I am thinking on getting a 64-bit Intel chip. Any prerequisites I should
know about? Do I need a special configuration/software/etc..I will
mostly be running Reason and Cubase, and I think I will be getting an
m-audio fireware sound system.

On 6/24/2005 2:06 PM, donaldjcecil wrote:
I am thinking on getting a 64-bit Intel chip. Any prerequisites I should
know about? Do I need a special configuration/software/etc..I will
mostly be running Reason and Cubase, and I think I will be getting an
m-audio fireware sound system.

Go AMD. Shown to be better performance for audio.video. But what OS
are you going to run? XP is still 32bit?

Dan wrote:
On 6/24/2005 2:06 PM, donaldjcecil wrote:

I am thinking on getting a 64-bit Intel chip. Any prerequisites I
should know about? Do I need a special configuration/software/etc..I
will mostly be running Reason and Cubase, and I think I will be
getting an m-audio fireware sound system.


Go AMD. Shown to be better performance for audio.video. But what OS
are you going to run? XP is still 32bit?
I have always heared AMD runs hot. Maybe that's not the case anymore. I
will look into it. And I think there is a 64-bit XP..but dont quote me.
I better just do some more research.

donaldjcecil wrote:
I am thinking on getting a 64-bit Intel chip. Any prerequisites I should
know about? Do I need a special configuration/software/etc..I will
mostly be running Reason and Cubase, and I think I will be getting an
m-audio fireware sound system.

This seems like a bad idea. The Itanium runs like a slug in 32-bit mode,
and none of those applications will run in native 64-bit mode.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 6/24/2005 2:21 PM, donaldjcecil wrote:
Dan wrote:

On 6/24/2005 2:06 PM, donaldjcecil wrote:

I am thinking on getting a 64-bit Intel chip. Any prerequisites I
should know about? Do I need a special configuration/software/etc..I
will mostly be running Reason and Cubase, and I think I will be
getting an m-audio fireware sound system.



Go AMD. Shown to be better performance for audio.video. But what OS
are you going to run? XP is still 32bit?

I have always heared AMD runs hot. Maybe that's not the case anymore. I
will look into it. And I think there is a 64-bit XP..but dont quote me.
I better just do some more research.

I think they have solved the Heat problems that were with one of the
chips around 2003. In fact, I think Intel runs hotter on average now.
Also, AMD64 processors can run 32bit software so they make migrating to
64 bit easier. But I don't know how much 64 bit software is out there
in the windows world. You may want to wait until Windows64 is common
place and the bugs have been worked out. I run a AMD64 server at home
using Linux64 and have had no problems.

Scott Dorsey wrote:
donaldjcecil wrote:

I am thinking on getting a 64-bit Intel chip. Any prerequisites I should
know about? Do I need a special configuration/software/etc..I will
mostly be running Reason and Cubase, and I think I will be getting an
m-audio fireware sound system.


This seems like a bad idea. The Itanium runs like a slug in 32-bit mode,
and none of those applications will run in native 64-bit mode.
--scott
i have always heard its not best to be on the forefront of technology.
sounds like i should follow that advice.

donaldjcecil wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
donaldjcecil wrote:

I am thinking on getting a 64-bit Intel chip. Any prerequisites I should
know about? Do I need a special configuration/software/etc..I will
mostly be running Reason and Cubase, and I think I will be getting an
m-audio fireware sound system.

This seems like a bad idea. The Itanium runs like a slug in 32-bit mode,
and none of those applications will run in native 64-bit mode.

i have always heard its not best to be on the forefront of technology.
sounds like i should follow that advice.

No, it's fine to be on the forefront of technology if you're trying to
do something that requires being there. Spending $8k on an Itanium
machine to run your applications slower than a 486-50 would, though,
seems like a bad match between application and system.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Dan wrote:
On 6/24/2005 2:21 PM, donaldjcecil wrote:
Dan wrote:

On 6/24/2005 2:06 PM, donaldjcecil wrote:

I am thinking on getting a 64-bit Intel chip. Any prerequisites I
should know about? Do I need a special configuration/software/etc..I
will mostly be running Reason and Cubase, and I think I will be
getting an m-audio fireware sound system.



Go AMD. Shown to be better performance for audio.video. But what OS
are you going to run? XP is still 32bit?

I have always heared AMD runs hot. Maybe that's not the case anymore. I
will look into it. And I think there is a 64-bit XP..but dont quote me.
I better just do some more research.

I think they have solved the Heat problems that were with one of the
chips around 2003. In fact, I think Intel runs hotter on average now.
Also, AMD64 processors can run 32bit software so they make migrating to
64 bit easier.

The AMD and Intel 64bit implementations are for all intents and purposes
identical to the outside world - I should know, I was a circuit designer on
Prescott (the Intel 64bit Pentium 4) for a couple years. They will both run
32bit or 64bit code. They will in fact run the exact same code, with the
exact same results. Performance differences will be dependent on a huge
number of different issues - mostly relating to the application in question.

--
Aaron

Scott Dorsey wrote:
donaldjcecil wrote:
I am thinking on getting a 64-bit Intel chip. Any prerequisites I should
know about? Do I need a special configuration/software/etc..I will
mostly be running Reason and Cubase, and I think I will be getting an
m-audio fireware sound system.

This seems like a bad idea. The Itanium runs like a slug in 32-bit mode,
and none of those applications will run in native 64-bit mode.

I think you're forgetting the Intel 64 bit x86 part.

--
Aaron

"donaldjcecil" wrote in message
news:bRYue.773$ro.360@fed1read02...
I am thinking on getting a 64-bit Intel chip. Any prerequisites I should
know about? Do I need a special configuration/software/etc..I will mostly
be running Reason and Cubase, and I think I will be getting an m-audio
fireware sound system.

I'd suggest hanging off a bit until mobos, operating systems , drivers, and
applications are all working happily (with an advantage) on these CPUs. And
they become affordable.

geoff

donaldjcecil wrote:

I am thinking on getting a 64-bit Intel chip. Any prerequisites I should
know about? Do I need a special configuration/software/etc..I will
mostly be running Reason and Cubase, and I think I will be getting an
m-audio fireware sound system.

Without a matching 64 bit OS *and* applications compiled for that 64 bit OS
it's just 'power-user' one-upmanship ****.

Graham

We're not talking Itamiums here are we?
A few things...

(1) Windows XP 64 bit edition is now available, but you need to have 64-bit
drivers for your sound card and all your hardware.
(2) AMD64 Winchester and Venice cores run cool (less than 25 degrees Celcius
on a 3200+)
(3) Both Intel P4-64 bit and AMD64 processors run 32 bit applications every
bit as well as 32 bit processors
(4) You will need to get a 64-bit DAW environment to enjoy the benefits of
64-bit computing:
Cakewalk has a free public beta available he http://www.cakewalk.com/x64/
They will probably be one of the first to market with a true 64-bit DAW
application
(5) There are quantifiable benefits in running a 64-bit DAW on a 64-bit OS
with 64-bit plug-ins
(6) Currently, 64-bit plugins are required, but AFAIK the VST plug-in
architechture has not yet been ported to 64-bit, but DirectX has been.

In case you are wondering, no I didn't read this stuff, I'm *doing* this
stuff. There is no reason at all to shy away from either Intel's or AMD's
64-bit desktop processors right now. In the case of AMD, the AMD-64s are a
generation later than the AMD-XPs and so run cooler and more efficiently, so
even in a 32-bit environment you get some benefit.

Hope this clears some stuff up.

Bill.

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

This seems like a bad idea. The Itanium runs like a slug in 32-bit mode,
and none of those applications will run in native 64-bit mode.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Bill Ruys wrote:

(4) You will need to get a 64-bit DAW environment to enjoy the benefits of
64-bit computing:

And what might those be for audio? I understand that the
internal architecture of the 64 bit machines is better but
is that lost when running them in 32 bit mode?

Cakewalk has a free public beta available he http://www.cakewalk.com/x64/
They will probably be one of the first to market with a true 64-bit DAW
application
(5) There are quantifiable benefits in running a 64-bit DAW on a 64-bit OS
with 64-bit plug-ins

Due to what? All that extra data being passed over the bus
(which is almost certainly zero in an audio app), and the
probably longer instructions would only seem to me to incur
a bandwidth penalty.

I just can't see why going to 64 bits offers anything but
potential penalties for audio. All it gives inherently is
really big integers and addresses which are useful for
database transaction processing machines with the
requirement of _very_ large real memory, but how so for audio?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

A thought occured to me after sending that last respone off.
Is it possible that there is an intentional, designed in
penalty for running 32 bit mode? You know, marketing
considerations and all that.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Bob Cain wrote:



Bill Ruys wrote:

(4) You will need to get a 64-bit DAW environment to enjoy the
benefits of 64-bit computing:


And what might those be for audio? I understand that the internal
architecture of the 64 bit machines is better but is that lost when
running them in 32 bit mode?

Cakewalk has a free public beta available he
http://www.cakewalk.com/x64/
They will probably be one of the first to market with a true 64-bit
DAW application
(5) There are quantifiable benefits in running a 64-bit DAW on a
64-bit OS with 64-bit plug-ins


Due to what? All that extra data being passed over the bus (which is
almost certainly zero in an audio app), and the probably longer
instructions would only seem to me to incur a bandwidth penalty.

I just can't see why going to 64 bits offers anything but potential
penalties for audio. All it gives inherently is really big integers and
addresses which are useful for database transaction processing machines
with the requirement of _very_ large real memory, but how so for audio?


Bob

It might halve the number of bus cycles for transfers, but it's
probably still PCI, which (SFAIK) is inherently 32 bit. I know
of no 64 bit versions of PCI.

*Shrug*?

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill wrote:

It might halve the number of bus cycles for transfers, but it's
probably still PCI, which (SFAIK) is inherently 32 bit. I know
of no 64 bit versions of PCI.

*Shrug*?

The memory/processor bus isn't PCI. It's much faster and
much wider. I can't remember what it's called, though. My
point is that no matter how wide or fast it is, shuffling
more data (the upper word of long integers which will be
zero for audio apps if used at all) through it can only be a
penalty.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Bill Ruys wrote:

snip

(2) AMD64 Winchester and Venice cores run cool (less than 25 degrees Celcius
on a 3200+)

Which must mean they've reduced power consumption to something sensible.

Any idea how many watts they consume ?

Surely you don't *actually* mean 25C though. Ambient temp itself can easily be
more than that !

snip

(5) There are quantifiable benefits in running a 64-bit DAW on a 64-bit OS
with 64-bit plug-ins

Which means that until such a date that happens there's no clear benefit worth
having of any note. Possibly other than the new CPUs having a 'cleaner' internal
design that may give them a little extra efficiency processing some ( 32 bit )
instructions.

Graham

On 2005-06-24, donaldjcecil wrote:
Dan wrote:
On 6/24/2005 2:06 PM, donaldjcecil wrote:

I am thinking on getting a 64-bit Intel chip. Any prerequisites I
should know about? Do I need a special configuration/software/etc..I
will mostly be running Reason and Cubase, and I think I will be
getting an m-audio fireware sound system.

Go AMD. Shown to be better performance for audio.video. But what OS
are you going to run? XP is still 32bit?

I have always heared AMD runs hot. Maybe that's not the case anymore.
I will look into it. And I think there is a 64-bit XP..but dont quote
me. I better just do some more research.

With AMD's 90nm process, it's Intel that runs hot. 120W vs.
70W, IIRC.

--
André Majorel URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/
(Counterfeit: )
"J'baiserai la France jusqu'à ce qu'elle m'aime." -- Un rappeur

On 2005-06-25, Bob Cain wrote:
Bill Ruys wrote:

(4) You will need to get a 64-bit DAW environment to enjoy
the benefits of 64-bit computing:

And what might those be for audio? I understand that the
internal architecture of the 64 bit machines is better but
is that lost when running them in 32 bit mode?

Cakewalk has a free public beta available he
http://www.cakewalk.com/x64/ They will probably be one of the
first to market with a true 64-bit DAW application (5) There
are quantifiable benefits in running a 64-bit DAW on a 64-bit
OS with 64-bit plug-ins

Due to what? All that extra data being passed over the bus
(which is almost certainly zero in an audio app), and the
probably longer instructions would only seem to me to incur
a bandwidth penalty.

I just can't see why going to 64 bits offers anything but
potential penalties for audio. All it gives inherently is
really big integers and addresses which are useful for
database transaction processing machines with the
requirement of _very_ large real memory, but how so for audio?

I think that, going from 32 bits to 64 bits on an x64-64 (not
ia64, which is different), two things happen: (1) because
addresses and certain integers double in size, you lose and (2)
because you have more registers, you win.

I'd like to see a benchmark.

--
André Majorel URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/
(Counterfeit: )
"J'baiserai la France jusqu'à ce qu'elle m'aime." -- Un rappeur

Geoff Wood wrote in message
...

"donaldjcecil" wrote in message
news:bRYue.773$ro.360@fed1read02...
I am thinking on getting a 64-bit Intel chip. Any prerequisites I should
know about? Do I need a special configuration/software/etc..I will mostly
be running Reason and Cubase, and I think I will be getting an m-audio
fireware sound system.

I'd suggest hanging off a bit until mobos, operating systems , drivers,
and
applications are all working happily (with an advantage) on these CPUs.
And
they become affordable.

geoff



LOL.......you'll be waiting a life time for that.....this is the reason I
picked up my G5.I am not a mac freak either as I use PCs as much as Mac.

Bob Cain wrote:
Bill Ruys wrote:

(4) You will need to get a 64-bit DAW environment to enjoy the benefits of
64-bit computing:

And what might those be for audio? I understand that the
internal architecture of the 64 bit machines is better but
is that lost when running them in 32 bit mode?

The Opteron is pretty fast when running in 32-bit mode. The Itanium is
a total pig in 32-bit mode and you'd be happier with a 486-50.

Cakewalk has a free public beta available he http://www.cakewalk.com/x64/
They will probably be one of the first to market with a true 64-bit DAW
application
(5) There are quantifiable benefits in running a 64-bit DAW on a 64-bit OS
with 64-bit plug-ins

Due to what? All that extra data being passed over the bus
(which is almost certainly zero in an audio app), and the
probably longer instructions would only seem to me to incur
a bandwidth penalty.

I just can't see why going to 64 bits offers anything but
potential penalties for audio. All it gives inherently is
really big integers and addresses which are useful for
database transaction processing machines with the
requirement of _very_ large real memory, but how so for audio?

First of all, 64-bit floating point operations are a lot faster. That can
be a big deal for some kinds of processing. (Double int operations are
also faster but for audio stuff nobody cares.)

Secondly, your address space is much larger, so now you can have an individual
process greater than 4 Gb. (I don't know if this is true in Windows, but it
is in a regular operating system and for most people it's the whole point
of going 64-bits.)
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Bob Cain wrote:

A thought occured to me after sending that last respone off.
Is it possible that there is an intentional, designed in
penalty for running 32 bit mode? You know, marketing
considerations and all that.

Probably less the case than the fact that the 32-bit mode is usually just
an afterthought.

Remember when the vax came out? It had a 16-bit compatibility mode so you
could run all your RSX-11 applications on it. An abacus would have been
faster, but nobody was really expected to use 16-bit mode. It was only
there to help you port your applications, and it disappeared from the
architecture in a couple years.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article writes:

(1) Windows XP 64 bit edition is now available, but you need to have 64-bit
drivers for your sound card and all your hardware.

(3) Both Intel P4-64 bit and AMD64 processors run 32 bit applications every
bit as well as 32 bit processors

So does this mean that during a transistion period, if we buy a 64-bit
CPU, we'll need two versions of Windows if we want to experiment with
the new technology as well as getting our day-to-day work done? That
sounds like a good reason to have a second computer, which will
probably be old hardware by the time the applications catch up.

Sounds like a good project for an experimenter or hobbyist. There
would have to be a mighty good reason for a working stiff to make the
switch at this time. What advantages would one see with a 64-bit CPU
if the primary applications are audio recording and production?

In case you are wondering, no I didn't read this stuff, I'm *doing* this
stuff. There is no reason at all to shy away from either Intel's or AMD's
64-bit desktop processors right now.

But if it's necessary to accommodate "common" applications with a
different software setup, chances are the hardware will be outdated by
the time you're ready to pull the big switch.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes:


(1) Windows XP 64 bit edition is now available, but you need to have 64-bit
drivers for your sound card and all your hardware.


(3) Both Intel P4-64 bit and AMD64 processors run 32 bit applications every
bit as well as 32 bit processors


So does this mean that during a transistion period, if we buy a 64-bit
CPU, we'll need two versions of Windows if we want to experiment with
the new technology as well as getting our day-to-day work done? That
sounds like a good reason to have a second computer, which will
probably be old hardware by the time the applications catch up.

Sounds like a good project for an experimenter or hobbyist. There
would have to be a mighty good reason for a working stiff to make the
switch at this time. What advantages would one see with a 64-bit CPU
if the primary applications are audio recording and production?


In case you are wondering, no I didn't read this stuff, I'm *doing* this
stuff. There is no reason at all to shy away from either Intel's or AMD's
64-bit desktop processors right now.


But if it's necessary to accommodate "common" applications with a
different software setup, chances are the hardware will be outdated by
the time you're ready to pull the big switch.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

After doing more research concerning the hardware that would harbor the
64 bit chip (im talking about the motherboard) I noticed it will also
hold some new technologies aside from the processor which can only work
to one's benefit, this includes SATA connectivitiy, PCI-E, RAM
exandability up to 4 gigabytes, DDR2 to name some. It seems to me the
system would have all the neccesary components for future enhancements,
when that "switch" is made.

Andre Majorel wrote:

I think that, going from 32 bits to 64 bits on an x64-64 (not
ia64, which is different), two things happen: (1) because
addresses and certain integers double in size, you lose and (2)
because you have more registers, you win.

Ah, yes. I'd forgotten about the register increase. Hard
to see that offseting the increased bandwidth requirement,
however.

I'd like to see a benchmark.

Me too.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Scott Dorsey wrote:

First of all, 64-bit floating point operations are a lot faster. That can
be a big deal for some kinds of processing. (Double int operations are
also faster but for audio stuff nobody cares.)

That's almost got to be a 32 bit mode detuning. Hard to see
why the operating mode should affect FP operations unless it
was purposeful.


Secondly, your address space is much larger, so now you can have an individual
process greater than 4 Gb. (I don't know if this is true in Windows, but it
is in a regular operating system and for most people it's the whole point
of going 64-bits.)

I just can't see, other than for large sample cache's, why
an audio app would outgrow 32 bit addresses and require such
massive real memory.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

the apps aren't ported to 64 bit in any meaningful way yet. the only
"advantage" right now is you can get massive amounts of ram, like 8 gig
or 20 gig or something crazy.

but regular 32 bit computers can run 1 gig or 2 gig of ram just fine,
which is plenty.

AMD Athlons do run hot, can't comment on the other lines.

Spend your money on extra hard drives and a raid-0 setup, much more
relevant to your needs.

In article jLeve.974$ro.15@fed1read02 writes:

After doing more research concerning the hardware that would harbor the
64 bit chip (im talking about the motherboard) I noticed it will also
hold some new technologies aside from the processor which can only work
to one's benefit, this includes SATA connectivitiy, PCI-E, RAM
exandability up to 4 gigabytes, DDR2 to name some.

Most motherboards today have SATA ports. I don't know what PCI-E or
DDR2 are, and what does anyone need 4 gigabytes of RAM for (or who
here even wants to spend that much money on a computer)? We're not
data base mechanics, we're audio engineers.

It seems to me the
system would have all the neccesary components for future enhancements,
when that "switch" is made.

But people who buy into technology like this change their hardware
about as often as they change their underwear. They'll probalby be
through two 64-bit capable motherboards before they have the audio
applications to justify the first one. That's human nature.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Bob Cain wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Secondly, your address space is much larger, so now you can have an
individual
process greater than 4 Gb.

I just can't see, other than for large sample cache's, why an audio app
would outgrow 32 bit addresses and require such massive real memory.

On many operating systems it is sometimes more convenient or efficient
to memory map files and deal with them as addressable memory instead
of as files that require system calls every time you want to read or
write anything. A 64-bit system would give you much more flexibility
to memory map files. In other words, you needn't have gigabytes of
RAM for a 64-bit address space to be useful.

Also, even if you aren't memory mapping them, files larger than 2 GB
typically require some kind of special API for large files. Yes, you
can accomplish this easily enough on a 32-bit machine, but it's a tad
cleaner to just use 64-bit integers on a 64-bit machine. True, it's
virtually impossible to imagine that computing file offsets would be
the bottleneck in an audio application even on a machine where 64-bit
integer computations require extra steps, but the fact remains that a
64-bit machine is able to deal with large files more easily and dealing
with large files is a task that is necessary for audio applications.
(A single-track 24-bit, 192 kHz audio sample that lasts 60 minutes
will require about 2GB of storage.)

There probably is not any compelling reason why 64-bit is necessary for
audio. On the other hand, it seems clear that the computer industry
will eventually move to 64-bit processors, and there are certainly some
audio tasks which could benefit from a 64-bit processor. The combination
of those two facts means to me that it's probably not a bad idea to
shoot for 64-bit if you're setting up a new audio machine. I certainly
wouldn't see it as a sufficient reason by itself to upgrade, but 64-bit
might be a nice thing to have to maintain "compatibility with the future".

- Logan

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes:

In case you are wondering, no I didn't read this stuff, I'm *doing* this
stuff. There is no reason at all to shy away from either Intel's or AMD's
64-bit desktop processors right now.

But if it's necessary to accommodate "common" applications with a
different software setup, chances are the hardware will be outdated by
the time you're ready to pull the big switch.

Possibly, but looking at it from the other point of view, the 64-bit
hardware seems quite stable now. On the Intel side, 64-bit is a fairly
new feature. But on the AMD side, you essentially cannot buy a processor
that isn't 64-bit unless you go with a pretty old model. So, it seems
that 64-bit is coming to the mainstream fairly soon.

The point is, it's quite possible that the hardware will be outdated
before some people want to run a 64-bit OS on it. On the other hand,
it's also quite possible that the opposite will happen, and it'd be
nice not to be forced into buying a new computer when the old hardware
is still working well enough.

- Logan

Logan Shaw wrote:

There probably is not any compelling reason why 64-bit is necessary for
audio. On the other hand, it seems clear that the computer industry
will eventually move to 64-bit processors, and there are certainly some
audio tasks which could benefit from a 64-bit processor. The combination
of those two facts means to me that it's probably not a bad idea to
shoot for 64-bit if you're setting up a new audio machine. I certainly
wouldn't see it as a sufficient reason by itself to upgrade, but 64-bit
might be a nice thing to have to maintain "compatibility with the future".

I liked 36-bit computers a lot better.
--scott

....remember if it doesn't have 36 bits, you're not playing with a full DEC...
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

donaldjcecil wrote:
Dan wrote:
On 6/24/2005 2:06 PM, donaldjcecil wrote:

I am thinking on getting a 64-bit Intel chip. Any
prerequisites I
should know about? Do I need a special
configuration/software/etc..I
will mostly be running Reason and Cubase, and I think I
will be
getting an m-audio fireware sound system.


Go AMD. Shown to be better performance for audio.video.
But what OS
are you going to run? XP is still 32bit?

There's a beta version of XP64 on MS's site, last time I
looked.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/6...ion/trial.mspx

I have always heared AMD runs hot.

Not so with XP64s. They are some of the coolest chips I've
ever seen since the days of P3s and K6s.

Logan Shaw wrote:

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes:

In case you are wondering, no I didn't read this stuff, I'm *doing* this
stuff. There is no reason at all to shy away from either Intel's or AMD's
64-bit desktop processors right now.

But if it's necessary to accommodate "common" applications with a
different software setup, chances are the hardware will be outdated by
the time you're ready to pull the big switch.

Possibly, but looking at it from the other point of view, the 64-bit
hardware seems quite stable now. On the Intel side, 64-bit is a fairly
new feature. But on the AMD side, you essentially cannot buy a processor
that isn't 64-bit unless you go with a pretty old model. So, it seems
that 64-bit is coming to the mainstream fairly soon.

The point is, it's quite possible that the hardware will be outdated
before some people want to run a 64-bit OS on it. On the other hand,
it's also quite possible that the opposite will happen, and it'd be
nice not to be forced into buying a new computer when the old hardware
is still working well enough.

That'll be the day ! I'm sure Microsoft will find some way of sapping the computing power too.

Graham

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1119698340k@trad...

In article
writes:

(1) Windows XP 64 bit edition is now available, but you need to have
64-bit
drivers for your sound card and all your hardware.

(3) Both Intel P4-64 bit and AMD64 processors run 32 bit applications
every
bit as well as 32 bit processors

So does this mean that during a transistion period, if we buy a 64-bit
CPU, we'll need two versions of Windows if we want to experiment with
the new technology as well as getting our day-to-day work done? That
sounds like a good reason to have a second computer, which will
probably be old hardware by the time the applications catch up.

Sounds like a good project for an experimenter or hobbyist. There
would have to be a mighty good reason for a working stiff to make the
switch at this time. What advantages would one see with a 64-bit CPU
if the primary applications are audio recording and production?

If you are putting a new box together today, the price of 64 bit components
is not that much higher than what you would spend for a similarly high end
box. Might as well get a Socket 939 MB and a cheap Athlon 64 processor. You
can upgrade the processor to a socket 939 compatible dual core Athlon 64 in
another 6 months when the prices come down and upgrade to XP 64 or Longhorn
in the next year of so and still be pretty cutting edge. I think it would be
foolish to purchase 32 bit only hardware at this point in time given the
immanent changes upon us.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
donaldjcecil wrote:
Dan wrote:
On 6/24/2005 2:06 PM, donaldjcecil wrote:

I am thinking on getting a 64-bit Intel chip. Any
prerequisites I
should know about? Do I need a special
configuration/software/etc..I
will mostly be running Reason and Cubase, and I think I
will be
getting an m-audio fireware sound system.


Go AMD. Shown to be better performance for audio.video.
But what OS
are you going to run? XP is still 32bit?

There's a beta version of XP64 on MS's site, last time I
looked.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/6...ion/trial.mspx

It's been released for a month or more now.

In article writes:

But if it's necessary to accommodate "common" applications with a
different software setup, chances are the hardware will be outdated by
the time you're ready to pull the big switch.

Possibly, but looking at it from the other point of view, the 64-bit
hardware seems quite stable now.

Perhaps so, but this doesn't matter to the hobbyist/experimenter. When
another few tenths of a gigahertz CPU speed is available, he'll get a
new motherboard and CPU. I'm unusual in that I've been running the
same computer in the studio since 1997 - a Pentium II, originally
running Win95, now Win98SE. But I only use it for 2-track editing and
documentation, so I don't need to upgrade it. I keep being tempted by
new gadgets and software though, and I suppose eventually I'll break
down. Roger has already offered me a new case, so I have a start. g

However, as with that computer, I'll probaby get something that's a
notch down from the top and it will be more powerful than I'll need.

On the Intel side, 64-bit is a fairly
new feature. But on the AMD side, you essentially cannot buy a processor
that isn't 64-bit unless you go with a pretty old model. So, it seems
that 64-bit is coming to the mainstream fairly soon.

I suppose that as long as it doesn't get in the way, it's not a big
deal, and that the upgrade to enable its full capability is just a new
operating system.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

If you are putting a new box together today, the price of 64 bit components
is not that much higher than what you would spend for a similarly high end
box. Might as well get a Socket 939 MB and a cheap Athlon 64 processor. You
can upgrade the processor to a socket 939 compatible dual core Athlon 64 in
another 6 months when the prices come down and upgrade to XP 64 or Longhorn

So you're suggesting that I might want to buy something that I'll
upgrade in six months? You obviously don't know me. I occasionally
make a mistake and buy something that breaks in six months, but I
don't buy things that I'll have to, or even want to upgrade in six
months.

in the next year of so and still be pretty cutting edge. I think it would be
foolish to purchase 32 bit only hardware at this point in time given the
immanent changes upon us.

It depends. When I bought my PII (that I'm still using), between the
CPU and memory, I saved about $200 by going with a 266 MHz system
rather than the state-of-the-art 300 MHz system. I wanted to put that
$200 into a larger or faster disk drive but couldn't find a 5400 RPM
(at the time state-of-the-art) drive at a civilized price, so I
settled for a 4 GB 4200 RPM drive. That worked just fine. I eventually
upgraded to a 30 GB 5400 RPM drive (which cost about $80 at the time I
bought it) but not because I needed more storage for audio, I was
working on a manual with a lot of graphics and screen shots. Since it
was for a piece of studio equipment, it was most practical to write it
on the studio computer. By that time, I wanted to add more memory
(from the original 64 MB) but slow enough memory chips were getting
hard to find. When I mentioned that on this newsgroup, someone was
kind enough to donate a cast-off to me.

Nice that some people do upgrade their computers on a regular basis.
It keeps old parts in the pipeline, as long as we don't let them get
too old. g



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:

In article writes:

If you are putting a new box together today, the price of 64 bit components
is not that much higher than what you would spend for a similarly high end
box. Might as well get a Socket 939 MB and a cheap Athlon 64 processor. You
can upgrade the processor to a socket 939 compatible dual core Athlon 64 in
another 6 months when the prices come down and upgrade to XP 64 or Longhorn

So you're suggesting that I might want to buy something that I'll
upgrade in six months? You obviously don't know me. I occasionally
make a mistake and buy something that breaks in six months, but I
don't buy things that I'll have to, or even want to upgrade in six
months.

in the next year of so and still be pretty cutting edge. I think it would be
foolish to purchase 32 bit only hardware at this point in time given the
immanent changes upon us.

It depends. When I bought my PII (that I'm still using), between the
CPU and memory, I saved about $200 by going with a 266 MHz system
rather than the state-of-the-art 300 MHz system. I wanted to put that
$200 into a larger or faster disk drive but couldn't find a 5400 RPM
(at the time state-of-the-art) drive at a civilized price, so I
settled for a 4 GB 4200 RPM drive. That worked just fine. I eventually
upgraded to a 30 GB 5400 RPM drive (which cost about $80 at the time I
bought it) but not because I needed more storage for audio, I was
working on a manual with a lot of graphics and screen shots. Since it
was for a piece of studio equipment, it was most practical to write it
on the studio computer. By that time, I wanted to add more memory
(from the original 64 MB) but slow enough memory chips were getting
hard to find. When I mentioned that on this newsgroup, someone was
kind enough to donate a cast-off to me.

Nice that some people do upgrade their computers on a regular basis.
It keeps old parts in the pipeline, as long as we don't let them get
too old. g

Applause applause !

I recall when buying a Pentium 350 for a clent of old, one director asked if I
shouldn't 'future proof' - lmao - it by getting the 400MHz version !

It has to be said that he was one of those ppl who love to buy the newest bestest
most expensive just to be showy.

I think maybe I suggested we'd get the 400 if he personally paid the price
difference and not take it out our working budget. At least he didn't suggest a
450 !

Incidentally I have a old 486 sitting next to me. It started life as a 33Mhz and
worked up via 66 and 100MHz over a period of about 10 yrs to a 133 MHz 586. It has
to be said that the only original components left are the case, 5-1/4 FDD,
keyboard amazingly ( an ALPS one ) and PSU ( but the fan in that has been
replaced 3 times ).

I've consistently found that the best point to be on the price performance curve
is just around where the slope backs off from being near cliff-like. I.e. *never*
buy the fastest or next fastest. In 3 months it'll have lost 30% of its value most
likely. And never buy computing power you won't use.

Graham

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article

writes:

If you are putting a new box together today, the price of
64 bit
components is not that much higher than what you would
spend for a
similarly high end box. Might as well get a Socket 939 MB
and a
cheap Athlon 64 processor. You can upgrade the processor
to a socket
939 compatible dual core Athlon 64 in another 6 months
when the
prices come down and upgrade to XP 64 or Longhorn

So you're suggesting that I might want to buy something
that I'll
upgrade in six months?

Mike, I'm an A64 enthusiast and I don't get this so-called
plan, either.

You obviously don't know me. I occasionally
make a mistake and buy something that breaks in six
months, but I
don't buy things that I'll have to, or even want to
upgrade in six months.

Fact is, the current A64 processorsd are mighty-fine 32 bit
engines, with the added benefit that you can upgrade the
software to 64 bits later on, without further hardware
upgrades.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1119717723k@trad...

In article jLeve.974$ro.15@fed1read02 writes:

After doing more research concerning the hardware that would harbor the
64 bit chip (im talking about the motherboard) I noticed it will also
hold some new technologies aside from the processor which can only work
to one's benefit, this includes SATA connectivitiy, PCI-E, RAM
exandability up to 4 gigabytes, DDR2 to name some.

Most motherboards today have SATA ports. I don't know what PCI-E or
DDR2 are, and what does anyone need 4 gigabytes of RAM for (or who
here even wants to spend that much money on a computer)? We're not
data base mechanics, we're audio engineers.

It seems to me the
system would have all the neccesary components for future enhancements,
when that "switch" is made.

But people who buy into technology like this change their hardware
about as often as they change their underwear. They'll probalby be
through two 64-bit capable motherboards before they have the audio
applications to justify the first one. That's human nature.

I now have a 64 bit capable house with two computers (AMD64/3200 and 3400)
and since neither Bev nor I have even tried to make a basic trial of the
beta XP64, we're still having no problems with computer speeds nor any
compatibility issues that I am aware of.

The older XP1600+ would do SETI@Home about 1/3 of the speed of processing on
the 3200+ A64. Other than that, nothing of the A64 is an advantage over
previous 32 bit architecture without an OS and drivers to match. But I'm
ready. By the time drivers become available for my RME (and it's a 9652 so
they may not become available) all the real benefits will be in PCI-Express,
DDR3 (DDR2 has been around for a while and 1 gig of it is running just fine
in my DAW) and 64 bit computing, so was the purchase worth it? I kinda feel
it was. While I won't be at the head of the pack on chasing 64 bit OS
applications, I won't be at the tail end either, and for an upgrade the A64
has been rock solid in handling audio.
--

Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo