Ubuntu 64bit Really Is Faster Than 32bit

By , Published December 30, 2009

The usual story given to a user who asks “is 64bit Ubuntu is worth it?” on the Ubuntu Forums  is a muddle of “not really…”, “not that much faster…”, “if what you got works, stay with it…” etc.

Many people are recommended to use the Ubuntu PAE kernel with 32bit Ubuntu allowing them to address more than the heady heights of 3GB RAM 32bit usually allows.

Well, kiss those presumptions goodbye because kernel-loving website Phoronix decided to run some tests to see how the normal Ubuntu kernel, the PAE kernel and the 64bit kernel stacked up against one-another. Their results were pretty conclusive – Ubuntu 64bit is incredibly faster than Ubuntu 32bit – even with PAE enabled.

In their test conclusion they state: -

“By far though exhibiting the best performance was the Ubuntu 64-bit kernel that often ended up being leaps and bounds better than the 32-bit kernel. Unless you have technical or business reasons for not migrating to 64-bit Linux with compatible hardware, there is no reason to stick around with a 32-bit kernel…” 

You can read the full analysis over @ Phoronix

Thanks to Vadim P.
Article originally appeared on omgubuntu.co.uk

No related posts.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
  • http://owaislone.org/ Owais Lone

    Sounds nice… Will switch back to 64bit soon

  • http://twitter.com/flux_box LuigiMarco Simonetti

    not for all… I have 1GB ram and had a 64bit installation… switching to 32bit I found a really improvement in ram consumption and speed

  • Ville

    But is there a 64bit Flash plug-in that doesn’t crash Firefox all the time?

  • Mohan

    Been on 64bit for a year now, and love it. I wasn’t on 64bit for quite sometime because of native flash support.

  • Tite-Live

    WTF ?! “there is no reason to stick around with a 32-bit kernel…” No reason ! Roflmaogcb.

    Google Earth… Flash stupids bugsâ„¢… for other apps, it’s not a 64bit kernel, it’s a “compilo-mania kernel”… It’s a bit ~ boring. And I do not count all the problems with the libraries… Omg… “How to waste time, 21st century version.”

    Yes, in theory, there is no reason… but in practice there are tremendously reasons. Sorry.

    • http://omgubuntu.co.uk/ d0od

      No need to apologise to me, it’s not a quote from me :)

    • Anonymous

      I don’t know what you’re talking about, I’ve never had any problems with it. Google Earth works fine for me, flash can be troublesome but the latest refresh from Adobe fixed a lot of the problems. I’ve never had problems with 64 bit kernels or libraries.

      I think Ubuntu is set up quite nicely to handle 64 bit, a lot better than say, Windows. Everything in the repositories has a 64 bit package as well as the 32 bit one.

    • daas88

      I switched to 64 bit OSes (Ubuntu, Archlinux, windows) this year and i’m very satisfied. Good performance and support, the only issue is that you have to download flash from adobe, not from the repos.

  • http://www.facebook.com/seand13 Sean Davis

    So Just a somewhat naive question here… for those of us considering an upgrade to the 64-bit OS. What are the pros/cons, besides the obvious pro of speeding up your system? It seems like people are split on this issue. Also, given that I have a 32-bit processor, will the speedup be similar, or is this only for people with 64-bit proc?

    • Limvot

      The way I understand it is that 64-bit operating systems only work on 64-bit processors. However, 64-bit processors are backwards compatable and can run 32-bit operating systems.

      So to me it looks like you couldn’t run a 64-bit OS if you wanted to without buying a new computer.

    • Kristijan

      You must have 64bit procesor and MINIMUM 1gb ram desirabil 2gb or more to see difference.
      64bit uses twice of ram then 32bit

      • http://omgubuntu.co.uk/ d0od

        64 bit OSes do NOT use double the RAM – that is a common misconception.

        “While it’s true that 64-bit processes will take a little extra memory, that is a result of the memory pointers being a little bigger to address the larger amount of RAM, and not an actual double in size. Imagine, if you will, an ancient library filing system that has a card to tell you where to find the book in the library — if you got a bigger box to hold the cards, the library would not double in size, you’d just be able to find the book you were looking for more easily.”

  • http://livinginagoogleworld.blogspot.com/ Jonathan Frederickson

    Maybe, but I have one application that just will not run on the 64-bit version. Gizmo5. Considering that gives me free phone calls for the moment I’m not so willing to part with it.

  • http://netbookindia.net/ netbook india

    But does that applies in case of netbook as well? There are few netbooks that support 64-bit OS

  • f.zweig

    Much as I like Phoronix, this test is not one of my favourites. In my opinion, the conclusion “64 bit is faster” is over-simplified. Of course 64 bit is faster when using 4 GB of RAM, because it can address 1 GB more than 32 bit can. I think the test should also be made with less then 3 GB, to have better numbers. I doubt that you feel a difference doing day-to-day things like web browsing, emails, instant messaging or even writing or drawing. But I know that you feel a difference using Flash, using proprietary software, using VPN (which is very unstable on 64 bit) or sometimes even compiling. I still recommend installing 32 bit, as much as I wished 64 bit be the better choice.

    • Benjamin

      The operations they tested were mostly CPU intensive, so having the extra ram wouldn’t change any of the test results. Most of the tests that were run don’t use anywhere near a gig in fact. I made the switch to 64 a while ago, and it is REALLY noticeable in daily use. I think you should give it a real honest try, since all of your complaints (besides some proprietary software) have been none issues for a while now.

  • andyP79

    I currently have 2 boxes going. I am testing Lucidfrom an end user perspective on my 32bit laptop. It woks quite well with 2GB of RAM. My other box, is a new laptop running 2GB of RAM with Linux Mint 8 64bit. I have no issues or problems with 64flash. I can tell it is much faster, better looking graphics, and smoother, able to handle more applications at one time, all around just a better box. Don’t get me wrong, the Lucid box performs well, but it is slower, lags in launching, and can not handle anywhere as much before I start getting grey screens. I like both of them, but the only reason I still use the 32bit, is becuase that is what the processor is. I won’t buy another 32bit machine again, Why bother? For people who use 32bit OS on a 64bit machine, it is kind like buying a nice sports car, and asking them to install cloth seats instead of leather!? If you spent that much money already, why are you trying to save a dollar? More people that use 64bit, more programmers will respond with programs for them. Wasn’t it Bill Gates who asked why you would ever need more then 128k of RAM?

  • Mahesh Mohan M.U

    d0od … What about writing a post of “upgrading to ubuntu 64-bit, pro’s & con’s” and also tips to newbies.

  • Anonymous

    On my system, the speed difference is night-and-day, so I only use 64-bit Ubuntu.

    But if you don’t notice a speed difference in your day-to-day use, stick with 32-bit. Don’t switch just because someone’s benchmark says 64-bit is faster! Switch if you see a meaningful difference.

  • http://thestrayworld.com/ Rewarp

    Good to know I made the right choice from the start :-)

  • medeshago

    I only have 768mb of ram, would I benefit from switching?

    • daas88

      i don’t think so. And do you have a 64 bit processor? core 2 duo for instance… if not, then you couldn’t even install it. If i were you i would stick to 32 bits until getting more ram.

      • medeshago

        I have a Athlon 64 3200+ processor.

  • Valdineysr

    Ubuntu is 32 bit is much faster at boot than 64, may not have been made implementations for your stay really quicker boot in 64