Hi Rob
Is your main DAW by any chance a dual cpu/core?
Is your main DAW by any chance a dual cpu/core?
-
-
Mattias - what do you think? Dual cores preventing the 3GB switch from working? Thanks for considering this.
Rob
-
@JBacal said:
I have intel D (which I think is dual core) that appears to load 1.6 GB of samples on a 3GB system.
--Jay
Yes Jay - Mine is Intel 'D' - I think D is for Duo (or Double core). Also I think I am able to load about 1.8 or so is all on my 3GB switch machine (the other non-duo core PC's I can get about 2.8 gig.)
Rob
-
Rob et al,
I'm on a holiday at the moment without computers and internet access (other than my pda...). I'll be back home on the 11th and will look into the problem if you guys haven't found a solution by then.
/Mattias
-
Rob et al,
I'm on a holiday at the moment without computers and internet access (other than my pda...). I'll be back home on the 11th and will look into the problem if you guys haven't found a solution by then.
/Mattias
Thanks Mattias. Yea this is inexplicable. I have it set up exactly like all the other (non-duo) PC's - that are all loading 2.8 mb. Very strange.
-
@sgentry said:
Hi guys,
I think the dual cores are not the problem. I've got two Intel dual core machines with 3GB and the 3GB switch and FxTeleport with LAA tweak (thanks Mattias!). Both max out around 2.8GB of VI memory.
Steven
Well - so much for that hypothesis then. [8-)]
-
@sgentry said:
Hi guys,
I think the dual cores are not the problem. I've got two Intel dual core machines with 3GB and the 3GB switch and FxTeleport with LAA tweak (thanks Mattias!). Both max out around 2.8GB of VI memory.
Steven
Well - so much for that hypothesis then. [8-)]
Bummer. Hoping for something easy. As I said, all my other (SP2) PC's are 2.8 max load. This one is about 1.9 load.
Rob
-
I was just reading the last page here so I apologize if I'm being redundant. If you're trying to address more than 3GB ram in a 32 bit Windows machine, it won't work. I know your motherboard spec may say it can handle 4GB or more, but windows will not address it until you upgrade to a 64 bit system. To be able to do that, you'll need a mobo and cpu that supports 64 bit architecture (e.g. AMD 64, Intel EM64T), VSL will have to release a 64 bit version of VI, you'll need a 64 bit version of your sequencer, and you'll need 64 bit drivers for your PCI cards. I don't think VI is even on the calendar yet for a 64 bit release.
For now, you can get perfectly acceptable peformance using a LAN or FX teleport network. You just need PCs that can upgrade to 3GB ram and have CPU speeds greater than 3gHz. Memory is fairly inexpensive, and both Intel and AMD are cutting prices on their currrent CPU lines in advance of the new Core 2 Duo. I just put a D950 cpu in my host machine for $225. I've overclocked it to 3.8+ and its taking everything I can throw at it. Right now I'm running 24 VI tracks, two pianos, track effects everywhere, and the thing is just humming along at 25C.
-
Peregrine, that's almost but not entirely true. It's possible to use up to 4GB with a 32-bit LargeAddressAware app on a Win64 system with more than 4GB installed. Win64 will use the memory above 4GB and allow for a full 4GB load in the 32-bit app as the address space won't have to be split up into system and user parts like in Win32.
/Mattias
-
Hi Mattias -
Specifically - a 32 bit machine, set up and operating as a 32 bit machine - will not address installed memory beyond 3GB. If you have a way to do that, everybody on the planet would like to know about it. What I'm hearing you describe is a 64 bit system supporting 32 bit legacy applications.
What I'm suggesting in a left-handed way is that if people are trying to increase VI cpu performance in a Windows environment, it is extremely easy, and quite inexpensive just to upgrade their hardware. And if they're spending a lot of time trying to tinker with a software approach, it can be much less frustrating and provides outstanding results.
I was hosting VI on a 2.4 gHz P4, and was close to choking the processor with the local and FXT tracks that were running. For $225 and 30 minutes work, I am now overclocking at 4 gHz and having no performance problems whatsoever. Until Herb releases the 64 bit version of VI, there's not much alternative to using remotes for RAM if your intent is to load and operate more than 1 or 2 libraries. For anybody that isn't in a complete rush, I'd suggest they wait a few weeks for availability of a core 2 duo machine.
best regards,
RJ
-
Just read a rummor (AppleInsider) that the new Mac Pro will use Intel Xeon processors dual core and the Intel 5000 chipset.
The processor suppots 64 bit extensions and the chipset up to 64 Gb RAM. I also understand that Motu and Lynx released 64 bit drivers for their audio cards.
Thus, the question is if we can take advantage of large RAMS either in Windows 64 or in OSX when VI is still a 32 bit program?
Regards,
-
RJ, I think we're saying pretty much the same thing, but with different words. It's true that a single 32-bit process (machine in your case) on 32-bit system is unable to use more than 3GB, but the machine itself (in my case) is able to address 4GB. Out of the 4GB 1GB is locked away for system use though.
Sorry to say I have no magic formula... [:)]
/Mattias
-
@Sapkiller said:
I'd be happy if I could get just get the /3Gb switch working - at least
that increases available memory by 1 Gb.
Later a fullblown 64-bit platform might come handy.
Mattias - did you get a chance to look at the boot.ini and system info I posted earlier?
Exactly my same issue. If I could just get 2.8 loaded on that PC - that would be great. It sure has made a difference on all my other PC's (having the ability to have 2.8 gig of ram loaded.)
Thanks Mattias for any help you can offer us.
Rob
-
Sapkiller - did you ever get your Daw working with the 3 gb switch? I still cannot here. Very strange that this will not work on my main Daw while working on my four PC slaves (running VI)??
Mattias - any possible solution?
Rob
