Single x64 machine system performance report [with explanations]

[Vatroslav]

Conclusion

Well, x64 is here. There's is simply no more doubt about it and with Windows XP x64 SP2 it is about as stable as any system I have ever worked on.

After conducting all these tests, the obvious question that some of you have probably asked yourself is - if I can get an average 120-piece assembly with less than 1GB of total sample data, why would I need a x64 system at all?

Well, it's a very good question, but the answer can be twofold.

First of all, from everything that I have tried by now (installing all of the audio software at my disposal and trying to run it, running a massive template, tweaking different settings for different performance test purposes) I can peacefully proclaim Windows XP x64 SP2 as platform that will work just as good as its x32 younger brother.

So in the end, it doesn't really matter much if you are going for this version or in termsof stability and compatibility and it is obvious that the whole x64 horror stories hype still going around is either a bunch of unintentional misinforming or Vista-based reality (the latter is more probable).

If your usual template means massive messaging you wish to perform on a single machine system, you will obviously need a x64 powerhouse system. Whether it's a server-class architecture or a consumer-level assembly, you will need resources to make it click. If you're aiming at workflow and simplicity, you will need a x64 system.

With the new era of x64 multitimbral virtual players like PLAY, you need a x64 OS regardless of the amount of physical memory in your memory modules.

If none of the above applies to you, you may not need a x64 enviroment to work in (yet).

But again, at the end of the day, considering the obvious top-notch programming on both MS and application developers side, whether you are running your audio on XP x32 or XP x64 platform could not matter less compatibility wise, which is without doubt professional community's most important concern.

What you do need if you want high-performance computing in a x32 enviroment, on the other hand, are the drive structure and processing units that are able to support your musical ideas without a workflow compromise.

Which brings us to one of the most important conclusions we can make from all of the tests conducted - contrary to the popular word going around, the computing power on the side of the processing unit is a lot more important in a streaming audio system than it is given credit for. As a matter of fact, CPU power if likely the key to a working single x64 machine audio system.

If your goal is to stay in the MIDI world from the very first note of entry all the way to the final mixdown to audio on a single machine (whether x32 or x64), you will need processing power that will be able to execute under very low latency values.

On the other hand, if you have no problems with audio (input or event) seriously laging behind the visuals, it is highly unlikely you will experience a clash of system resources at any time, whatever your music might be doing.

Of course, all this is just speculations, but considering that computer music is just mathematics in terms of performance potentials, some general assumptions can be made.

Again, it is up to you to asses the requirements of your future system if there is one in your plans and the level of comfort at which you want to work at, but based on some of these tests, I think you are able to make some judgements regarding what you need for your music and what might work for you, and what will be an unnecessary investement.

So, that's it.

I will continue reporting my findings with some of my future works and posting results on this thread, and it would be great if I wouldn't be alone in this. That is, if those of you on single x64 machine systems would join in with your own experiences with different system configuration settings that you tried and describe the system behavior at different conditions and attach some screenshots and the music piece in question.

I will try testing other EWQL libs in future tests, alone and combined together, and we'll see what my system has to tell us.

Thanks to everyone who has had patience to read this, I hope it was helpful and sorry for and overlong thread.

If you have any questions or anything, feel free to PM me, IM me, e-mail, myspace me or whatever me anytime.

(BTW, to those of you wondering - this took five days and about 50 hours to write - yes, I am tired. ).

[MellotronGhost]

wow - hats off for such an in depth report!

now, let's do this again on a mac and logic when the play orchestra is out... :-)

[Aetius33]

Good stuff....reassurance of my upgrading to a x64 system

Thanks dude

DW

[ewkarl7777]

Thank you for taking the trouble to post all of this.

I will re-read this several times to make sure I understand all of the information.

[persentio]

Thanks Vatro! Printed everything out to study!

[Jamtheguitarman]

This is the best article ive ever read regarding the technicalities of sample-computing.

It should be published in all the computer music magazines.


Thanks very much.

[nostaller]

yaeh man .... thats the kind of "dream Post" I could never have dreamed of ....
THANKS so MUch for the Work....

Cheers, Nostaller

[nostaller]

Originally Posted by nostaller

yaeh man .... thats the kind of "dream Post" I could never have dreamed of ....
THANKS so MUch for the Work....

Cheers, Nostaller

PS: By the way - When did you have time to gain your COMPOSING AND TECHNICAL skills that far at only 25 ? ! ? ! ?

[tys]

Dear Vatroslav

Amazing work - and congratulations with your new system

Especially your hardware considerations were very helpful.

Mathias

[rainmain]

Dude, write a book. Seriously. Awesome.