PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

what is a 64 bit processor?
AMD athlon has a 64 bit 3000+ processor, what I read about it it seems to be the newest superfast technology.

does it work for CW boards?
is it any good for us DAW users?
is intel comming with this too?
can Asus affort to screw their reputation making a mobo (K8V deluxe) for this technology?

in other words I can get a good deal now on a system with this processor and mobo should I consider this or stick to my old plan an buy asus p4800p with an intel processor and chipset?

regards
TERRANOVA-AMSTERDAM

From what I understand on the subject - 64-bit is the future, but not the present, yet. What I mean is, that there isn't any software around yet that takes advantage of the 64-bit capabilities on the new AMD-processors so the whole technology is still in it's infancy, adn you want gain anything from having a 64-bit system untill the software starts to support this new technology.
The smart thing about the new AMD 64-bit processor is that it runs both 32-bit and 64-bit applications (when these arrives).

Yes - intel will come with their own 64-bit processor at some point, but it doesn't seem likely that it will be in the near future (12-18 months) though.

I'm going for an intel-based (32-bit) system myself because the 64-bit technology isn't matured yet, and I just need a stable computer for my Creamwaresetup and music making.

I hope this helps and I hope that others with more knowledge on this subject than me, will tune in on this thread as well, as I'm interested in the new posibilities in these new processors as well.

Cheers!
Thomas

64 bit is just marketing hype - it makes sense for certain server and database applications, specially if you consider the vast amount of data spread over the internet.

But for processing power like we need for audio it's nonsense, it even slows things down.
64 bit is an adressing mode, it doesn't only mean you CAN adress a larger memory space - it means you HAVE to.
And the number '1' is now a bit with 63 leading zeroes

For precision it is totally irrelevant. Every old math copro from the 80s processes 64, 80 or 96 bits.

In fact there do exist better even concepts with optimized CPUs for certain applications, one of the most interesting is to use the processing power of graph CPUs.
Those are usually highly pipelined and parallelized with extremely high data throughput AND have access to a huge segment (onboard) of fast memory not affected by the main CPU (read: the OS).

Nevertheless the industry will promote 64 bit adressing as it's promising the next big deal. It has always worked that way. You'll buy a twice as 'powerful' machine which eats up at least 75% of it's additional capabilities for administration.
On desktop machines - not in transaction servers of course

cheers, Tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2003-12-17 15:58 ]</font>

I'm not sure if I understand it well, but if this is related to the bit depth as well, I think that I don't even want more bits right now. The sound we can get with a new system processign only 32 bits is soooo good, and you will very hardly need anything else. I don't see which HI-FI equipment will be alble to reproduce the subtlities of such detalied sound as the one that would come from a 64 bit application. And we have also to think about file zise.

I think you are in fact talking about something else, related but different, but this is a point too, which is true. We don't need more bit depth right now.

Surely 64 bit is the future. I wouldn't get it now though. One day we ought to be operating with 48 tracks of 96 KHZ audio. I'm sure that you could hear the difference clearly. The dynamic range would be pretty amazing.

A 64 bit dynamic range would really just be overkill. 32 bit is actually more range than any human can handle.

the software you use must be written for 64 bit.

2^64=1.8446 * 10^19
also the amount of steps between a normal 32bit signal would be 32 bits (2^32=4,294,967,296). an astronomical difference in resolution.



j9k

I think there will be no difference between a sound signal of 32 bits and one at 64 bits due to noise produced by low end elements (speakers, amplifiers, mixing gears ...), the evolution has to be frequency rate and not bit depth to avoid this aliasing and the use of anti-aliasing technics. (32 bits at 196kHz better than 64 bits at 96Khz)

And I think that the microprocessor doesn't influe the sound signal bit depth, it's the sound card itself.
But it might be good for having new generation of native VST plug-ins.

Let me add to this thread.., that we may even be viewing a really strange step backwards my friends.., you've probably heard about Merging Technologies (www.merging.com) with their Piramix System.. or may be you've heard about the new DSD/SACD technology (Direct Stream Digital)/Super Audio CD.

Well if you haven't.. YOU'LL BE SURPRISED!!!

"DSD is the technology used to record and produce audio content on the SACD. DSD is a 1-bit representation of the audio waveform with 2.8224MHZ of sampling. This allows SACD to achieve its unprecedented audio quality allowing it to reproduce audio better than any other digital or analog technology. ... DSD simply removes all the filters and records the audio directly in its 1-bit, 64x over-sampled delta sigma modulated form. Using negative feedback, if the input waveform, accumulated over one sampling period, rises above the value accumulated in the negative feedback loop during previous samples, the converter outputs a digital 1. If the waveform falls relative to the accumulated value, a digital 0 is output. As a result, full possitive waveforms will be all 1s. Full negative waveforms will be all 0s. Alternating 1s and 0s will represent the 0 point.".

This is what they claim is a much better system than the multi bit systems we all know:



An interesting and short PDF is: http://www.merging.com/download/dsd1.pdf

So I guess the amount of bits it's really not important as once we thought.
Of course all the algorithms for effects and processing will have to be re-written, cause the logic for DSD is completely different. Go figure when that will happen.

snoopy.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: snoopy4ever on 2003-12-18 10:05 ]</font>

All though I find the additional info interesting, I believe this trhead was a question about 64-bit CPU's not 64-bit audio.....

Thomas

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: petal on 2003-12-18 10:13 ]</font>

I think what the Opteron processors will bring to our tables is incredible scalability and an incredibly wide bus. Me thinks a mass of MVs will be possible on this bad boy. And I'm told that the architecture changes and large 1MB cache (512k for the 64FX chips) will allow more complicated and dynamic processing, allowing more detail and depth out of tones. It still has an operating system and services to run, so I don't think our beloved SHARCS have been outdone, but for sure, it will allow us all to do just a little bit more.

I'm super stoked to see what they do with the laptops. Apparently, they've got A64 mobile chips scaled down in size and power requirements so that it might be possible to do dual-chips and still keep battery power and heat down. Dunno bout noise tho.

Sam

On 2003-12-18 10:12, petal wrote:
All though I find the additional info interesting, I believe this trhead was a question about 64-bit CPU's not 64-bit audio.....

Thomas

Exactly Thomas!!.. That was my point.., cause some people are confusing the CPU bit length implies some enhance on audio quality, so the Piramix aproach de-mistifies that idea.

My 2.03 cents.

Yes I know the software has to be made for the CPU to take advantage of the 64 bits. What I was getting at was that it will be more stable and handle more data without crashing, assuming that hard drives get faster as they now are with SATA.

On 2003-12-18 10:12, petal wrote:
All though I find the additional info interesting, I believe this trhead was a question about 64-bit CPU's not 64-bit audio.....

Thomas

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: petal on 2003-12-18 10:13 ]</font>

Finally someone who get's it.



People, no offense, but Petal is right, 64bit CPU caculations is something completeley different form "64 bit" audio recordings.

Regards
Ronald