how is 64 bit better?
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 438 posts since 21 Feb, 2006
I dont understand why everyone is making 64 bit. How is it better? honestly performance wise, i cant tell the difference between my 32 bit daw and 64 Bit, both of which i use.
the jbridger is really buggy, Most of my fav vsts are 32.
the jbridger is really buggy, Most of my fav vsts are 32.
-
- KVRist
- 278 posts since 1 Feb, 2014
I don't have much knowledge, but what I know, diference is that, 32 plugins can manage maximum around 4GB ram and 64bit plugins much more. I don't know what is maximum for 64bit. For most synths vsti it doesn't matter, they can be 32 and 64, because they don't need much RAM, they are 32 and 64 for only DAW compatibility. But if some vsti use lot of samples, 64bit sampler can load more as 4GB sample material in to memory.
- Beware the Quoth
- 33175 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
Because the processors and OS are 64-bit.zoogoo wrote:I dont understand why everyone is making 64 bit.
Its 'better' when you need to be able to utilise the full resources and capabilities of your 64-bit OS and CPU.How is it better?
Honestly, performance wise its not actually about performance. Though compiler technologies, more available registers and instruction set specialisations mean that 64-bit code is slightly faster.honestly performance wise, i cant tell the difference between my 32 bit daw and 64 Bit, both of which i use.
Try reading some of the other 500 threads which cover the differences between 32-bit and 64-bit plugins.
The fact that you prefer to use 32-bit plugins doesnt mean that 64-bit as a 'thing' doesnt have advantages. And vice versa; noone is forcing you to use it just because it has those advantages.Most of my fav vsts are 32.
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
- Beware the Quoth
- 33175 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
Depends. On a 32-bit OS, the whole OS can only access up to around 3Gb of RAM in the first place, shared amongst all its running processes.Oberheim 8000 wrote:I don't have much knowledge, but what I know, diference is that, 32 plugins can manage maximum around 4GB ram
On a 64-bit OS, however, a bridged 32-bit plugin might be able to access that much to itself.
Windows 10 Pro and above can access 2Tb of RAM.I don't know what is maximum for 64bit.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/librar ... s.85).aspx
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
-
- KVRAF
- 2087 posts since 24 Jun, 2006 from London, England
I was quickly schooled by Ableton's FAQ (obviously the same information would apply to any DAW or software in general) -
The terms 32-bit and 64-bit refer to how much of your computer's memory (RAM) can be used by applications. The 32-bit version of Live (like all 32-bit applications) can use up to 4GB of RAM, which means that it may not be possible to use very large sample collections or very memory-hungry plug-ins.
In contrast, the 64-bit version of Live can use a theoretical maximum of 16 exabytes of RAM - much more RAM than computers actually have. This means you can work with Live Sets (natively, with third-party plug-ins, and in ReWire configurations) that are much larger and more memory-intensive than in the 32-bit version.
There are no differences in CPU handling between the 32-bit and the 64-bit version however due to persistent Out of Memory crashes when using the 32-bit version, we recommend the 64-bit version for improved stability.
-
- KVRian
- 853 posts since 13 Mar, 2012
Most of my fav vsts are 32.
I have the same problem...the jbridger is really buggy
I actually face the problems as described on Ableton FAQ (out of memory crashes) and would like to change to 64bit... besides the fact that Live 10 is 64bit only. But can't. Those olds plugin are not available on 64bit and with jbridger I see black plugin UIs, random crashes during working and for some plugins even the conversion step fails.
Someone here with time and motivation to start a open-source / community-driven project to build an alternative to jbridger .. that actually works?
~~ ॐ http://soundcloud.com/mfr ॐ ~~
- KVRAF
- 2147 posts since 30 Oct, 2006 from Australia, NSW
memory
http://www.voltagedisciple.com
Patches for PHASEPLANT ACE,PREDATOR, SYNPLANT, SUB BOOM BASS2,PUNCH , PUNCH BD
AALTO,CIRCLE,BLADE and V-Haus Card For Tiptop Audio ONE Module
https://soundcloud.com/somerville-1i
Patches for PHASEPLANT ACE,PREDATOR, SYNPLANT, SUB BOOM BASS2,PUNCH , PUNCH BD
AALTO,CIRCLE,BLADE and V-Haus Card For Tiptop Audio ONE Module
https://soundcloud.com/somerville-1i
-
Distorted Horizon Distorted Horizon https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=392076
- Banned
- 3882 posts since 17 Jan, 2017 from Planet of cats
In every wayzoogoo wrote:How is it better.
- KVRAF
- 11093 posts since 16 Mar, 2003 from Porto - Portugal
mcbpete wrote:I was quickly schooled by Ableton's FAQ (obviously the same information would apply to any DAW or software in general) -
The terms 32-bit and 64-bit refer to how much of your computer's memory (RAM) can be used by applications. The 32-bit version of Live (like all 32-bit applications) can use up to 4GB of RAM, which means that it may not be possible to use very large sample collections or very memory-hungry plug-ins.
Actually, this is only true if the 32-bit version of Live is running in a 64-bit OS (which most likely it will currently). If it was running in a 32-bit OS, this would be even much more squeezed in terms of RAM, because the theoretical max 4GB of RAM (which, in Windows XP 32-bit would be reduced to circa 3.4 GB) would have to accomodate the OS, the DAW, the plug-ins, and any other process running in background.
Fernando (FMR)
- KVRAF
- 7892 posts since 12 Feb, 2006 from Helsinki, Finland
Actually... CPUs as old as Pentium Pro come with PAE extension that allows you to map 36-bits worth of physical memory, allowing access to 64GB of physical memory. This is WAY before anyone was even thinking about making a 64-bit version of x86. At least in server versions Windows have supported PAE at least back to 2000 although they had artificial limitations on the maximum memory they'd let you use depending on how much you'd pay for your license.whyterabbyt wrote: Depends. On a 32-bit OS, the whole OS can only access up to around 3Gb of RAM in the first place, shared amongst all its running processes.
The only real limitation is that you can't have more than 4GB mapped in a single address space and if you want to keep the kernel (or some parts of it at least; again this is not technically necessary, although it does improve performance of system calls) mapped into every process as well, then that's how you end up with figures like 3GB or 3.5GB or whatever.
- Beware the Quoth
- 33175 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
Yeah, I was talking about the consumer OS versions, ie what you'd expect people to actually use for their DAWs.mystran wrote:Actually... CPUs as old as Pentium Pro come with PAE extension that allows you to map 36-bits worth of physical memory, allowing access to 64GB of physical memory. This is WAY before anyone was even thinking about making a 64-bit version of x86. At least in server versions Windows have supported PAE at least back to 2000 although they had artificial limitations on the maximum memory they'd let you use depending on how much you'd pay for your license.whyterabbyt wrote: Depends. On a 32-bit OS, the whole OS can only access up to around 3Gb of RAM in the first place, shared amongst all its running processes.
KVR mangled the link I gave, but its MS's authoritive doc on memory availability, including Windows Server capabilities too, version by version.
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
-
- KVRian
- 1379 posts since 26 Apr, 2004 from UK
There is also one other point... 32bits instruction sets are more than 10 years old. They don't have any SIMD (more or less).
Also Apple is dropping support next year and Windows may soon follow.
Also Apple is dropping support next year and Windows may soon follow.
- KVRAF
- 7892 posts since 12 Feb, 2006 from Helsinki, Finland
What exactly are you smoking?Miles1981 wrote:32bits instruction sets are more than 10 years old. They don't have any SIMD (more or less).
All the SIMD extensions work perfectly fine in 32-bit mode and SSE2 even predates x86-64.
-
- KVRAF
- 2087 posts since 24 Jun, 2006 from London, England
Think that era was an even smaller number of bits (16-bit era), which I think was dropped circa Win 7stratum wrote:Windows is not likely to drop any 32 bit support, otherwise COBOL compilers from 1990's wouldn't work. Big problem