I understand the on paper aspect of using all ram.

In practice, has anyone noticed an actual boost in performance?

Was it an anticlimax? 

It really depends on what you're doing. The question really is, is what you're doing currently straining your machine, and if so, is that because of memory issues? If the answer to both of things is no, then there's probably nothing to be gained.

Paul Russell

 that's because you haven't used it

Unfortunately I have, and the reality is there is no noticeable improvement when going from Sonar x86 to x64 and the Teleport Server crashes are just one more annoyance on top of the many confirmed bugs in X1 so I just don't even waste my time with it anymore.

There is absolutely no need for Sonar x64 on any DAW ... period. If you have fallen for the marketing hype and feel the urge to play with it by all means go right ahead. You're just another one in a long line of beta testers who got duped in to thinking x64 is better.

aleef

i would have thought by now we would be through with bitbridge/jbridge.. and freezing tracks.

Can't tell by your statement if you're pro or con on bitbridge and freezing. There's two ways to read it.


All I can say is bitbridge has been buggy ever since it was introduced so I just completely avoid it which means ... no more x64. It's just not worth the aggravation on top of everything else.

John T


Hmm. I've got projects that I can't play in 32 bit because the sample sets I'm using are too large. But I can play them in 64 bit. How this is a marketing gimmick I've been duped into, I can't figure out. It's not useful to everyone, no, but what is?

Here it matters 100%, as it means the difference between showtime and a project not loading.

It opens the door to much more complex projects and even older projects I can have more stuff available for editing at once, i.e I don't have to bounce down intermediate submixes to keep everything spinning along.

Basically whether you already hit them or not it has removed some limits.

Does that matter?  I'd say to the same extent 32 bit Windows 95 did over 16 bit Windows 3.1.

So yes.

John T

 What motivation could I possibly have to lie about it?

Here's the problem I have with it. You responded to a specific statement with a generic reply with no facts to back up your claim.


What sampler are you using? What actual sample? Is it available in a 32bit version? If so, then your x64 it argument is bunk and therefor I call BS.


If I'm wrong I have no issue with correction myself ... just show me fact please.

Having given you your answer, I'm still interested in an answer to my question. Why would you think I would lie about this? I mean, it's such a dry, mundane technical point.

Yeah, I kind of thought you would, as I said.

The thing is, a frozen track is exactly that, frozen. If I want to edit it, I have to unfreeze it. Having it all running live is orders of magnitude easier to work with than unfreezing and refreezing for every adjustment.

Freezing is a good workaround for when you've run out of options, but it's nobody's preference.

Well, all I know is that using large, ram hungry VSTs like Omnisphere, for instance, used to bring my 32 bit system to it's knees.  Now, with 64bit, and 12 gigs ram I can throw everything AND the kitchen sink into a project (multiple instances even) and the machine/Sonar doesn't even break a sweat.  It does matter if you use these types of instruments and effects.  Absolutely.

You can unfreeze a track to work on it so again I call BS.

" ... it's nobody's preference." - Again, BS.

You said, "I've got projects that I can't play in 32 bit because the sample sets I'm using are too large. But I can play them in 64 bit."


Until you prove to me you have a situation where your only option is to use 64 bit .... then I stand by what I said.


So far you given me excuses as to why you want to work in a 64 bit environment, but you haven't shown anything based in fact as to why you are forced to work in a 64 bit environment.


I still call bull***t.

Bub


You can unfreeze a track to work on it so again I call BS.

" ... it's nobody's preference." - Again, BS.

You said, "I've got projects that I can't play in 32 bit because the sample sets I'm using are too large. But I can play them in 64 bit."


Until you prove to me you have a situation where your only option is to use 64 bit .... then I stand by what I said.


So far you given me excuses as to why you want to work in a 64 bit environment, but you haven't shown anything based in fact as to why you are forced to work in a 64 bit environment.


I still call bull***t.

You are a very strange, angry and stupid man. I don't think I'm going to bother pursuing this any further.

What kind of behaviour? I think there's a worthwhile discussion to be had about the the detail of real uses of 64 bit; it's certainly a topic others are interested in. But it's kind of hard to have with someone going "I CALL BS! I CALL BS!" all the time.

How you can possibly think you've been a model of polite behaviour in this thread, and I've somehow been out of order after putting up with your nonsense for really much longer than anything you've posted has deserved, I can't begin to imagine. You've been acting like a complete jack-ass.

Bub you are coming at this backwards. It would normally be one is "forced" to work in a 32 bit environment because of legacy gear.  Not unlike it was back in the 16 bit era. If you need to know the real benefits of a 64 bit environment do a little research on it.

Overall performance is better in a 64 bit OS. More importantly though is the fact that most high end audio and video apps have migrated over to 64 bits not because of marketing but for the advantages 64 bits offers.

Anyone that has a system that can handle 64 bits and has the options of dual booting to a 32 bit OS and a 64 bit OS on the same machine will notice a performance gain with the 64 bit OS.

This is not pie in the sky but real world experiences from nearly all that have taken the plunge. 

Read the threads I have posted on this in the past and then make your view known here. Better yet try it yourself.

If you don't have the same experience that most have I will be surprised. But you must have the right gear first. Yes it will mean some things will need to be left behind but that in the end will allow suitable new things to will come along and more than make up the loss.


Where is Freddy  when you need him?

John

Bub you are coming at this backwards. It would normally be one is "forced" to work in a 32 bit environment because of legacy gear.  Not unlike it was back in the 16 bit era. If you need to know the real benefits of a 64 bit environment do a little research on it.

I have. There's very little improvement when running Sonar when going from 32 to 64 other than being able to access more ram.

Overall performance is better in a 64 bit OS. More importantly though is the fact that most high end audio and video apps have migrated over to 64 bits not because of marketing but for the advantages 64 bits offers.

Everyone except one of the largest ones ... Apple Quicktime.

Anyone that has a system that can handle 64 bits and has the options of dual booting to a 32 bit OS and a 64 bit OS on the same machine will notice a performance gain with the 64 bit OS.

Are you talking about system speed or Sonar? I've been running 64 bit Sonar since Windows 7 came out on a dual boot XP/Win7 setup. There was no improvement whatsoever that was noticeable in Sonar. Windows 7 boots up faster than XP, the GUI is smoother, but that's the only improvement I saw.

This is not pie in the sky but real world experiences from nearly all that have taken the plunge.

Again, are you talking about the OS or Sonar? Sonar, I see no improvement except for being able to access more ram, which technically is not a show stopper if you don't have it because you can freeze to free up CPU/RAM.

Read the threads I have posted on this in the past and then make your view known here. Better yet try it yourself.

I have tried it. I've been running 64bit since Windows 7 (and M-audio released 64 bit drivers.). It has only caused problems because of Bitbridge. That's why I recently switched back to 32 bit.

If you don't have the same experience that most have I will be surprised. But you must have the right gear first. Yes it will mean some things will need to be left behind but that in the end will allow suitable new things to will come along and more than make up the loss.

Where is Freddy  when you need him?

On my system, an i5 Quad Core 750 Win7 x64, 4GB RAM (I had 8GB but saw no improvement and ended up swapping it out for a lesser quantity of better quality RAM) running 8.5 and X1 both in 64 and 32 bit ... I see no difference whatsoever for the projects I do when switching between 32 and 64 bit. I only see improvements because I don't have to deal with Bitbridge crashing.

The discussion between John T and myself is ... he said he has projects that will not run at all in 32. All I'm asking is, prove it which he has been unable to do. You always have the option to freeze to take the load of your CPU/RAM if things bog down.

Bub

aleef

i would have thought by now we would be through with bitbridge/jbridge.. and freezing tracks.

Can't tell by your statement if you're pro or con on bitbridge and freezing. There's two ways to read it.


All I can say is bitbridge has been buggy ever since it was introduced so I just completely avoid it which means ... no more x64. It's just not worth the aggravation on top of everything else.

 
ohh noo!!  im against bitbridge and that whole wrap rendering thing..most of the time it works, but on any given day it doesnt. and having to pay for jbridge which may or may not work any better doesnt sit well with me.  i dont know why, but i was under the impression that bitbridge was behind us..it hasnt been talked about for awhile..