64-bit computing is on the move

[kp]

Good post bMachine.

[Ron Kuper [Cakewalk]]

Cakewalk is not the first. In the last line of this document you will see Cubase SX 3 is already 64-bit enabled.

All they did in Cubase SX3 was enable the "LARGEADDRESSAWARE" bit in their executable. This doesn't require a single code change, and in fact you can enable it for any 32-bit application using the Microsoft EDITBIN utility that comes with the platform SDK.

What we've done with SONAR is recompiled the entire application + plugins + synthesizers for the new x64 architecture from AMD and Intel. This is a totally different binary instruction set, and requires a different O/S and different drivers. The architecture doubles the number of registers, plus enables 1 TB of memory access.

[UltraJv]

I really cant see what all the fuss is about, 64 bit computing wont give much of a speed bump - 30% max and to get that youll need new os, new drivers, new apps, new plugs. Is it really worth all the hassle? Yes you can address more than 4GB but there are database apps that can do this in 32 bit anyway. Im waiting for dual core - it just requires a new install of XP pro on the new mobo, all your existing apps will get round 70% speed improvement (at the same speed as single processsor) I just dont see 64 bit being a real improvement for audio apps.

[Ron Kuper [Cakewalk]]

I really cant see what all the fuss is about, 64 bit computing wont give much of a speed bump - 30% max and to get that youll need new os, new drivers, new apps, new plugs.

A 30% improvement turns a 3GHz processor into a 3.9GHz CPU. When was the last time you got that kind of gain simply with a software upgrade?

[UltraJv]

I can get 30% faster performance with overclocking (just takes a few seconds work in the PC setup and its free)- you cant even buy the XP 64 bit os yet

[original flipper]

HI

I think a real missed opportunity for both the consumer and the developer is the dual cpu route - I recently went dual Xeon and after a short period of bedding down the benefits of having 2 3,066mhz processors is as good as it gets for the moment (I mean per se - not this particular system).

The only issue really is that only SXV3 and Sonar currently support this configuration.

I can run more software than I care to use so I would say why the hassle of having to replace all 'our' software when you can buy a couple of cpu's and a motherboard and pretty well double your power?

I imagine that we are about 3 years away (and LOTS of expense in hardware/software) before we have a similar range of optimized hosts/software that will allow us to do what we can currenty do, but with a bit more welly.

That's technology for you though and in ten years the same topic will be raised about 256 bit o/s - or whatever .

Flipper.

[UltraJv]

Dual CPU or dual core is the way to go. AMD started off on a 64 bit marketing ploy that has everyone barking up the wrong tree. They wanted to kick Intels ass and they did but when the fuss dies down and the reality comes forward, people will feel duped. Im not saying 64 bit isnt a step forward - it is but its a small step. People look at the numbers and figure that its double the bits so it will double performance - I wish it would but it wont.

[original flipper]

HI

All I know is that on Carillon benchmarks my pc (from them) beats a G5 by about the difference in speed, mine 3000mhz - G5 2500mhz; my pc is running about 20%+ more polophony.

I struggle to see where the benefit is for 64 bit - currently?

So it doesnt look like 64 bit will be mega faster without wholesale changes to everything..

I have even heard about QUAD cpu set-ups!!!

Now to buy say 4 x 2400mhz cpus would be very cheap - the motherboard shouldn't be terribly expensive - the thing about multi cpu set-ups that I have noticed is even when they are grinding to a halt you still seem to have enough reserve that the thing doesn't get into one of those press the mouse and wait a minute for anything to happen syndromes!

Flipper.

[DeBro]

All I would say on this subject is, let researce and development continue full speed ahead. It's still in its infancy, so wait and see how it pans out. Let technology advance. With this kind of negative thinking, we would have never been able to create music on computers.

[LoRez]

I really cant see what all the fuss is about, 64 bit computing wont give much of a speed bump - 30% max and to get that youll need new os, new drivers, new apps, new plugs. Is it really worth all the hassle? Yes you can address more than 4GB but there are database apps that can do this in 32 bit anyway. Im waiting for dual core - it just requires a new install of XP pro on the new mobo, all your existing apps will get round 70% speed improvement (at the same speed as single processsor) I just dont see 64 bit being a real improvement for audio apps.

You have to be joking! 30% increase is no big deal to you? Yes dual core is a big deal, but what about dual core at 64 bit? Even better. What you are saying is similar to someone saying, "Oh 32 bit apps and OS won't make any difference." I think we can easily see that 32 bit made a huge difference. The fact is, we will all be there at some point regardless. Anyone here running Windows for Workgroups? I doubt it.

[LoRez]

Dual CPU or dual core is the way to go. AMD started off on a 64 bit marketing ploy that has everyone barking up the wrong tree. They wanted to kick Intels ass and they did but when the fuss dies down and the reality comes forward, people will feel duped. Im not saying 64 bit isnt a step forward - it is but its a small step. People look at the numbers and figure that its double the bits so it will double performance - I wish it would but it wont.

Ok it won't double the performance but it might give a third better performance. Who wouldn't want this from their system if it is capable? I think you are overly downplaying the performance gains here. It's not as if 64 bit and dual core systems are mutually exclusive. Think about it...if dual core gave you an extra 70%, then 64 bit could give you at least another 30% of that...which could be well over 1ghz or more if increased processing power. I don't know about you, but I'd eat it up with a spoon.

[LoRez]

I can get 30% faster performance with overclocking (just takes a few seconds work in the PC setup and its free)- you cant even buy the XP 64 bit os yet

Yes but overclocking is really not an option for many stable DAW's. My game machine is OC'd to the hilt, but I won't do it to my DAW because of issues with DSP cards like the UAD1 and many PCI audio devices. Many companies won't even give you tech if you have an OC'd system.

And yes you cannot BUY XP 64 bit edition...but you can download it for FREE.

[maoinhibitor]

CW has posted a whitepaper on x64 with more info:

http://www.cakewalk.com/x64/whitepaper.asp

[birrbits]

Chicago - Windows 95 (Version 4.00.950) "Windows 4.0"

I seem to remember 32 bit partial support in windows 3.11 for some graphic apps i was using at the time, something called win32's.....did it have a codename?
frightening that i remember this

[kp]

win32s - a quote from MS about it "most programmers considered it something of a joke".