Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions?

Page: 12 > Showing page 1 of 2
Author
raisindot
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 41
  • Joined: 2004/02/19 14:21:13
  • Status: offline
2009/09/03 10:21:19 (permalink)

Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions?

Hi, folks!
 
I just upgraded from Producer 6 to 8. What I thought was going to relatively inexpensive became much more expensive when I realized I would have to ditch my old Pentium 4 desktop with 1mb RAM and spring for a faster computer. So, I ended up getting an HP Pavillion Dual Core on sale at Staples, with a 600gig hard disk and 6gig RAM and (yech!!!!!) Windows Vista.
 
Anyway, I managed to move my Emu 1820 sound system into the number computer and copied all my legacy CW projects. When I installed Producer 8, I chose the 32 bit version because I wasn't sure whether my legacy Emu interface would work in a 64 bit environment. I installed all four disks that came with the package and then upgraded to 8.3.1.
 
My question: Is there a huge difference in terms of sound quality, speed and performance between 32 and 64 bit? I use CW mainly as a MIDI sequencer driving hardware sound modules that record audio in CW. I don't use that many softsynths (yet), and I don't use a huge number of effects.
 
And if you convince me that 64-bit is so much better, do I have to totally reinstall everything (i.e., uninstall CW alone, reinstall from disk, and then reinstall th updates? Do I also need to uninstall all stuff (Dimension Pro, etc.) on the other DVD ROMs and then reinstall? This would be such a pain--it took nearly two hours to install, register, get the updates, and get it all together last night.
 
Jeff 
 
 
#1

43 Replies Related Threads

    CJaysMusic
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 30265
    • Joined: 2006/10/28 01:51:41
    • Location: Miami - Fort Lauderdale
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/03 14:31:04 (permalink)
    My question: Is there a huge difference in terms of sound quality, speed and performance between 32 and 64 bit?

    You are confusing windows bit rates with audio bit depths. 32bit vista and 64bit vista sound the same. It has nothing to do with sound quality. Also, sonar 32 and sonar 64 have no difference in sound quality also, cause it has bothing to due with your BIT DEPTH you reocrd and palyback at.
     
    sound cards are only capable of reocirdng at 24bits at a fixed rate. you can reocrd at 24 bits in a 32bit windows and a 64bit windows. There 2 different things.
     
    The only major thing 64bit windows will let you do is use more than 4 gigs of ram.
    Cj
     
     
     
     
     


    www.audio-mastering-mixing.com - A Professional Worldwide Audio Mixing & Mastering Studio, Providing Online And Attended Sessions. Rated # 1 on Top20Sites For Audio Mastering.
     
     
    #2
    Freddie H
    Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 3618
    • Joined: 2007/09/21 06:07:40
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/03 14:51:03 (permalink)
    CJaysMusic



    My question: Is there a huge difference in terms of sound quality, speed and performance between 32 and 64 bit?
    You are confusing windows bit rates with audio bit depths. 32bit vista and 64bit vista sound the same. It has nothing to do with sound quality. Also, sonar 32 and sonar 64 have no difference in sound quality also, cause it has bothing to due with your BIT DEPTH you reocrd and palyback at.
     
    sound cards are only capable of reocirdng at 24bits at a fixed rate. you can reocrd at 24 bits in a 32bit windows and a 64bit windows. There 2 different things.
     
    The only major thing 64bit windows will let you do is use more than 4 gigs of ram.
    Cj 
      
      
      
     

     
    NO, CJ you forget something!
     
    You will benefit if you use the 64bit version of SONAR 8 because it will use over 50% less CPU in use on same project compare if you had use it on the 32bit version. Also a VISTA 64bit computer will boot, install more then twice as fast compare if you used a VISTA 32bit version too + many many many more benefits....
     
     
    Regards
    Freddie
      
      
      
     




    -Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
    #3
    Jose7822
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 10033
    • Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
    • Location: United States
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/03 14:58:19 (permalink)
    Come on Freddie, you know that's not true.

    @ OP,

    Stick to Vista 32 bit for now.  Just make sure you update it to Service Pack 2 and you'll be set.  A 64 bit OS is mostly beneficial in the RAM department, which you said you barely use, so don't sweat it.  Both Sonar 32 and 64 bit can use the 64 bit audio engine in either a 32 bit or 64 bit OS.  Like CJ said, the sound quality in Sonar has nothing to do with the bitness of the OS.

    HTH
    post edited by Jose7822 - 2009/09/03 14:59:37
    #4
    Freddie H
    Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 3618
    • Joined: 2007/09/21 06:07:40
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/03 15:02:17 (permalink)
    Jose, I can send you some snap-short-photos and data if you don’t believe me! It’s true!  
    And technical breathing from Microsoft and INTEL!
     
    DON'T INSTALL VISTA32bit or WINDOWS 7 32bit on QUADCORE and i7 what ever you do. At least if you have planed and are into to use your CPU, memories for full maximum potential!

    Regards
    Freddie
    post edited by Freddie H - 2009/09/03 15:09:21


    -Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
    #5
    MetalManiac
    Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 46
    • Joined: 2008/12/05 03:32:04
    • Location: Denmark
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/03 15:06:49 (permalink)
    Freddie, you got something wrong...
    Going (systemwise) from 32bit to 64bit, will NOT make everything go twice as fast, or only use half the cpu-power.
    In essence, the only difference is the systems ability to handle numbers have increased. In 32bit systems the "native" number is 32bits (app 4 billion, hence the 4Gb). In 64bit systems the native number-format is just upped (A LOT).
    This means that more RAM can be adressed, bigger numbers can be natively and faster processed, and this CAN lead to more effective processing, both due to smarter programming tricks that actually take advantage of this, but also by pipelining 2 32bit-integer-calculations through the CPU, for example (this is up to the CPU/Chipset, though)
    The end-result is NOT a computer that boots in half the time, og runs twice as fast... But yes, 64bit DO run faster with 64bit programs (such as Sonar), but not by a double-factor... not at all... !!!!


    post edited by MetalManiac - 2009/09/03 15:08:31

    MetalManiac...

    - Q6600, Win7 x64, 8GB RAM, Sonar 8 Producer, AlphaTrack, FireFace400
    #6
    Jose7822
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 10033
    • Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
    • Location: United States
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/03 15:06:54 (permalink)
    Well, in my testings, the 64 bit version of Sonar fell short of the 32 bit version until Vista SP2 came out.  At that time, both Sonar32 and Sonar64 were on par performance-wise.  But, sure, send me your data and I'll check it out.
    #7
    CJaysMusic
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 30265
    • Joined: 2006/10/28 01:51:41
    • Location: Miami - Fort Lauderdale
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/03 15:32:46 (permalink)
    NO, CJ you forget something! You will benefit if you use the 64bit version of SONAR 8 because it will use over 50% less CPU in use on same project compare if you had use it on the 32bit version. Also a VISTA 64bit computer will boot, install more then twice as fast compare if you used a VISTA 32bit version too + many many many more benefits....
     
    I can also state that im the best musician in here. just as you can say youll get 50 percent cpu perofrmance. This is not Fact. This is your opinion, untill you give facts form indepent testing sites and sourses.  
    It probably more like 5 or 10 percent. Stop drinking the 64bit coolaid.
    Cj
     
    Edit; Fred. Your missleading statements are just ignorant to spue. Your missleading unknowing users and giving them your coolaid.
    post edited by CJaysMusic - 2009/09/03 15:34:47


    www.audio-mastering-mixing.com - A Professional Worldwide Audio Mixing & Mastering Studio, Providing Online And Attended Sessions. Rated # 1 on Top20Sites For Audio Mastering.
     
     
    #8
    John
    Forum Host
    • Total Posts : 25813
    • Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/03 15:47:57 (permalink)
    In Windows 7 64 bit Sonar 64 bit did seem to run a bit better. I don't think it was 50% better more like 10% at best. This was not a formal test just an impression on my part. However I am not fully ready to go 64 bits. I still need a few things to get the same functionality I have in Vista 32.

    I do see the 64 bit realm as a better place to be over all. But 32 bits will do the job. I do understand Freddie's enthusiasm for 64 bits. It is the future.  

    Best
    John
    #9
    CJaysMusic
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 30265
    • Joined: 2006/10/28 01:51:41
    • Location: Miami - Fort Lauderdale
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/03 17:08:17 (permalink)
    There is no formal testing that states you get 50 percent CPU performace from a 32bit OS to a 64bit OS. Its propaganda and its missleading innocent forum members.
    Fred's sig is a lie. I dont know how else to say it, but just to say it. I have nothing against Fred, except for his missleading statements and missleading signature
    Cj


    www.audio-mastering-mixing.com - A Professional Worldwide Audio Mixing & Mastering Studio, Providing Online And Attended Sessions. Rated # 1 on Top20Sites For Audio Mastering.
     
     
    #10
    dbmusic
    Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1150
    • Joined: 2005/07/04 12:52:46
    • Location: Illinois
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 00:41:59 (permalink)
    Freddie H


    CJaysMusic



    My question: Is there a huge difference in terms of sound quality, speed and performance between 32 and 64 bit?
    You are confusing windows bit rates with audio bit depths. 32bit vista and 64bit vista sound the same. It has nothing to do with sound quality. Also, sonar 32 and sonar 64 have no difference in sound quality also, cause it has bothing to due with your BIT DEPTH you reocrd and palyback at.
     
    sound cards are only capable of reocirdng at 24bits at a fixed rate. you can reocrd at 24 bits in a 32bit windows and a 64bit windows. There 2 different things.
     
    The only major thing 64bit windows will let you do is use more than 4 gigs of ram.
    Cj 
      
      
      
     

     
    NO, CJ you forget something!
     
    You will benefit if you use the 64bit version of SONAR 8 because it will use over 50% less CPU in use on same project compare if you had use it on the 32bit version. Also a VISTA 64bit computer will boot, install more then twice as fast compare if you used a VISTA 32bit version too + many many many more benefits....
     
     
    Regards
    Freddie
      
      
    Xanax anyone?  Yeah, 64-bit has it's advantages. But really, it's not THAT exciting.  It's a friggin' computer!

    Regards,

    DB


    post edited by dbmusic - 2009/09/04 00:43:09

    DB Music

    SoundClick
    OurStage
    #11
    syrath
    Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 4075
    • Joined: 2005/08/11 05:40:08
    • Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 02:09:07 (permalink)
    Both 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Sonar can be installed in Vista64, giving you the ability to do both if you prefer.

    There is one thing that does make a difference sound quality wise, and that is the 64 bit double precision engine. This does improve sound, how much you would actually notice, would depend on how "golden" your ears are. This 64 bit engine can be enabled even if you are using Vista 32 and Sonar 32 bit, and can be changed in the audio options page.
    #12
    Freddie H
    Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 3618
    • Joined: 2007/09/21 06:07:40
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 03:27:55 (permalink)
    CJaysMusic


    There is no formal testing that states you get 50 percent CPU performace from a 32bit OS to a 64bit OS. Its propaganda and its missleading innocent forum members.
    Fred's sig is a lie. I dont know how else to say it, but just to say it. I have nothing against Fred, except for his missleading statements and missleading signature
    Cj

     
     
     
     
     
    It's cool CJ!  
    I have nothing against you either! 
     
    So here we go! I will add more INFO later for you unbelievers!
     
    BEST overall OS system
    http://www.passmark.com/baselines/top.html
     
     
     
     
    WHY INTEL and not AMD! Here we go! All test made in 64bit OS!
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html
     
     
     
    SSD-disk are faster and better than conventional SATA disks!
    http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/high_end_drives.html
     
    http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3532
     
     
     
     
     
     

    32 vs 64 bit

    A change from a 32-bit to a 64-bit architecture is a fundamental alteration, as most operating systems must be extensively modified to take advantage of the new architecture. Other software must also be ported to use the new capabilities; older software is usually supported through either a hardware compatibility mode (in which the new processors support the older 32-bit version of the instruction set as well as the 64-bit version), through software emulation, or by the actual implementation of a 32-bit processor core within the 64-bit processor (as with the Itanium processors from Intel, which include an x86 processor core to run 32-bit x86 applications). The operating systems for those 64-bit architectures generally support both 32-bit and 64-bit applications[9].
    One significant exception to this is the AS/400, whose software runs on a virtual ISA, called TIMI (Technology Independent Machine Interface) which is translated to native machine code by low-level software before being executed. The low-level software is all that has to be rewritten to move the entire OS and all software to a new platform, such as when IBM transitioned their line from the older 32/48-bit "IMPI" instruction set to 64-bit PowerPC (IMPI wasn't anything like 32-bit PowerPC, so this was an even bigger transition than from a 32-bit version of an instruction set to a 64-bit version of the same instruction set).
    While 64-bit architectures indisputably make working with large data sets in applications such as digital video, scientific computing, and large databases easier, there has been considerable debate as to whether they or their 32-bit compatibility modes will be faster than comparably-priced 32-bit systems for other tasks. In x86-64 architecture (AMD64), the majority of the 32-bit operating systems and applications are able to run smoothly on the 64-bit hardware.
    Sun's 64-bit Java virtual machines are slower to start up than their 32-bit virtual machines because Sun has only implemented the "server" JIT compiler (C2) for 64-bit platforms.[10] The "client" JIT compiler (C1), which produces less efficient code but compiles much faster, is unavailable on 64-bit platforms.
    Speed is not the only factor to consider in a comparison of 32-bit and 64-bit processors. Applications such as multi-tasking, stress testing, and clustering—for HPC (high-performance computing)—may be more suited to a 64-bit architecture given the correct deployment. 64-bit clusters have been widely deployed in large organizations such as IBM, HP and Microsoft, for this reason.

    Pros and cons

    A common misconception is that 64-bit architectures are no better than 32-bit architectures unless the computer has more than 4 GB of main memory. This is not entirely true:
    • Some operating systems reserve portions of process address space for OS use, effectively reducing the total address space available for mapping memory for user programs. For instance, Windows XP DLLs and other user mode OS components are mapped into each process's address space, leaving only 2 to 3 GB (depending on the settings) address space available. This restriction is not present in 64-bit operating systems.
    • Memory-mapped files are becoming more difficult to implement in 32-bit architectures, especially due to the introduction of relatively cheap recordable DVD technology. A 4 GB file is no longer uncommon, and such large files cannot be memory mapped easily to 32-bit architectures; only a region of the file can be mapped into the address space, and to access such a file by memory mapping, those regions will have to be mapped into and out of the address space as needed. This is a problem, as memory mapping remains one of the most efficient disk-to-memory methods, when properly implemented by the OS.
    • Some programs such as data encryption software can benefit greatly from 64-bit registers (if the software is 64-bit compiled) and effectively execute 3 to 5 times faster on 64-bit than on 32-bit.
    • Some complex numerical analysis algorithms are limited in their precision by the errors that can creep in because not all floating point numbers can be accurately represented with a small number of bits. Creeping inaccuracies can lead to incorrect results, often leading to attempts to divide by zero, or to not identify two quantities as being identical for practical purposes. International Computers Limited added 128-bit support to the ICL 2900 Series in 1974 largely as a result of requests from the scientific community.
    The main disadvantage of 64-bit architectures is that relative to 32-bit architectures the same data occupies more space in memory (due to swollen pointers and possibly other types and alignment padding). This increases the memory requirements of a given process and can have implications for efficient processor cache utilization. Maintaining a partial 32-bit model is one way to handle this and is in general reasonably effective. In fact, the highly performance-oriented z/OS operating system takes this approach currently, requiring program code to reside in any number of 32-bit address spaces while data objects can (optionally) reside in 64-bit regions.
    Currently, most proprietary x86 software is compiled into 32-bit code, not 64-bit code, so it does not take advantage of the larger 64-bit address space or wider 64-bit registers and data paths on x86 processors, or the additional registers in 64-bit mode. However, users of most RISC platforms, and users of free or open source operating systems (where the source code is available for recompiling with a 64-bit compiler) have been able to use exclusive 64-bit computing environments for years. Not all such applications require a large address space nor manipulate 64-bit data items, so they wouldn't benefit from the larger address space or wider registers and data paths. The main advantage to 64-bit versions of such applications is the ability to access more registers in the x86-64 architecture.

    Software availability

    x86-based 64-bit systems sometimes lack equivalents to software that is written for 32-bit architectures. The most severe problem in Microsoft Windows is incompatible device drivers. Although most software can run in a 32-bit compatibility mode (also known as an emulation mode, e.g. Microsoft WoW64 Technology for IA64) or run in 32-bit mode natively (on AMD64), it is usually impossible to run a driver (or similar software) in that mode since such a program usually runs in between the OS and the hardware, where direct emulation cannot be employed. Because 64-bit drivers for most devices were not available until early 2007, using 64-bit Microsoft Windows operating system was considered impractical. However the trend is changing towards 64-bit computing as most manufacturers provide both 32-bit and 64-bit drivers nowadays. It should be noted that Linux/Unix operating systems do not have such problems with open source drivers that are already available for a 32-bit os, as 64 bit builds can be made from them.
    Because device drivers in operating systems with monolithic kernels, and in many operating systems with hybrid kernels, execute within the operating system kernel, it is possible to run the kernel as a 32-bit process while still supporting 64-bit user processes. This provides the memory and performance benefits of 64-bit for users without breaking binary compatibility with existing 32-bit device drivers, at the cost of some additional overhead within the kernel. This is the mechanism by which older versions of Mac OS X enables 64-bit processes while still supporting 32-bit device drivers.

    64-bit data models

    Converting application software written in a high-level language from a 32-bit architecture to a 64-bit architecture varies in difficulty. One common recurring problem is that some programmers assume that pointers have the same length as some other data type. These programmers assume they can transfer quantities between these data types without losing information. Those assumptions happen to be true on some 32-bit machines (and even some 16-bit machines), but they are no longer true on 64-bit machines. The C programming language and its descendant C++ make it particularly easy to make this sort of mistake. Differences between the C89 and C99 language standards also exacerbate the problem [11]
    To avoid this mistake in C and C++, the sizeof operator can be used to determine the size of these primitive types if decisions based on their size need to be made, both at compile- and run-time. Also, the <limits.h> header in the C99 standard, and numeric_limits class in <limits> header in the C++ standard, give more helpful info; sizeof only returns the size in chars. This used to be misleading, because the standards leave the definition of the CHAR_BIT macro, and therefore the number of bits in a char, to the implementations. However, except for those compilers targeting DSPs, "64 bits == 8 chars of 8 bits each" has become the norm.
    One needs to be careful to use the ptrdiff_t type (in the standard header <stddef.h>) for the result of subtracting two pointers; too much code incorrectly uses "int" or "long" instead. To represent a pointer (rather than a pointer difference) as an integer, use uintptr_t where available (it is only defined in C99, but some compilers otherwise conforming to an earlier version of the standard offer it as an extension).
    Neither C nor C++ define the length of a pointer, int, or long to be a specific number of bits. C99, however, stdint.h provides names for integer types with certain numbers of bits where those types are available.

    Specific data models

    In most programming environments on 32-bit machines, pointers, "int" types, and "long" types are all 32 bits wide.
    However, in many programming environments on 64-bit machines, "int" variables are still 32 bits wide, but "long"s and pointers are 64 bits wide. These are described as having an LP64 data model. Another alternative is the ILP64 data model in which all three data types are 64 bits wide, and even SILP64 where "short" variables are also 64 bits wide[citation needed]. However, in most cases the modifications required are relatively minor and straightforward, and many well-written programs can simply be recompiled for the new environment without changes. Another alternative is the LLP64 model, which maintains compatibility with 32-bit code by leaving both int and long as 32-bit. "LL" refers to the "long long" type, which is at least 64 bits on all platforms, including 32-bit environments.
    64-bit data models Data model short int long long long pointers Sample operating systems LLP64 16 32 32 64 64 Microsoft Win64 (X64/IA64) LP64 16 32 64 64 64 Most Unix and Unix-like systems (Solaris, Linux, etc.) ILP64 16 64 64 64 64 HAL SILP64 64 64 64 64 64  ?
    Many 64-bit compilers today use the LP64 model (including Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, and IBM z/OS native compilers). Microsoft's VC++ compiler uses the LLP64 model. The disadvantage of the LP64 model is that storing a long into an int may overflow. On the other hand, casting a pointer to a long will work. In the LLP model, the reverse is true. These are not problems which affect fully standard-compliant code but code is often written with implicit assumptions about the widths of integer types.
    Note that a programming model is a choice made on a per-compiler basis, and several can coexist on the same OS. However, the programming model chosen as the primary model for the OS API typically dominates.
    Another consideration is the data model used for drivers. Drivers make up the majority of the operating system code in most modern operating systems (although many may not be loaded when the operating system is running). Many drivers use pointers heavily to manipulate data, and in some cases have to load pointers of a certain size into the hardware they support for DMA. As an example, a driver for a 32-bit PCI device asking the device to DMA data into upper areas of a 64-bit machine's memory could not satisfy requests from the operating system to load data from the device to memory above the 4 gigabyte barrier, because the pointers for those addresses would not fit into the DMA registers of the device. This problem is solved by having the OS take the memory restrictions of the device into account when generating requests to drivers for DMA, or by using an IOMMU.
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Microsoft!
    If you want to be sure that your PC will be able to take advantage of increased memory and new hardware and software in the years ahead, a 64-bit PC is a good choice. If you run a lot of programs at once and switch back and forth between them often, a 64-bit PC can give you a more seamless, instantaneous response. And the more memory you have in your PC, the more programs you can run smoothly and simultaneously.
     
    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compare-editions/64-bit.aspx
    post edited by Freddie H - 2009/09/04 03:29:53


    -Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
    #13
    Freddie H
    Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 3618
    • Joined: 2007/09/21 06:07:40
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 03:47:58 (permalink)
    Today’s BRAINER!
     
    Your entire components in your computer are build and are made for NATIVE 64bit. CPU, Memories, GPU, chip-set, even the chip on the audio card are in NATIVE 64bit and so on!
    Of course it will benefit from using a 64bit OS and 64bit programs that all components in your computer are made and build for!
     
    Comparers
     
    A 32bit computer is a car running on 3 gears.
    A 64bit computer is a car running on 6 gears.
     
    Both have the same engine. What car do you think will drive fastest in km/h? The car on gear 3 or the car on 6 gear?
    The car on 6 gear of course. This is how 64bit computing work very easy basic explained.  
      
      
     
    MORE INFO for unbelievers!
     
     
     
     
    More memory than you can possibly count 
    In 32-bit computing, integer math uses 32-bit wide general-purpose registers. With 64-bit computing, each general-purpose register is 64-bits wide and can represent a much larger integer. High-level languages, such as C and C++, support 64-bit mathematical operations on 32-bit processors by splitting a 64-bit number across two 32-bit registers. The 64-bit integer types (such as int64_t, sometimes called "long long" on 32-bit systems) can be contained within a single register on a 64-bit machine. This register-width difference produces a substantial difference in resource requirements when performing 64-bit math, as Table 1 illustrates.
    Table 1. Resources required to load, add, and store two 64-bit integers
    Operation Resources on 32-bit processor Resources on 64-bit processor Effective improvement with 64-bit Load two 64-bit integers
    • Requires four (4) 32-bit registers to hold data
    • Requires 4 load instructions
    • Requires two (2) 64-bit registers to hold data
    • Requires 2 load instructions
    Reduced number of instructions to load data by one half and fewer registers consumed by one half Add two 64-bit integers
    • Requires 2 addition instructions; an add with carry and an extended to include the carry
    • Requires one addition instruction
    Reduced number of instructions by one half and reduced interlocking among instructions and carry status Store two 64-bit integers
    • Requires four (4) 32-bit registers to hold data
    • Requires 4 store instructions to save data
    • Requires two (2) 64-bit registers to hold data
    • Requires 2 store instructions to save data
    Reduced number of instructions to store data by one half and registers consumed by one half Total resources 10 instructions issued and 4 registers plus carry field 5 instructions issued and 2 registers used One half the instructions, less than one half the resources consumed
    Logical operations (AND, OR, XOR) also benefit from wider registers, since they can operate on a much larger data size. As a result, applications that involve the manipulation of huge data sets, such as document management and decision support, run much faster on a 64-bit system. Finally, 64-bit processors can drive 32-bit applications even faster, by handling more data per clock cycle than a 32-bit processor. Therefore, even apps that don't need to address memory beyond 4GB can benefit from 64-bit processing.
     
    post edited by Freddie H - 2009/09/04 04:07:47


    -Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
    #14
    Lanceindastudio
    Max Output Level: -31.5 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 4381
    • Joined: 2004/01/22 02:28:30
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 05:19:17 (permalink)
    statistics and documented results are 2 different things, but I must say, I am so ready to try 64 bit... havent gone there yet. will soon when I build an i7 machine and install the official release of Windows 7 ;)
    post edited by Lanceindastudio - 2009/09/04 05:21:39

    www.zupanovamusic.com
     
    My band ZupaNova EP out now! Get it at the site above!
     
    Asus P8Z77-V LE PLUS Motherboard   
    i3770k CPU , 16 gigs ram
    Echo Gina 3G
    Windows 7 64 bit, Sonar X3c 64 bit
    Lots of plugins and softsynths and one shot samples, loops
    Behringer Mon800
    Gauge ECM-87, MCA SP-1, Alesis AM51 , TLM-103
    Presonus Eureka, Avalon 737sp
    Mackie HR824's and matching subwoofer
    #15
    mudgel
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 7766
    • Joined: 2004/08/13 00:56:05
    • Location: Linton Victoria (Near Ballarat)
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 06:00:02 (permalink)
    At the beginning of this year I built a new computer. I wanted to go 'Bleeding edge' and benefit from the extra ram available.
    I dual boot WIN XP Pro SP3 & VISTA Ultimate x64 SP2. This was for redundancy incase 64 bit was too big a problem.

    On the x64 OS I have both the 32bit and 64 bit versions of SONAR running. Since my initial install I haven't used the WIN XP partition except to update plugins.

    I'm at the point now of reclaiming the XP partition and going solo with VISTA x64 SP2 until something better comes along. WIN 7 x64 looks promising and I may go there after SP1.

    Since SP2 for VISTA x64 there really is no practical difference in SONAR's performance compared to WIN XP SP3 latency wise and so I have stuck with VISTA 64 SP2. It is a really smooth operating system and only a few plugins wont work in Bitbridge so I use the 32 bit version of SONAR 8.3.1

    I have nothing but good things to say about VISTA x64 SP2.
    post edited by mudgel - 2009/09/04 06:01:46

    Mike V.   

    SONAR X3e x64 
    STUDIO Win8.1x64 

    ASUS P9X79 PRO 
    INTEL i7 E3930k

    RME FF800 x 2
    UAD 2 Quad 
    32GIG DDR3 1800 
    JBL2300 system 

    5TB SATA III Storage
    LOCATION HP DV8 18.4"
    Presonus studio Live 24.4.2 
    i7-720 8GIG DDR3 nVidia GT230M 2 X 500GIG SATA3 HDD
    WIN7x64
    #16
    Audiomax
    Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 176
    • Joined: 2009/08/27 05:59:48
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 07:10:54 (permalink)
    Go Freddei H!... man you could get a job as a journo! 

    I have to say as much as I love Sonar 64 bit, as I said to a friend the other day who asked exactly the same question...the only reason I would advise someone to go 64-bit right now is if they are using lots of soft synths and vsti's otherwise it's just not worth the financial outlay and grief.

    But hey if you've got the cash, lots of time and a masochistic bent go ahead and knock yourself out. Otherwise give it a couple of years and everything will be 64 bit anyway.

    LOL!

    AUDIOMAX

    Equipment: Sonar Producer X64, Reaper 64Bit, 2 x Intel Quadcore Q6600, Kingston HyperX RAM, Windows XP X64 Pro, RME HDSPe PCIe cards, S8 Active Monitors, NI Guitar Rig 4, Garritan Steinway, UAD-1, Amplitube Fender, Behringer SRC2496, Controller keyboard, Korg NanoKontrol.
      

    To mix inside the box you gotta think outside the square! 
    #17
    tyacko
    Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1190
    • Joined: 2007/01/06 07:20:16
    • Location: Pittsburgh, PA
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 08:16:32 (permalink)
    I use Sonar 32-bit on my Vista 64-bit (SP-2) OS image and it is amazing how well it performs.  As was said by Mike V., it performs as well as my old XP SP-3 image so I've ditched XP for Vista.  I have a dual-boot of the release candidate for Windows 7 32-bit, but that will be gone once the official release.  I'll install 64-bit Windows 7 on that image for my testing grounds.

    With Vista 64-bit SP2 I don't see a 50% performance improvement over XP as some have claimed.  I see what I'll call more than acceptable performance for my daily work.

    Tom

    Our SoundClick page

    ASUS P9X79 PRO, Intel i7 3930K, 32gig RAM G.SKILL Ripjaws, RME Babyface USB, GeForce GTX 550 Ti, UAD-2, Intel 510 120gig SSD Drive, Win7 64-bit, Sonar X1E 64-bit, Studio One V2 
    #18
    Jimbo 88
    Max Output Level: -62 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1432
    • Joined: 2007/03/19 12:27:17
    • Location: Elmhurst, Illinois USA
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 09:29:28 (permalink)
    My 2 cents...I now have 2 computors up and running, one 32 bit xp and one 64 bit vista.   I am not a computor guy,  just a working musician who would be just as happy with pencil and paper.  Don't ask me to give performance stats,  I have no idea how that is done (or care).

     64 Bit on Vista is great.  I can load tons of soft synths- creating highest quality Orchestrations or electronic music on one computor with no problem.  I am starting to really like vista.  I have an occasional problem with teleporter that seems to require rebooting--not during use of Sonar, but after exiting or loading a file.

    32 bit is very stable and i can see if you are mostly recording audio tracks and not loading up ram with soft synths,  it might be best to stick with 32 bit.  On the other hand,  I can see 32 bit being outdated all together in the not so distant future.

    If you want to be cutting edge musically go 64 bit.  If you want less hassles and just record yourself and your songs,  32 bit is fine for now. 
    #19
    CJaysMusic
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 30265
    • Joined: 2006/10/28 01:51:41
    • Location: Miami - Fort Lauderdale
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 10:35:09 (permalink)
    Freddie, None of that shows or says that i will get a 50% increase if i switch to vista64. Like many others have stated that have Vista64. They may see a 5% to 10% increase in CPU performance, but 50% is not happening.
     
    I want real users saying i got a 50% increase in CPU performance. That stuff you wrote obove is just words. None of that says I will get a 50% CPU performance increase. all i want is facts, not the way 64bit works.
    cj


    www.audio-mastering-mixing.com - A Professional Worldwide Audio Mixing & Mastering Studio, Providing Online And Attended Sessions. Rated # 1 on Top20Sites For Audio Mastering.
     
     
    #20
    Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
    Cakewalk Staff
    • Total Posts : 2881
    • Joined: 2003/11/03 17:22:50
    • Location: Boston, MA, USA
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 10:42:18 (permalink)
    There should be zero difference in sound quality working on a 32 bit application vs a 64 bit application. The "bitness" here refers to memory addressing not audio resolution. Both our 32 bit applications and 64 bit applications can process audio at 64 bit resolution so you will get identical quality in either.
     
    The main advantages of running a 64 bit OS are:
    • Access to a huge amount of RAM beyond 4GB per process (upto 128GB in Vista X64).
    • The next version of SONAR will support using more than 2GB of memory for your 32 bit VST plugins. It does this by running multiple 32 bit bitbridge instances. This gives you the ability to run with a virtually limitless number of 32 bit VST's. This can be a big advantage over running the 32 bit version if you have many memory hungry VST's.
    • Most new computers available these days are 64 bit capable
    • The extra registers available to a 64 bit OS allow many operations to be done faster/more efficiently
    • 64 bit computing is finally mainstream. It is progressively getting harder to find new machines that have a 32 bit OS installed.
    • You can run both 64 bit applications AND 32 bit apps on a 64 bit OS. Not so with a 32 bit OS. You can simultaneously install the 32 bit version of SONAR alongside the 64 bit version of SONAR. They will coexist with no problems.
    • Even running 32 bit applications on a 64 bit OS can have some benefits. e.g. a 32 bit app under Vista X64 can in theory address more memory than a 32 bit app under a 32 bit OS. Also you can run multiple 32 bit processes that each can access 2GB or more of RAM.
     
    post edited by Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk] - 2009/09/04 10:44:04

    Noel Borthwick
    CTO, Cakewalk 
    blog postsminidump / Google+
    #21
    Freddie H
    Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 3618
    • Joined: 2007/09/21 06:07:40
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 10:44:30 (permalink)
    Noel has right as always!
    That rap it up...

    Regards
    Freddie



    post edited by Freddie H - 2009/09/04 10:46:26


    -Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
    #22
    thesongshop@yahoo.com
    Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 143
    • Joined: 2003/11/08 10:08:40
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 10:46:22 (permalink)
    Lanceindastudio


    statistics and documented results are 2 different things, but I must say, I am so ready to try 64 bit... havent gone there yet. will soon when I build an i7 machine and install the official release of Windows 7 ;)


    +1
    i'll wait until the next version-then assess the benefits then-i'm not rockin this 32 bit apple cart that runs smooth

    not to mention the fact that not all 3rd party developers are there yet
    #23
    thesongshop@yahoo.com
    Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 143
    • Joined: 2003/11/08 10:08:40
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 10:47:02 (permalink)
    thesongshop@yahoo.com


    Lanceindastudio


    statistics and documented results are 2 different things, but I must say, I am so ready to try 64 bit... havent gone there yet. will soon when I build an i7 machine and install the official release of Windows 7 ;)


    +1
    i'll wait until the next version-then assess the benefits then-i'm not rockin this 32 bit apple cart that runs smooth

    not to mention the fact that not all 3rd party developers are 64 bit there yet



    #24
    CJaysMusic
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 30265
    • Joined: 2006/10/28 01:51:41
    • Location: Miami - Fort Lauderdale
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 11:05:42 (permalink)
    Noel has right as always! That rap it up...

    Yes he does, and he never said I will get a 50% increase in CPU performance from switching form Vista or Xp32 to vista 64. That should rap it up....  I like you Fred...
    Cj


    www.audio-mastering-mixing.com - A Professional Worldwide Audio Mixing & Mastering Studio, Providing Online And Attended Sessions. Rated # 1 on Top20Sites For Audio Mastering.
     
     
    #25
    bitflipper
    01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
    • Total Posts : 19192
    • Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
    • Location: Everett, WA USA
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 11:05:54 (permalink)
    Beta must be wrapping up if we're seeing Noel dropping by again...


    All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. 

    My Stuff
    #26
    CJaysMusic
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 30265
    • Joined: 2006/10/28 01:51:41
    • Location: Miami - Fort Lauderdale
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 11:07:02 (permalink)
    Yea, it seems like he has a little time on his hands. The update should almot be ret to go purdy soon


    www.audio-mastering-mixing.com - A Professional Worldwide Audio Mixing & Mastering Studio, Providing Online And Attended Sessions. Rated # 1 on Top20Sites For Audio Mastering.
     
     
    #27
    bapu
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 61334
    • Joined: 2006/11/25 21:23:28
    • Location: Thousand Oakshire, CA (portal to Grzylyrg)
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 11:19:36 (permalink)
    CJaysMusic


    Yea, it seems like he has a little time on his hands. The update should almot be ret to go purdy soon

    Avail 9/9/9?
     
    #28
    raisindot
    Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 41
    • Joined: 2004/02/19 14:21:13
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 12:26:36 (permalink)
    Noel--
     
    Thank you for your excellent answer. I'm just convinced to use the 64-bit version since I've got 6gig or RAM and might as well make the most of it.  
     
    Now here's the question, which I had in my original post: If I want to install the 64-bit version, do I need to totally uninstall my original 32-bit installation? What about the all other P8 disks (Dimension Pro, Beatscape, etc.) I installed after the initial 32-bit installation, and what about the 8.3.1. updated (program and added content) I downloaded and installed from the site? Does all/part of this stuff need to be removed? Just want to know whether this can be down in a half hour or if I need to devote another two hours to all of this.
     
    Jeff
     
     
    #29
    bitflipper
    01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
    • Total Posts : 19192
    • Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
    • Location: Everett, WA USA
    • Status: offline
    Re:Sonar Producer 8: Huge differences between 32 vs. 64 versions? 2009/09/04 14:11:05 (permalink)
    If I want to install the 64-bit version, do I need to totally uninstall my original 32-bit installation?

    No.


    All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. 

    My Stuff
    #30
    Page: 12 > Showing page 1 of 2
    Jump to:
    © 2014 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1