlocc]

http://ark.intel.com/products/58667/Intel-Celeron-Processor-G440-1M-Cache-1_60-GHz

 

Single-core processor.  64-bit instruction set.

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Sempron%20140%20-%20SDX140HBK13GQ%20(SDX140HBGQBOX).html

 

Single-core processor, no hyperthreading either.  64-bit instruction set.

 

I'm not sure where you get the idea that a single core can only handle a 32-bit wide instruction set, what is the technical reason for this?  I've never heard of that nor do I see any reason why that would be true.

The single core in the Pentium 4 only can address a 32 bit instruction set that's the physical architecture. Is there cores that can handle 64 bit architecture yes does the Pentium 4 no

[Glenwing]

agreed but a Pentium 4 single core cannot process 64bits bit only 32 thus needing a second core or virtual core to address the other 32 bits this is the difference between the first intel and amd x64s.

 

If a core can't address 64-bit numbers it can't address 64-bit numbers.  Intel adding the hyperthreading feature so that it executes cycles for a second task when its main task is stalled (from a cache miss, etc.) would not change that.  Hyperthreading does not add some kind of magical psuedo-core to the hardware, it's just some extra intelligence in the way the CPU operates, although it perceived as a second core by the OS.

[Glenwing]

Im confused as 2 what you mean there is no relation. What im saying is a single core can only read 32bits of data per clock cycle not 64 thus we need a second 32 bit core to read the other 32.

 

The single core in the Pentium 4 only can address a 32 bit instruction set that's the physical architecture. Is there cores that can handle 64 bit architecture yes does the Pentium 4 no

Now you're changing what you said...

[Billbob]

agreed but a Pentium 4 single core cannot process 64bits bit only 32 thus needing a second core or virtual core to address the other 32 bits this is the difference between the first intel and amd x64s.

Clearly the entire Athlon64 single core line faked the entire thing.

 

Edit: can someone delete this entire argument and tell OP it'll be fine and to look at lutzee's post.

[cyberlocc]

Clearly the entire Athlon64 single core line faked the entire thing.

 

Edit: you did just change your argument. Second edit, can someone delete this entire argument and tell OP it'll be fine.

lol I Was speaking of the processor at hand not amd. intel and amd are completely different that's apples and oranges. And as it seems i was wrong intels em64t doesn't use 64bit.

 

Intel EM64T provides support for:

• 64-bit flat virtual address space
• 64-bit pointers
• 64-bit wide general purpose registers (16 - added R8-R15)
• 64-bit integer support
• Up to 1 tebibyte (TiB) of platform address space

source http://wiki.osdev.org/EM64T

 

So i was wrong my apologies. I told the op that it would work but could develop issues in my experience it did however that was windows when it was new so it could have been a os thing that has been fixed long since then. OP just use it and see for yourself if it has problems try 32 easy as that.  

[Glenwing]

The single core in the Pentium 4 only can address a 32 bit instruction set that's the physical architecture. Is there cores that can handle 64 bit architecture yes does the Pentium 4 no

 

The fact that you can disable hyperthreading in the BIOS and still boot into your 64-bit OS operating only on 1 core/1 thread would seem to suggest there is no such architectural limit

 

EDIT: Also I split this argument from the original thread.

[cyberlocc]

ahh i was wondering what was going on lol i was deleting it so the op didn't have to read it lol. As I said your right that cpu is 64 bit wide my mistake 

[Billbob]

Sorry for the argument, large case of this: https://xkcd.com/386/, Out of interest were your problems "back in the day" related to Intel's implementation of AMD64? I can't find anything using google fu about any issues with it.

[Inject]

ahh i was wondering what was going on lol i was deleting it so the op didn't have to read it lol. As I said your right that cpu is 64 bit wide my mistake 

I don't mind. Conversation is cool XD.

 

As a side not from the other thread to clear things up probably nothing would be installed on that machine.

[cyberlocc]

Sorry for the argument, large case of this: https://xkcd.com/386/, Out of interest were your problems "back in the day" related to Intel's implementation of AMD64? I can't find anything using google fu about any issues with it.

we gpt a whole class full of new pcs with pentuim ds and put windows 64 on them and they were vrry flaky they bsoded a lot and froze a lot roaming profiles weren't working right ect but we put xp32 on and they were fine so we never bothered with x64 again till 7 lol. It could have been the os was new it had just came out we installed thrm in a tech class they could have not like altiris or roaming profiles not sure but that my exp.

Dude I love that link that cracked me up.