With correctly-written 64-bit applications (not just re-linked 32-bit versions), you get access to more than 4GB (usefully 3GB) of main memory and almost unlimited file sizes on disk.

There is no particular speed advantage of running 64-bit programs over 32-bit, unless the 32-bit version of the application used a lot of 64-bit data (floating doubles, for example), or was actually a 64-bit program linked to run in a 32-bit environment.

The downside of going to 64-bit is application bloat - programs become huge, taking up more disk space, needing more memory and taking longer to load.

i assume you mean 64 bit OS.

at this point in time very little unless using VSL or EW Play.

all sequencers have a sort of "bitbridge" (64 to 32bit translator)
so any time a 32bit plugin/VST/VSTI is used it reduces you back to a 32 bit enviroment (cant use past 4gig ram).

Scott
ADK

Oh, I see. I thought the processor was 64 bit in the new machines. Its not the computer that is a 64 bit, its the OS that is?

So for an example then... Sonar 8 runs on a 64-bit, OS? Which could be run on an older PC if I upped the OS to Vista correct?

What is a true 64-bit, 8 core digital audio workstation then?

The chip architecture and the OS have to be different.
64-bit registries and what not.

You need a 64-bit computer to run 64-bit operating systems (XP64 or Vista64). However, 64-bit computers can run in 32-bit mode, so you could load XP Pro or Vista32 on to 64-bit hardware and it would run just like a 32-bit system of the same clock speed, or maybe a little faster due to the wide memory path.

You can't run a 64-bit OS on 32-bit hardware, and hence 64-bit applications will not run on 32-bit hardware.

All of the newer processors (AMD64 and Intel) are 64bit processors now and most of the newer motherboards are capable of addressing memory in 64 bit blocks. Being able to move 64bits of information around at speeds of 800Mhz FSB or higher instead of 32bits means theoretically moving that info twice as fast as a 32bit processor, motherboard, memory or application. Check out the Mobo sites like ASUS for the latest specs and RAM space available for a 64bit machine. There are a lot of choices out there!

AKAudio is correct....the problem right now is there are few "applications" out there that have been written or re-written in 64bit code that takes advantage of that speed. Most applications that claim they are 64bit merely take two 32bit blocks and move them together in a 64bit block rather than one 64bit block at a time...
Vista (64 bit version) does have certain parts that execute in 64bit but it also has older routines in it that still execute in 32 bit mode.
As you know most of the better running more stable versions of Vista are the 32bit versions rather than the 64bit versions.
There are still alot of manufacturers catching up to writing driver routines in 64 bit so this is part of the problem with going there....there are still bugs on newly written routines that have not been "vetted".
Overall this is really about the machine and its ability to record streams of audio at a fast enough speed to capture it accurately and reliably...
This is all about "throughput" and latency. The next machines will be 128bit processors and so on and so on....
Eventually we will get to cheap memory (256GB of RAM would be cool) and maybe instead of 192Khz 24 bit sampling rates we can get to 784Khz with 96 bit sampling rates with latency of 3 nanoseconds....
not sure if my ears will be able to tell the difference but I guess we'll find out....

Boswell wrote: You need a 64-bit computer to run 64-bit operating systems (XP64 or Vista64). However, 64-bit computers can run in 32-bit mode, so you could load XP Pro or Vista32 on to 64-bit hardware and it would run just like a 32-bit system of the same clock speed, or maybe a little faster due to the wide memory path.

You can't run a 64-bit OS on 32-bit hardware, and hence 64-bit applications will not run on 32-bit hardware.

Ah, thats what I was thinking.. Thanks all, I'm understanding it better.

I noticed that Sonar 8 does not support XP x64
anyone know why that is?

I'm not even interested in thinking about 64-bit. Not yet. You look at Vista. Just how many of those darn fool operating systems have that title moniker of Vista? Too many! Some are simply 32-bit rehash's of XP 2005 media center edition. And most software companies worth their salt like Adobe, Digidesign & others don't/won't support that 32-bit piece of cluster crap. And I know a lot of people running 32-bit versions of Vista Home standard something or other? Give me XP Pro and a good working 32-bit machine and I'm happy.

The 64-bit thing will come to fruition within the next few years. But for now, it's like owning a fuel-cell powered vehicle. Really cool if you can find a gas station and how much do they charge per puff?? Why can't we just figure out how to recycle & use the methane that's all around us. Under the covers, etc.? If we had plastic sheets, our cars would be topped off by morning!

Thinking under the box
Ms. Remy Ann David

I agree with RemyRAD...

XP Pro works very well now and is a lot like Win2K in terms of stability and reliability. People will remember when Win2K was the stable platform for PC's and XP was the scary OS....now XP Pro has become the seasoned veteran the way Win2K was back in its day....

Vista in its 32 or 64 bit flavor has turned into a problem with Microsoft and they have already started moving into Windows 7 which will be out next........when who knows, 64bit of course....bug free?....maybe this time but don't bet on it...
Commercial use of Vista in the workplace is still taking a back seat to XP Pro!....IT people don't want to screw with Vista right now and buying new Word and Excel applications in 64 bit doesn't offer anything new beyond a slight speed increase and efficiency which doesn't out weigh cost....

I think the 64 bit platform is definitely the future (like fuel cell cars should be by now) but unless you buy a complete package system from somebody who will support and stand behind their system....be prepared to spend time reloading software and drivers and tweaking......

Some people just want to do the artistic work
Some people just want to play with electronics...

djmukilteo wrote: I noticed that Sonar 8 does not support XP x64
anyone know why that is?

Sonar has been 64bit OS compatible for two years or more so the early adopters HAD to use XP64. Cakewalk do not officially support XP64 as they have made many changes to encompass Vista 64. Apparently it will still run quite happily on XP64 and I'm pretty sure one of the staff indicated he was using it on XP64.

Am I right in thinking that M$ have dropped XP64 support? That might explain the official stance.

To the OP, other posters have explained about 64 bit OS and Applications but you should also be aware that even with 32 bit everything you can still mix with 64 bit (Floating Point) resolution in Sonar which I have slowly become convinced is worthwhile.

64 bit operating systems will be the norm in the near future as their 32 bit counterparts will be phased out.

Even though there really is not much if any 64 bit software right now, you can still benefit from a 64 bit system if one or some of your applications is Large Address Aware.