Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
Hello,
This is sort of off-topic, but not. I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit. And.... Any thoughts on audio software evolving into 64 bit architectures? That would probably kill the argument that you need to go analog to mix due to summing issues. And then there are different versions of Vista. Supossedly, only the "ultimate super premium" edition is true 64 bit. Just trying to get pointed in the right direction. Took a break for a while... |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
wrote ...
I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit. It is 64 bit and backwards-compatible to run 32... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:In...2#32_vs_64_bit And then there are different versions of Vista. Supossedly, only the "ultimate super premium" edition is true 64 bit. And you would be interested in "Vista" because....? Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are avoiding it like the plague. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
On Feb 8, 10:13 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
wrote ... I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit. It is 64 bit and backwards-compatible to run 32...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:In...2#32_vs_64_bit And then there are different versions of Vista. Supossedly, only the "ultimate super premium" edition is true 64 bit. And you would be interested in "Vista" because....? Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are avoiding it like the plague. well, that's what is out there and time marches on. i'm sure it will settle in. a big drawback is that it requires a lot of ram. but ultimately, the architecture will allow massive amounts of ram. we will be able to forget about how fast the drives are, raid, etc. just load the entire file into fast ram and don't worry about the drives. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote: Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are avoiding it like the plague. well, that's what is out there and time marches on. i'm sure it will settle in. I propose to migrate to Linux (or Mac?) by the time WinXP support ends. a big drawback is that it requires a lot of ram. but ultimately, the architecture will allow massive amounts of ram. we will be able to forget about how fast the drives are, raid, etc. just load the entire file into fast ram and don't worry about the drives. None of those things are the major concern. As you say, Moore's Law provides improved CPU, RAM, hard drive, display, etc. technology all the time. The embedded (and draconian by most accounts) DRM is the show-stopper for many people. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
Richard Crowley wrote:
wrote ... "Richard Crowley" wrote: Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are avoiding it like the plague. well, that's what is out there and time marches on. i'm sure it will settle in. I propose to migrate to Linux (or Mac?) by the time WinXP support ends. Good luck with that :-) Let us all know how that works for ya :-) |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote: wrote ... "Richard Crowley" wrote: Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are avoiding it like the plague. well, that's what is out there and time marches on. i'm sure it will settle in. I propose to migrate to Linux (or Mac?) by the time WinXP support ends. Good luck with that :-) Let us all know how that works for ya :-) Of course, secretly, I'm hoping that Vista will settle down and be reasonable. I'm too old to make major changes to my computing on a whim. ;-) |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
Romeo Rondeau wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote: wrote ... "Richard Crowley" wrote: Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are avoiding it like the plague. well, that's what is out there and time marches on. i'm sure it will settle in. Yes, I'm sure Vista may be useful in, say.. 1-1½ years time, whin we've seen the first one or two service packs, and how many things they fixed. I propose to migrate to Linux (or Mac?) by the time WinXP support ends. Good luck with that :-) Let us all know how that works for ya :-) Been into Linux for some ten years. Fine for serveruse, fine for the desktop, provided one is good at unix. The latter couple of years has revealed a few distros which can actually be used by non-techies. But... as a misic recordong/production platform... Lotsa work getting intimately familiar with alsa, integrating alsa nas stuff like jackd, not to speak about no professional music apps. Drivers for (semi) pro soundcards? Well, a few, like RME. Even being very well into several Linux distros and other unix, it was an easy job deciding to go for OSX. Just shopped a used dual G4.. -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
In article , Romeo
Rondeau wrote: Richard Crowley wrote: wrote ... "Richard Crowley" wrote: Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are avoiding it like the plague. well, that's what is out there and time marches on. i'm sure it will settle in. I propose to migrate to Linux (or Mac?) by the time WinXP support ends. Good luck with that :-) Let us all know how that works for ya :-) Seesm to be working very, very well for more and more people, thanks for asking. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
Richard Crowley wrote:
wrote ... I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit. It is 64 bit and backwards-compatible to run 32... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:In...2#32_vs_64_bit And then there are different versions of Vista. Supossedly, only the "ultimate super premium" edition is true 64 bit. And you would be interested in "Vista" because....? Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are avoiding it like the plague. And this movie plays itself out every time a new OS is introduced... |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message
. net Richard Crowley wrote: wrote ... I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit. It is 64 bit and backwards-compatible to run 32... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:In...2#32_vs_64_bit And then there are different versions of Vista. Supossedly, only the "ultimate super premium" edition is true 64 bit. And you would be interested in "Vista" because....? Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are avoiding it like the plague. And this movie plays itself out every time a new OS is introduced... And it will again, but probably pretty slowly, becasue XP is far more competent than any *obsolete* OS we ever had before. There is a 64 bit flavor of XP on the market, BTW. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
And this movie plays itself out every time a new OS is introduced... And it will again, but probably pretty slowly, becasue XP is far more competent than any *obsolete* OS we ever had before. There is a 64 bit flavor of XP on the market, BTW. I'll bet you it plays out exactly like it always has. When folks buy new PC's, they will have Vista on them. That in itself will take care of it... like it always has. There is nothing different about Vista than other operating systems. Some users will wait a long time, some will stand in line outside the store the night before the launch (like they did this time), it happens every time. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message
t And this movie plays itself out every time a new OS is introduced... And it will again, but probably pretty slowly, becasue XP is far more competent than any *obsolete* OS we ever had before. There is a 64 bit flavor of XP on the market, BTW. I'll bet you it plays out exactly like it always has. When folks buy new PC's, they will have Vista on them. Right now they often have a choice. That in itself will take care of it... like it always has. There is nothing different about Vista than other operating systems. Some users will wait a long time, some will stand in line outside the store the night before the launch (like they did this time), it happens every time. Agreed. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:13:56 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote: And you would be interested in "Vista" because....? Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are avoiding it like the plague. I'm sure the knowledgeable ones are avoiding early adoption, while avoiding striking any emotional attitude to Vista. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:13:56 -0800, "Richard Crowley" wrote: And you would be interested in "Vista" because....? Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are avoiding it like the plague. I'm sure the knowledgeable ones are avoiding early adoption, while avoiding striking any emotional attitude to Vista. Well put Laurence. I couldn't agree more. Anybody who makes as drastic a change as to upgrade the OS on something mission critical like a DAW deserves the possible crash. And they also deserve my bill when it comes time to put it all back together. Emergencies can get real expensive :-) Bottom line is, put it on a machine that don't have to use everyday and get used to it, keep up on what's happening with other folks who are using it. Take the "sky is falling" reports with a grain of salt. It reminds me of a guy who used to live across the courtyard from me, he was running OS/2. I had just upgraded my home machine to Windows 95 to get a good feel for it. He told me all kinds of horror stories about folks who upgraded to Windows 95 and it toasted their machines and that he was sticking with OS/2. I performed the upgrade (with a few bumps along the way, but it worked out fine and didn't cost me anything more than buying the OS), I showed him it was working fine and he still **** on it. There are some people who hate change so bad they will stick with the old thing and **** on the new one at any cost. This particular guy would rather sit in front of a PC with very limited usability than sit down and learn something new. I haven't upgraded to Vista yet, but I will, and I'm sure there will be a few bumps along the way. But looking back on all of the new OS releases I've gone through over the years and I haven't regretted a single one, and I go all the way back to Windows 286. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
"Richard Crowley" wrote in news:53277lF1qf5iaU1
@mid.individual.net: wrote ... I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit. It is 64 bit and backwards-compatible to run 32... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:In...2#32_vs_64_bit And then there are different versions of Vista. Supossedly, only the "ultimate super premium" edition is true 64 bit. And you would be interested in "Vista" because....? Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are avoiding it like the plague. Yet my software company already has 4 clients who have bought Vista machines and are struggling to get everything running. Gotta love those early adopters. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
"Carey Carlan" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are avoiding it like the plague. Yet my software company already has 4 clients who have bought Vista machines and are struggling to get everything running. Gotta love those early adopters. Sure. There have been hundreds of people running Vista at the office for months. But I don't expect widespread proliferation until next year. At least not in my department which is very risk-averse (and IT-averse :-) |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
On Feb 8, 9:59 pm, wrote:
I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit. I see nobody has answered the question. The Core 2 Duo is one that's been described as "Vista ready" whatever that means. I agree that eventually Vista will be the only Windows you can get (until the next great operating system comes along) but I also agree that it would be a good idea to hold off setting up a Vista-based audio system for another several months, or maybe a year. Can you continue to use what you have? Or are you willing to install XP on a new Vista-ready machine now and upgrade it to Vista when the need becomes apparent? That would be the smartest thing, I think, if you're going to put together a new computer now anyway. But if you can wait to buy the computer until you really need it (and Vista), things will only get cheaper. Any thoughts on audio software evolving into 64 bit architectures? So far it seems that Cakewalk/Sonar is leading the pack. Either you like it or you don't, but because it's there wouldn't be enough to sell me on new hardware and software if what I had now was working fine. That would probably kill the argument that you need to go analog to mix due to summing issues. Only if it's well implemented. But then people seem to be satisfied with present 32-bit systems when they get the right software and set it up properly. Those who use external analog mixing do it for one of three reasons: 1. They like the comfort or a real mixer 2. They're behind the times and still believe that computers can't satisfactorily mix audio. 3. Their system is behind times and really benefits from analog mixing in some respects. And then there are different versions of Vista. Supossedly, only the "ultimate super premium" edition is true 64 bit. This is still confusing. At this point, if you really want to know what it does, I wouldn't trust what anybody tells you, because there are probably different ways of interpreting "true 64 bit." |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
Hello Richard,
I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit. The Intel Core 2 Duo, is a true 64 bit processor. It can run both 64 bit and 32 bit application next to each other. Any thoughts on audio software evolving into 64 bit architectures? I myself see two significant changes that 64 bit architecture will offer: - Use of more memory for internal buffers, keeping buffers for a high number of channels and high sample rates add up very fast. - Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us to do this). That would probably kill the argument that you need to go analog to mix due to summing issues. 64 bit does not fix or cause summing issues. The floating point processing of all Intel processors since the original IBM PC handles 32 and 64 bit floating point natively. Right now most audio application do their internal processing in 32 bit floating point, but could just as easily be done with 64 bit floating point. 64 bit floating point does cause twice as much memory usage for buffers, and also twice the amount of memory bandwidth; needing more and faster memory and processing power. As most audio devices do not have AD/DA converters more accurate than 24 bit integer there have not been much use for 64 bit floating point. Cheers, Take |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
On Feb 9, 10:03 am, "Take Vos" wrote:
As most audio devices do not have AD/DA converters more accurate than 24 bit integer there have not been much use for 64 bit floating point. There is some method to this madness. Whenever you perform some operation on a sample like change its level or add two sample values together (really, all audio processing can be reduced to these operation) the word length increases. Originally all arithmetic was done so that every operation was truncated to 16 bits and this got to sounding pretty rough after a few operations. This got translated to "digital mixing doesn't sound good" and people were getting better sounding mixes of digital multitrack recordings by using an analog mixer. The added noise and analog distortion was preferable to the distortion caused by truncation. But old ideas die hard (the Internet hasn't helped that) so even in the 24- or 32-bit floating point world the perceived problems with digital mixing still remain. And with some systems, they probably do remain because not everyone does things right. But now at least it's possible to construct a good digital mixer if you have enough "headroom" (which we now have). |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
On 9 Feb, 15:03, "Take Vos" wrote:
- Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us to do this). This is not a new feature of 64 bit architectures. Windows XP does it. Windows 2000 does it. Windows NT 3.1 did it. DEC VAX/VMS did it. IBM mainframes running MVS/XA did it, all on 32 bits. TWJ |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
"tonewheel" wrote in message ups.com... On 9 Feb, 15:03, "Take Vos" wrote: - Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us to do this). This is not a new feature of 64 bit architectures. Agreed. Windows XP does it. Windows 2000 does it. Windows NT 3.1 did it. DEC VAX/VMS did it. IBM mainframes running MVS/XA did it, all on 32 bits. Win95 and Win98 did memory-mapped I/O. Memory-mapped I/O has major performance implications for executable code. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
Hello TWJ,
- Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us to do this). This is not a new feature of 64 bit architectures. Windows XP does it. Windows 2000 does it. Windows NT 3.1 did it. DEC VAX/VMS did it. IBM mainframes running MVS/XA did it, all on 32 bits. Yes, memory mapped I/O is incredibly old, but I meant it would be more useful with a 64 bit address space when working on large audio files. In 32 bit, often 1 GB is already in use by the kernel, 1GB by audio buffers and other application data structures, and you only have 2 GB left for memory mapping the audio file(s). In 64 bit you can map a large audio file in memory (think a single 6 hour, 48 channel polyphonic recording) and have enough room free for the application itself. Cheers, Take |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
On 12 Feb, 18:21, "Take Vos" wrote:
Hello TWJ, - Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us to do this). This is not a new feature of 64 bit architectures. Windows XP does it. Windows 2000 does it. Windows NT 3.1 did it. DEC VAX/VMS did it. IBM mainframes running MVS/XA did it, all on 32 bits. Yes, memory mapped I/O is incredibly old, but I meant it would be more useful with a 64 bit address space when working on large audio files. In 32 bit, often 1 GB is already in use by the kernel, 1GB by audio buffers and other application data structures, and you only have 2 GB left for memory mapping the audio file(s). eek, how big are your audio files? In 64 bit you can map a large audio file in memory (think a single 6 hour, 48 channel polyphonic recording) and have enough room free for the application itself. oh, that big. Cheers, Take cheers, TWJ :-) |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
On 13 Feb 2007 06:12:03 -0800, "tonewheel"
wrote: On 12 Feb, 18:21, "Take Vos" wrote: Hello TWJ, - Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us to do this). This is not a new feature of 64 bit architectures. Windows XP does it. Windows 2000 does it. Windows NT 3.1 did it. DEC VAX/VMS did it. IBM mainframes running MVS/XA did it, all on 32 bits. Yes, memory mapped I/O is incredibly old, but I meant it would be more useful with a 64 bit address space when working on large audio files. In 32 bit, often 1 GB is already in use by the kernel, 1GB by audio buffers and other application data structures, and you only have 2 GB left for memory mapping the audio file(s). eek, how big are your audio files? In 64 bit you can map a large audio file in memory (think a single 6 hour, 48 channel polyphonic recording) and have enough room free for the application itself. oh, that big. Now that you mention it, I have to wonder - just how much RAM is that, and how much does it costs? Quick calculations: 44.1k/24bits is 132,300 bytes/second, *3600*6 hours 2857680000, * 48 tracks = 137,168,640,000 - let's call it 137 gigabytes. Let's say 2G is $120, 137G is $8,220. That's not outrageous for an upscale studio, but RAM is a depreciating investment. It better save a lot of time vs. hard disk, and hope no one hits the power plug near the end of a session. A good program would have a background task writing the files to disk while not recording. Cheers, Take cheers, TWJ :-) |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
tonewheel wrote:
On 9 Feb, 15:03, "Take Vos" wrote: - Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us to do this). This is not a new feature of 64 bit architectures. Windows XP does it. Windows 2000 does it. Windows NT 3.1 did it. DEC VAX/VMS did it. IBM mainframes running MVS/XA did it, all on 32 bits. Actually I think the early VAX/VMS and MVS/XA systems did it on less than 32 bits... -- Aaron |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
In article ,
wrote: tonewheel wrote: On 9 Feb, 15:03, "Take Vos" wrote: - Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us to do this). This is not a new feature of 64 bit architectures. Windows XP does it. Windows 2000 does it. Windows NT 3.1 did it. DEC VAX/VMS did it. IBM mainframes running MVS/XA did it, all on 32 bits. Actually I think the early VAX/VMS and MVS/XA systems did it on less than 32 bits... Actually, lots of S-100 machines did it with only eight bits. With varying degrees of success and reliability. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
wrote in message ... tonewheel wrote: On 9 Feb, 15:03, "Take Vos" wrote: - Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us to do this). This is not a new feature of 64 bit architectures. Windows XP does it. Windows 2000 does it. Windows NT 3.1 did it. DEC VAX/VMS did it. IBM mainframes running MVS/XA did it, all on 32 bits. Actually I think the early VAX/VMS and MVS/XA systems did it on less than 32 bits... There was a 24 bit addressing limit in MVS until they tweaked the hardware and software. I remember when it seemed ludicrously high! The MVS 16 meg barrier fell first for hardware real memory, and then for application address spaces. The letters "XA" were IBM's code for going fully 32 bit. VMS has been through a lot of changes. At one time it was restricted to 24 bit addressing, if I recall correctly. Appreantly there is now a VMS with 64 bit addressing. Hey, IBM's AS/400 and System 38 systems had 128 bit addressing. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
On 12 Feb, 20:16, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
The MVS 16 meg barrier fell first for hardware real memory, and then for application address spaces. The letters "XA" were IBM's code for going fully 32 bit. not quite, it was *31* bit. The top bit was a status bit.(reduced from 8 status bits on MVS) I remember quite clearly linking with "amode 31, rmode 31". Addresses were stored in 32-bit registers on both systems. VMS has been through a lot of changes. At one time it was restricted to 24 bit addressing, if I recall correctly. Appreantly there is now a VMS with 64 bit addressing. Yes 64 bit VMS running on Alpha AXP came out several years ago now, but I've never heard of 24 bit VMS, unless you are referring to some *very* bespoke installation created for a special case. Even microvms on the microvax 1 was 32 bit, wasn't it? Help me out here, I'm digging very deep into a very fading memory.... TWJ |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
On 12 Feb, 19:29, wrote:
tonewheel wrote: On 9 Feb, 15:03, "Take Vos" wrote: - Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us to do this). This is not a new feature of 64 bit architectures. Windows XP does it. Windows 2000 does it. Windows NT 3.1 did it. DEC VAX/VMS did it. IBM mainframes running MVS/XA did it, all on 32 bits. Actually I think the early VAX/VMS and MVS/XA systems did it on less than 32 bits... -- Aaron You are right about MVS/XA - that was 31 bit. Plain MVS was 24 bit but I don't remember if that offered this feature - I was only a trainee programmer at IBM at that time. VAX/VMS was 32 bit from the start, though, I am 99% sure. Maybe you're thinking of the earlier DEC os's that ran on PDP's and the like? Again they are before my time. TWJ |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
tonewheel wrote:
You are right about MVS/XA - that was 31 bit. Plain MVS was 24 bit but I don't remember if that offered this feature - I was only a trainee programmer at IBM at that time. That's addressing, not data. Data was full 32 bit. VAX/VMS was 32 bit from the start, though, I am 99% sure. Maybe you're thinking of the earlier DEC os's that ran on PDP's and the like? Again they are before my time. The Vax was 32-bit data from the start (although the 11/780 had a 16-bit compatibility mode so you could run your old RSX binaries). But, it did not have full 32-bit addressing in hardware, although the instruction scheme supported it. The actual width of the address buss depended on the model you bought.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
wrote:
wrote: Hello, This is sort of off-topic, but not. I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit. Define "a true 64 bit processor" 64 bit datapaths? 64 bit addressing? 64 bit functional units? None of the above. It's all defined by the marketing department. If the marketing department says the Z-80 is a 64-bit processor, it is. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote: wrote: Hello, This is sort of off-topic, but not. I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit. Define "a true 64 bit processor" 64 bit datapaths? 64 bit addressing? 64 bit functional units? None of the above. It's all defined by the marketing department. If the marketing department says the Z-80 is a 64-bit processor, it is. --scott Not true, but I see your point I'd say a processor with 64bit registers, ALU and so forth AND 64bit addressing makes it 64bit, but without the bus and MMU it's pretty much useless. -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
Mogens V. wrote:
Not true, but I see your point I'd say a processor with 64bit registers, ALU and so forth AND 64bit addressing makes it 64bit, but without the bus and MMU it's pretty much useless. Intel claimed the 8086 was a 16-bit processor, since the internal data paths were 16-bit even though the data buss was only 8-bit. And then there was the wonderful TI 9900, which had a 16-bit data path but only 15-bit addresses. They called that 16-bit too. That sort of silliness doesn't go on much any more, though. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
Hello Scott,
Not true, but I see your point I'd say a processor with 64bit registers, ALU and so forth AND 64bit addressing makes it 64bit, but without the bus and MMU it's pretty much useless. Intel claimed the 8086 was a 16-bit processor, since the internal data paths were 16-bit even though the data buss was only 8-bit. From what I remember from the datasheets, the 8086 did have a external 16 bit data bus. The 8088 which was actually used in the original IBM PC, was a scaled down version which only has a 8 bit data bus. Cheers, Take |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
Mogens V. wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: wrote: wrote: Hello, This is sort of off-topic, but not. I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit. Define "a true 64 bit processor" 64 bit datapaths? 64 bit addressing? 64 bit functional units? None of the above. It's all defined by the marketing department. If the marketing department says the Z-80 is a 64-bit processor, it is. --scott Not true, but I see your point I'd say a processor with 64bit registers, ALU and so forth AND 64bit addressing makes it 64bit, but without the bus and MMU it's pretty much useless. I'm pretty sure no such processor exists. As far as I know every 64 bit addressing processor is wider on the internal bus and MMU/FPU, and MAY be narrower in the integer ALUs. -- Aaron |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
wrote:
I'm pretty sure no such processor exists. As far as I know every 64 bit addressing processor is wider on the internal bus and MMU/FPU, and MAY be narrower in the integer ALUs. Vax 11/780 with an Floating Point Systems FPS-64 vector pipe. The CPU itself does only 32 bit loads and stores, but the vector coprocessor has full 64-bit float operations on vectors, and addresses local vector memory in 64-bit chunks or the main memory over the 32-bit Unibus. You can argue that an array processor is part of the CPU since it takes over the memory buss and is controlled by the instruction decoder of the CPU. You can argue that it isn't part of the CPU at all, too, since it has no register access and isn't part of the CPU instruction set. Which argument you makes depends on whether you work for CDC or FPS. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
64 bit processing, etc.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote: wrote: Hello, This is sort of off-topic, but not. I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit. Define "a true 64 bit processor" 64 bit datapaths? 64 bit addressing? 64 bit functional units? None of the above. It's all defined by the marketing department. If the marketing department says the Z-80 is a 64-bit processor, it is. As someone who worked as a design engineer in the CPU field for several years I have to say: You're exactly right. -- Aaron |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Multi-Band Dynamic Processing? | Pro Audio | |||
Mixing, Any additional suggestions? | Pro Audio | |||
Mixing, Any additional suggestions? | Pro Audio | |||
Some Mixing Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
Audio processing techniques for Amateur Radio | Pro Audio |