XP goes 64BIT

[AfricanCaneKing]

XP goes 64 bit

heres a link to an article about a 64bit version on windows xp about to come out this year. with AMD already selling a 64 bit athalon and intel soon to follow, wouldnt this be great for us PT users with windows based machines. I hope Digi is loking at 64 bit versions of PTLE to fully utilize this. im not sure whether MAC or TDm systems take advantage of 64 bit processing power. but i assume it could only get better for us.

[crs117]

64 bit computing will not do much for us audio folks. 64 bit does not mean faster, it really means deeper, i guess thats the best way to put it. Now computers can do 64 bit operations in one pass rather then having to do multiple passes. Considering that we are stuck with 32 bit audio (at the processing level) and 24 bit at the output level, with no need really to go beyond (at least past 32 bits), 64 wont really do much for us.

64 bit precision will inhance the workstation capability of our computers especially needed for better encryption/decryption algorithms or for scientific research were 64 bit precision is necissary, but most applications will not benifit too much from 64 bit computing.

Christian

[AfricanCaneKing]

so if yo could do 2 32 bit processes with a 64 bit processor (deeper) wont that be twice the amount of audio crunching power we use now. wouldnt this benefit plugin counts, protools stability, maybe even (dare i dream) i can keep my wireless card/ethernet and norton av running while im pro-tooling?

[tele_player]

so if yo could do 2 32 bit processes with a 64 bit processor (deeper) wont that be twice the amount of audio crunching power we use now. wouldnt this benefit plugin counts, protools stability, maybe even (dare i dream) i can keep my wireless card/ethernet and norton av running while im pro-tooling?

The first line (if you could do...) is just incorrect, and the answer to all the questions is simply no.

The vast majority of applications won't see any direct benefit from moving to 64-bit processors running a 64-bit OS.

[GothicV]

however people will think that they need it and throw millions more at microsoft.

[macr0w]

I think there has been 64 bit for servers for some time.

[crs117]

There have been 64 bit workstations, servers, and differing types of scientific processors for years, but nothing thats really been labeled as a pc. For years we have run a risc 6000 chip at my family's business which is a 64 bit chip for our database and server, but we just upgraded a couple of years ago to a PIII at 800 mhz. The risc 6000 we had i think ran at 64mhz.

I am not at all trying to downplay the importance of moving forward technologically, and my next chip will more then likely be 64 bit, but the practical advantages that will be gained by going to a 64 bit chip will be all but nothing. One of the main reasons for 64 bit chips in the past was so that more memory could be addressed (meaning more ram), but now that operating systems manage ram you can address more ram with a 32 bit chip today then a 64 bit chip 10 or so years ago.

By the way, most 64 bit chips will be faster then 32 bit chips, unfortunately it will be the result of either faster chip clock speed, faster bus speed, newer bussing technology, or faster newer ram technology (or better cache implimentation).

Christian

[dfusion]

I think there has been 64 bit for servers for some time.

The RISC and MIPS architecture has been 64-bit for a while. The Intel Itanium has been out for a quite some time but without Microsoft making all of its back office server products available to the public it has severely limited deployment. Even though AMD is 64-bit, unless the the OS and the Apps are written in 64 bit there is little advantage.

It's coming, and overall performance will definitely get better.

[JPS]

It seems to me that there could be some big advantages to 64 bit computing. The first that comes to mind is the audio mixing engine. I understand that TDM has a 48-bit mix engine, which is purportedly better than 32-bit for resolution. So, is it possible that a 64-bit audio mixing engine could exceed the sound of TDM?

I think Digi needs to "bite the bullet" on this one and go 64-bit. I'm sure the other audio applications are clawing each other to be the first to support it. I see Sonar put out a beta 64-bit program, so it is definately here.

There is a lot of neat hardware and stuff out there, and I am wondering where Digi is taking PTLE if they don't support 64 bit. It seems they can't go to far forward, or they run into TDM system capability.

I have and idea how Digi could deal with this issue, but I think Digi would have to redo their strategy for PTLE to TDM. If Digi doesn't support 64-bit in PTLE, then they could release a low-priced TDM card to bridge the gap between TDM and PTLE. A straight trade in- your old 002r for a new "econo mix card". If they thought about it, it could have a lot of benefits. Forget 64 bits! Low cost TDM componets are the way to a more powerful and stable future! Then everybody would start buying the Digi Pres, the Digi clocks, more DSP cards (or whatever they are called now)as they need more power. I think I could buy into that, if the price was right.

[neomodo]

Don't forget that the 64 bit system can support a LOT more memory - exponentially more - in the x86 world it's probably something like - 200+ terabytes of virtual address space. Which is not to say RAM specifically... That, in my book is a vast improvement (if Microsoft figures out how to actually take advantage of it) I know that sometime last summer folks were not all too stoked on the Intel 64 bit chips. But AMD is aparently kicking some butt.

Bill Gates once said that he couldn't foresee the need for more than 640k of memory to run anything - and it turns out he was very wrong. I wonder if we'll ever run into that when dealing with hundreds of terabytes - "Oh man I can't run the new version of Quake because my system can only process 200terabytes and it requires a system w/ 200 petabytes...." (snicker)

64-bit computers can process numbers that are 4.3 billion times as large as those processed by their 32-bit counterparts - that doesn't mean the same thing as saying that a 64 bit computer can run x-times faster than a 32 bit one. The type of use that 64 bits is primarily geared for is stuff like MATLAB, Mathematica, MAPLE, etc... they require the 64 bit integers because they work with numbers outside of the dynamic range of the 32 bit ones - scientific applications primarily - when you have a calculation exceeding the range of possible integer values you get what they call overflow or underflow and to keep it simple it means you get the wrong answer...

Databases will become monstrous gigantic things
Folks working with 2d graphics, CAD and Simulations will be stoked
Cryptography will benefit
And maybe someday, games will start requiring more than 4gb so they'll benefit -

One other point I'll throw in there is that if folks here remember the switch from 16 to 32 bit systems - it made it possible to do stuff like add x87 floating-point instructions, and integer/floating-point SIMD instructions. These helped computers be ableto all sorts of new things. The same sort of thing will probably end up happenning here too eventually. But not right away.

In short - any real look into 64 bit computing talks about an increase in dynamic range or data stream and this is not something from which one can conclude accross-the-board performance boost for everything...