64-Bit Cubase?

[griels]

Pity I don't have a 64 bit processor

Wanna swap video cards?

[spaceman]

you can probably expect the full 64bit version sometime in 2045

[UltraJv]

I dont see what the fuss is about with 64 bit. All you gain is maximum of 30% speed incease (If you're lucky - I can overclock with 30% gain)

Not to be sniffed at... That's equivalent to a whole extra GhZ for free... No extra heat, no extra stress on the processor... And you could still overclock if you wanted No?

and the ability to address more than 4GB ram.

I thought Win XP applciations could only address 2GB each? With today's large sample libraries, it's easy to exceed that requirement.

Hardly worth all the messing about and losing compatibility with all your other software and plugs is it?

Well, bearing in mind what kp said about the need for data piping, and the fact that my video card (Matrox G550) had no 64 bit drivers the last time I checked, I'd have to say no for the minute

But the sooner more developers jump onto the 64 bit bandwagon, the more worthwhile it will be...

Windows XP can address 4GB (you need to set a software switch to do this) but mainly its the apps that arnt written properly to use this. Most people who are trying to get 64 bit Windows XP working arnt jumping around shouting about performance because its not much different yet!! By the time all the software catches up (about a year) it will be a damp squib as dual core will be out soon and much more impressive without needing to wait for 64 bit software. And so it goes...

[griels]

Windows XP can address 4GB (you need to set a software switch to do this) but mainly its the apps that arnt written properly to use this. Most people who are trying to get 64 bit Windows XP working arnt jumping around shouting about performance because its not much different yet!! By the time all the software catches up (about a year) Dual core will be out soon and much more impressive without needing to wait for 64 bit software.

Oh.. How is dual core superior to standard SMP? Better cache coherence/fewer contention issues? From what I gather, the performance boost for dual processors is at best around 60%, only twice that of 64 bit processing over 32?

P.S. Just playing Devil's Advocate really... What I really need is more addressable RAM for all those large sample libs, my A64 3500+ is doing just fine on the number crunching front

[UltraJv]

Hey - Devils advocate is my game Memory addressing is a thorny issue. Even if you get XP 64 bit to support it, watch out for motherboard issues - some havnt fully implemented supprt for above 4GB - roll on the Bios updates

[spaceman]

Hey - Devils advocate is my game Memory addressing is a thorny issue. Even if you get XP 64 bit to support it, watch out for motherboard issues - some havnt fully implemented supprt for above 4GB - roll on the Bios updates

hence.. 64bit motherboards

[UltraJv]

[Guckli]

Windows XP can address 4GB (you need to set a software switch to do this) but mainly its the apps that arnt written properly to use this. Most people who are trying to get 64 bit Windows XP working arnt jumping around shouting about performance because its not much different yet!! By the time all the software catches up (about a year) it will be a damp squib as dual core will be out soon and much more impressive without needing to wait for 64 bit software. And so it goes...

Except... last time I looked at roadmaps from Intel and AMD there weren't any dual core cpus not supporting 64bit instructions...

[UltraJv]

Hardware is always in advance of software. Hopefully in a year the apps and plugs will have caught up, maybe

[JonathanDragonDJ]

basically
when you write music on your computer
it's better to wait for software and hardware advances to be tried by someone else....
i have an amd64 3400+ cpu....
but i'm gonna wait till xp64 is OUT of the beta phaze and until other software and drivers catch up....to lost even one of my vsts by tryin to switch just ain't worth it....
if you're a music producer....i definately recomend just waiting a while longer to migrate to 64...
it might be a month or it might be a year....
but waiting is better than the hassle people go thru now...
only one bad driver can stop the whole system....be it video card/sound card/ or actual software....

[DiGGi-DaNGa]

Hey sorry for the late reply..

I installed the updated Syncrosoft drivers on Windows XP 64 bit, but it still gives me the same error. I have Cubase SX 2.02. Any ideas?

[DevonB]

Windows XP can address 4GB (you need to set a software switch to do this) but mainly its the apps that arnt written properly to use this. Most people who are trying to get 64 bit Windows XP

XP/2k can address 4 gigs, period. 2 gigs to apps, 2 gigs to the OS. There is a 3 gig switch in the boot.ini that gives 3 gigs of ram to apps instead of only 2 gigs. Also, the app has to be compiled to take advantage of the 3 gigs of space too.

Devon

[Improv]

There can be a significant performance hit, which might negate the benefits of moving to a genuine 64 bit application.

More importantly, you *have* to have 64 bit drivers for your sound card (audio and MIDI) or you won't be able to use it in XP-64 at all.

None of the 5 soundcards I've owned over the past 8(?) years have or are likely to have 64 bit drivers written for them (they're not low-end cards either), and I see this as being the real killer that stops a significant number of people making the leap to XP-64 in the near future.

Given all that you mentioned above, we'd be better off getting say a
3.xGHz dual processor 32bit? Interesting.

[kp]

I wish people would stop confusing RAM with virtual memory - XP (and 2K) without using PAE can allocate 2 or 3GB of memory to an application, not 2-3GB of RAM. Very important difference.

[UltraJv]

Virtual memory in this instance would be useless as the apps in question (mainly sample vstis)demand physical ram.