21 Mar
2005
21 Mar
'05
5:30 a.m.
Hi,
When encoding wav files to flac (simply with flac *.wav) some files get
corrupted.
When decoding them, the corrupted ones (about 3 out of 10, always the same
ones when retrying) throw a warning: "MD5 signature mismatch". Those
corrupted files have often (but not always) a loud 'scratch' somewhere in
them, of about 1/10s length. The scratch is also very well visible when
opening the decoded flac in e.g. Audacity.
I'm using flac 1.1.1. I have no other problems with my hardware/disks etc.
only when using flac.
What could I be doing wrong, or are there really problems with the flac
encoder?
thanks,
Wilbert
--
Wilbert Berendsen (www.xs4all.nl/~wbsoft, www.kde.nl, www.kerklied.net)
* Take back the web: http://www.mozilla-europe.org/nl/products/firefox/
* Free as in speech and beer: http://opencd.dischosting.nl/
21 Mar
21 Mar
5:53 a.m.
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:30:18 +0100
Wilbert Berendsen <wbsoft(a)xs4all.nl> wrote:
What could I be doing wrong, or are there really
problems with the flac
encoder?
Anything is possible. Would you be able to make one of the source
wav files (ie before encoding) available on the web somewhere?
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nospam(a)mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"I could never learn to use C++, because of the completely
overwhelming desire to redesign the language every time I tried
to use it, but this is the normal, healthy reaction to C++."
-- Erik Naggum
7:04 a.m.
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:52:54PM +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:30:18 +0100
Wilbert Berendsen <wbsoft(a)xs4all.nl> wrote:
Try updating flac to version 1.1.2 first. Also try using flac's verification
options when encoding.
--
Tapio
What could I be doing wrong, or are there really
problems with the flac
encoder?
Anything is possible. Would you be able to make one of the source
wav files (ie before encoding) available on the web somewhere? 
12:39 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
Hello,
I'm considering buying an AMD64 computer. Does anyone have any comments
on using Linux audio apps on the AMD64? I would want to use JACK, MusE,
ams, and lots more.
Thanks for any input.
1:43 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
micromoog <micromoog(a)cox.net> writes:
I'm considering buying an AMD64 computer. Does
anyone have any
comments on using Linux audio apps on the AMD64? I would want to use
JACK, MusE, ams, and lots more.
Very nice machine.
If you have less than 3GB of real memory, you might as well run it in
32-bit mode (i386). There should be no problems.
64-bit mode (x86_64) should work for most things. I haven't tried it
myself, but you will probably see a few problems here and there.
JACK supports both i386 and x86_64, but not connecting both 32 and
64-bit clients in a single server session. That won't happen any time
soon. You might need a recent CVS version for x86_64, to pick up a
bug fix for some bogus compiler optimization options.
--
joq
22 Mar
22 Mar
6:21 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:46:58 -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
micromoog <micromoog(a)cox.net> writes:
Do you have any experience of AMD64 in 32bit mode? Do you still get all
the instruction set goodness? I've been considering one of these when I
get round to upgrading my studio machine, and clearly 32bit mode will be
less memory bound, so faster in general, but I'm not sure if you loose any
of the other benefits.
- Steve
I'm considering buying an AMD64 computer.
Does anyone have any
comments on using Linux audio apps on the AMD64? I would want to use
JACK, MusE, ams, and lots more.
Very nice machine.
If you have less than 3GB of real memory, you might as well run it in
32-bit mode (i386). There should be no problems.
1:06 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
Steve Harris <S.W.Harris(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> writes:
Do you have any experience of AMD64 in 32bit mode? Do
you still get all
the instruction set goodness? I've been considering one of these when I
get round to upgrading my studio machine, and clearly 32bit mode will be
less memory bound, so faster in general, but I'm not sure if you loose any
of the other benefits.
I recently got a new AMD64 3000+ (90nm) machine, which I am running
(so far) in 32bit mode. Not a lot of mileage on it yet. But, it runs
fast and is much quieter than my older 1800+ XP system. I like it. :-)
I'll probably experiment some with 64bit mode later on, mainly for
software developement and testing. It's only got 1GB of main memory
right now, so I see no compelling need for bigger pointers.
--
joq
21 Mar
21 Mar
2:11 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
I have an amd64 running in 64 bit mode. There honestly isn't much
reason to get a 64 if you are going to run in 32 bit mode...They are
way more expensive than the 32 bit counterparts and don't offer enough
extra in 32 bit mode.
In 64 bit mode there are some issues with audio applications. Some
instabilities and strange behaviors. For instance ardour does odd
things and sometimes freezes when you close it. Jack then thinks
ardour is still running when you try and start it again...don't know
which is having the bug.
So, if you want to build an audio machine I would not necissarily get
an AMD64. In fact I have recently been thinking of replacing mine
with a 32 so it works better.
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:39:27 -0500, micromoog <micromoog(a)cox.net> wrote:
Hello,
I'm considering buying an AMD64 computer. Does anyone have any comments
on using Linux audio apps on the AMD64? I would want to use JACK, MusE,
ams, and lots more.
Thanks for any input.
2:41 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
I have an amd64 running in 64 bit mode. There
honestly isn't much
reason to get a 64 if you are going to run in 32 bit mode...They are
way more expensive than the 32 bit counterparts and don't offer enough
extra in 32 bit mode.
FWIW, I strongly disagree. You get much better performance per clock on a
64-bit machine even when running in 32-bit simply due to chip architecture
improvements including SSE2 among other things, and the price should not be
that different when compared with the 32-bit offering (as long as you don't
go for the FX stuff). Also, heat dissipation as well as battery life (if
considering laptop) is definitely a plus when compared with Pentium4
offering. Pentium-M processors are also nice but also generally more
expensive.
I've been using the eMachines (now Gateway) M68xxx series with 32-bit Linux
and have practically abandoned using my desktop altogether.
Best wishes,
Ivica Ico Bukvic, composer & multimedia sculptor
http://meowing.ccm.uc.edu/~ico/
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005
3:16 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:41:41 -0500, Ivica Ico Bukvic <ico(a)fuse.net> wrote:
I am of course not talking about Intel processors, which are always
way overpriced, when I compare price between 64bit and 32bit. Maybe
the prices of 64 AMDs has gone down considerably but when I bought
mine the price was at least 5x greater than a 32 bit at the same
speed.
BTW, I am pretty sure the SSE2 registers are only available in 64bit
mode. I used the amd64 as my target platform in my os "design" for
college. If I recall correctly the SSE2 registers are one of many
things that become unavailable in 32bit legacy mode (the mode used
when you run a 32 bit OS), and this includes the expanded memory
addressing. In compatability mode, where the os is 64bit but the app
is 32, they might be available. I could have my mode names
reversed...
In short, when you run the 64bit processor as a 32bit processor you
loose almost all of the enhancements made in the new design. You
probably actually have better features with an actual 32 bit processor
than you do with a 64 in 32 mode.
I have an
amd64 running in 64 bit mode. There honestly isn't much
reason to get a 64 if you are going to run in 32 bit mode...They are
way more expensive than the 32 bit counterparts and don't offer enough
extra in 32 bit mode.
FWIW, I strongly disagree. You get much better performance per clock on a
64-bit machine even when running in 32-bit simply due to chip architecture
improvements including SSE2 among other things, and the price should not be
that different when compared with the 32-bit offering (as long as you don't
go for the FX stuff). Also, heat dissipation as well as battery life (if
considering laptop) is definitely a plus when compared with Pentium4
offering. Pentium-M processors are also nice but also generally more
expensive. 
4:11 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 10:11:48AM -0800, Noah Roberts wrote:
I have an amd64 running in 64 bit mode. There
honestly isn't much
reason to get a 64 if you are going to run in 32 bit mode...They are
way more expensive than the 32 bit counterparts and don't offer enough
extra in 32 bit mode.
I also considered going to 64 bit. What flavor of linux are you using? I
know you can't run 32 bit and 64 bit applications on the same machine.
That is unless you have both the 32 bit and 64 bit libc installed. That
seems confusing as if you are just asking for trouble. I am wondering if
gentoo would be the best bet for amd64. I am currently using debian but
I don't think that debian has ported all their packackes over to 64 yet.
I guess I would have to look to see what packages are there before
switching to gentoo. I have nothing against gentoo or anything. I just
like how fast apt is compared to portage.
Thanks,
Jeremiah
7:36 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
jjbenham(a)chicagoguitar.com (Jeremiah Benham) writes:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 10:11:48AM -0800, Noah Roberts
wrote:
Not really. You usually solve this issue by either creating a 64-bit
chroot in a 32-bit base system or a 32-bit chroot in a 64-bit base
system. These chroots can be very useful since some apps just don't
work in 64-bit mode yet. We are using this method at work to make
32-bit commercial apps run on our 64-bit x84_64 machines, and it
works very well. I wouldn't call it confusing. Its actually very logical
as soon as you start to grasp the chroot concept.
--
CYa,
Mario | Debian Developer <URL:http://debian.org/>
.''`. | Get my public key via finger mlang(a)db.debian.org
: :' : | 1024D/7FC1A0854909BCCDBE6C102DDFFC022A6B113E44
`. `'
`-
I have an amd64 running in 64 bit mode. There
honestly isn't much
reason to get a 64 if you are going to run in 32 bit mode...They are
way more expensive than the 32 bit counterparts and don't offer enough
extra in 32 bit mode.
I also considered going to 64 bit. What flavor of linux are you using? I
know you can't run 32 bit and 64 bit applications on the same machine.
That is unless you have both the 32 bit and 64 bit libc installed. That
seems confusing as if you are just asking for trouble.
8:26 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
I also
considered going to 64 bit. What flavor of linux are you using? I
know you can't run 32 bit and 64 bit applications on the same machine.
That is unless you have both the 32 bit and 64 bit libc installed. That
seems confusing as if you are just asking for trouble.
Not really. You usually solve this issue by either creating a 64-bit
chroot in a 32-bit base system or a 32-bit chroot in a 64-bit base
system. These chroots can be very useful since some apps just don't
work in 64-bit mode yet. We are using this method at work to make
32-bit commercial apps run on our 64-bit x84_64 machines, and it
works very well. I wouldn't call it confusing. Its actually very logical
as soon as you start to grasp the chroot concept.
9:26 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
Noah Roberts <roberts.noah(a)gmail.com> writes:
Minor correction:
You can't run 64 bit executables in a 32 bit environment. The kernel
must be running in 64 bit mode.
Yeah, but you can use a 64-bit kernel to boot a 32-bit base system and then
use a 64-bit chroot... But usually, you do it the other way round.
--
CYa,
Mario
I also considered going to 64 bit. What flavor of
linux are you using? I
know you can't run 32 bit and 64 bit applications on the same machine.
That is unless you have both the 32 bit and 64 bit libc installed. That
seems confusing as if you are just asking for trouble.
Not really. You usually solve this issue by either creating a 64-bit
chroot in a 32-bit base system or a 32-bit chroot in a 64-bit base
system. These chroots can be very useful since some apps just don't
work in 64-bit mode yet. We are using this method at work to make
32-bit commercial apps run on our 64-bit x84_64 machines, and it
works very well. I wouldn't call it confusing. Its actually very logical
as soon as you start to grasp the chroot concept.
9:43 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
You can't run 64 bit executables in a 32 bit environment. The kernel
must be running in 64 bit mode.
Yeah, but you can use a 64-bit kernel to boot a 32-bit base system and then
use a 64-bit chroot... But usually, you do it the other way round.
22 Mar
22 Mar
12:12 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:36:48AM +0100, Mario Lang wrote:
Not really. You usually solve this issue by either
creating a 64-bit
chroot in a 32-bit base system or a 32-bit chroot in a 64-bit base
system. These chroots can be very useful since some apps just don't
work in 64-bit mode yet. We are using this method at work to make
32-bit commercial apps run on our 64-bit x84_64 machines, and it
works very well. I wouldn't call it confusing. Its actually very logical
as soon as you start to grasp the chroot concept.
How do most of these audio applications behave in 64bit mode? If you
have applications that are running in a 32bit chroot can they
communicate with other applications in 64bit mode? Lets say you have
jackd and rosegarden running in 64bit mode. Can I connect to lets say
Fluidsynth or ZynaddSubFX in a 32bit chroot?
I also wonder about price/performance ratio and ease of administration.
Ignoring the fact that it make take a little extra work to get
everything to run smoothly do you find that the performace is worth the
price of x86-64 compared to say athlon xp? Is there a big boost in
performance in most audio applications. I most frequently use csound,
rosegarden, Fluidsynth, Lilypond, and audacity.
Thanks,
Jeremiah
12:51 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
How do most of these audio applications behave in
64bit mode? If you
have applications that are running in a 32bit chroot can they
communicate with other applications in 64bit mode? Lets say you have
jackd and rosegarden running in 64bit mode. Can I connect to lets say
Fluidsynth or ZynaddSubFX in a 32bit chroot?
everything ive tried so far behaves fine, except for pd, and i think that shouldnt be much
longer..
I also wonder about price/performance ratio and ease of administration.
Ignoring the fact that it make take a little extra work to get
everything to run smoothly do you find that the performace is worth the
price of x86-64 compared to say athlon xp? Is there a big boost in
the lower end of amd64 line is fast and cheap, same as always for amd..you wll get a
significant performance improvement in 64bit mode due to the extra general purpose
registers, even before factoring in gains due to sse2 vectorization, etc..
worst i had to do was change a few longs to ints, and add -fPIC here and there..it
shouldnt affect anything on your list however..
performance in most audio applications. I most
frequently use csound,
rosegarden, Fluidsynth, Lilypond, and audacity.
Thanks,
Jeremiah
4:51 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
jjbenham(a)chicagoguitar.com (Jeremiah Benham) writes:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:36:48AM +0100, Mario Lang
wrote:
Depends on how they want to communicate. Direct jack connects dont
work, so you can't run a 64-bit jack and connect a 32-bit jack app
to it. But OSC for instance works nice. I.e. I can run
SuperCollider the synth server in 64-bit mode, connect it to
64-bit jack, and run SuperCollider the language client in 32-bit
mode and make scsynth and sclang talk to each other via OSC.
Not really. You usually solve this issue by
either creating a 64-bit
chroot in a 32-bit base system or a 32-bit chroot in a 64-bit base
system. These chroots can be very useful since some apps just don't
work in 64-bit mode yet. We are using this method at work to make
32-bit commercial apps run on our 64-bit x84_64 machines, and it
works very well. I wouldn't call it confusing. Its actually very logical
as soon as you start to grasp the chroot concept.
How do most of these audio applications behave in 64bit mode? If you
have applications that are running in a 32bit chroot can they
communicate with other applications in 64bit mode? I also wonder about price/performance ratio and ease
of administration.
Ignoring the fact that it make take a little extra work to get
everything to run smoothly do you find that the performace is worth the
price of x86-64 compared to say athlon xp?
Our Dual-Opteron machine is soo damn fast I couldnt believe
it at first. We're having internal jokes that AMD is a problem
for sysadmins, since one doesn't even find the time to get a coffee
anymore :-).. OTOH, I am probably biased since I only worked with
Opteron so far which as I understand it performs quite a bit better
than its smaller brothers...
--
CYa,
Mario
6:37 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:51:36 +0100, Mario Lang wrote:
Our Dual-Opteron machine is soo damn fast I couldnt
believe
it at first. We're having internal jokes that AMD is a problem
for sysadmins, since one doesn't even find the time to get a coffee
anymore :-).. OTOH, I am probably biased since I only worked with
Opteron so far which as I understand it performs quite a bit better
than its smaller brothers...
Damn. I was hoping the Athlon would be as fast as the opteron :( You're
right, the opteron is scary-fast for the price.
- Steve
10:33 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
On a slightly different tack, am I correct that your chroot'd 32-bit
apps won't be able to access devices that don't work 64-bit mode?
In other words, you boot 64-bit, and only those devices that work 64-bit
can be used in the 32-bit chroot.
Just checking my sanity here.
Because, if I'm wrong, I'm going back to 64-bit land with my dual
Opteron box. Yes, it's lovely fast. But, it's a groan when alsa doesn't
drive the Multiface, as it hasn't yet for me on 64.
Janina
1:19 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:37:21AM +0000, Steve Harris wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:51:36 +0100, Mario Lang
wrote:
to get an idea how fast this type of scary-fast is in some sort of units
... how long does a kernel compile take?
--
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki | Systems Administrator
Technical Operations Division | Radio Free Asia
2025 M Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-530-4900
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the addressee and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any
unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact
network(a)rfa.org.
Our Dual-Opteron machine is soo damn fast I
couldnt believe
it at first. We're having internal jokes that AMD is a problem
for sysadmins, since one doesn't even find the time to get a coffee
anymore :-).. OTOH, I am probably biased since I only worked with
Opteron so far which as I understand it performs quite a bit better
than its smaller brothers...
Damn. I was hoping the Athlon would be as fast as the
opteron :( You're
right, the opteron is scary-fast for the price.
1:55 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:18:54PM -0500, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:37:21AM +0000, Steve Harris
wrote:
Unfortunately that is relative the amount of modules compiled into the
kernel.
Jeremaih
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:51:36 +0100, Mario
Lang wrote:
to get an idea how fast this type of scary-fast is in some sort of units
... how long does a kernel compile take? Our Dual-Opteron machine is soo damn fast I
couldnt believe
it at first. We're having internal jokes that AMD is a problem
for sysadmins, since one doesn't even find the time to get a coffee
anymore :-).. OTOH, I am probably biased since I only worked with
Opteron so far which as I understand it performs quite a bit better
than its smaller brothers...
Damn. I was hoping the Athlon would be as fast as the
opteron :( You're
right, the opteron is scary-fast for the price. --
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki | Systems Administrator
Technical Operations Division | Radio Free Asia
2025 M Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-530-4900
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the addressee and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any
unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact
network(a)rfa.org.
2:22 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
to get an idea
how fast this type of scary-fast is in some sort of units
... how long does a kernel compile take?
Unfortunately that is relative the amount of modules compiled into the
kernel.
2:42 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki <rzewnickie(a)rfa.org> writes:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:37:21AM +0000, Steve Harris
wrote:
kernel compiles aren't very expressive as long as you dont specify a
particular config. There is a huge difference between a so-so kernel and
say one which has all modules built...
Extracting a 2.6.10 tarball, running make menuconfig once, without
changing anything and just saving, and then "make -j4 bzImage" results in:
Kernel: arch/x86_64/boot/bzImage is ready
real 1m50.664s
user 3m7.761s
sys 0m28.861s
Yes, that is below 2 minutes real time on a 2CPU opteron.
--
CYa,
Mario
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:51:36 +0100, Mario
Lang wrote:
to get an idea how fast this type of scary-fast is in some sort of units
... how long does a kernel compile take? Our Dual-Opteron machine is soo damn fast I
couldnt believe
it at first. We're having internal jokes that AMD is a problem
for sysadmins, since one doesn't even find the time to get a coffee
anymore :-).. OTOH, I am probably biased since I only worked with
Opteron so far which as I understand it performs quite a bit better
than its smaller brothers...
Damn. I was hoping the Athlon would be as fast as the
opteron :( You're
right, the opteron is scary-fast for the price.
3:34 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:42:20PM +0100, Mario Lang wrote:
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki <rzewnickie(a)rfa.org>
writes:
right, of course, I forget that not everyone trims their kernels down to
the bare minimum ....
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:37:21AM +0000, Steve
Harris wrote:
kernel compiles aren't very
expressive as long as you dont specify a
particular config. There is a huge difference between a so-so kernel and
say one which has all modules built... On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:51:36 +0100, Mario
Lang wrote:
to get an idea how fast this type
of scary-fast is in some sort of units
... how long does a kernel compile take? Our Dual-Opteron machine is soo damn fast I
couldnt believe
it at first. We're having internal jokes that AMD is a problem
for sysadmins, since one doesn't even find the time to get a coffee
anymore :-).. OTOH, I am probably biased since I only worked with
Opteron so far which as I understand it performs quite a bit better
than its smaller brothers...
Damn. I was hoping the Athlon would be as fast as the
opteron :( You're
right, the opteron is scary-fast for the price. Extracting a 2.6.10 tarball, running make menuconfig
once, without
changing anything and just saving, and then "make -j4 bzImage" results in:
Kernel: arch/x86_64/boot/bzImage is ready
real 1m50.664s
user 3m7.761s
sys 0m28.861s
Yes, that is below 2 minutes real time on a 2CPU opteron.
not bad. I suppose a trimmed down config would be quite fast.
Thanks.
--
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki | Systems Administrator
Technical Operations Division | Radio Free Asia
2025 M Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-530-4900
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the addressee and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any
unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact
network(a)rfa.org.
6:31 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] AMD64 with Linux audio applications?
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 10:11:48 -0800, Noah Roberts wrote:
I have an amd64 running in 64 bit mode. There
honestly isn't much
reason to get a 64 if you are going to run in 32 bit mode...They are
way more expensive than the 32 bit counterparts and don't offer enough
extra in 32 bit mode.
The AMD 64 in 32bit mode is still a faster chip than the (real) 32bit
Athlons. I'm not sure how it stacks up to the P4.
...
So, if you want to build an audio machine I would not
necissarily get
an AMD64. In fact I have recently been thinking of replacing mine
with a 32 so it works better.
Just run it in 32bit mode. AFAIU the new Athlons will be/are just AMD64
chips with 64bit mode disabled. By running it in 32bit mode you loose the
wide pointers that are the downside of 64bit processors, but you still
have the fast RAM access and big cache.
- Steve
7188
days inactive
7189
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
25 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki -
Erik de Castro Lopo -
Ivica Ico Bukvic -
ix＠replic.net -
Jack O'Quin -
Janina Sajka -
jjbenham＠chicagoguitar.com -
Mario Lang -
micromoog -
Noah Roberts -
Steve Harris -
Tapio Kelloniemi -
Wilbert Berendsen