[ardour-users] [linux-audio-user] Athlon 64-X2 - slightly different question than the FAQ

[Jason Russler]

If you just need a recording system and don't need to do a lot of
synthesizing or electronic music work on the x86_64 system, then
you're good to go - Ardour works great on x86_64 and so do most LADSPA
plugins. However there are still quite a few Linux audio apps that
don't play nice with 64 bit systems.

The large buffer sizes (1024, 2048 etc) are gonna keep you from doing
any software monitoring.  Only you can tell if that'll be a problem or
not.

-J

On 2/20/06, Kevin Cosgrove <kevinc at doink.com> wrote:
>
> On 20 February 2006 at 4:07, Lee Revell <rlrevell at joe-job.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 00:49 -0800, Kevin Cosgrove wrote:
> > > One person commented that with their 64-X2
> > > machine, that a larger period size, 256 versus 128, seems better.
> > > This is generally true for avoiding xruns.
> > >
> > > I'm wondering, is an even larger period size 1K or 2K going
> > > to make a 64-X2 machine usable.
> >
> > What exactly is the problem that you're having?
>
> Indecision.  I'm wondering if it's worth it to tear my Celeron
> system out of my studio and install my 64-X2 system in its place.
> I haven't actually used the X2 box for anything but sound file
> editing yet.  I've been predicting problems based on some of the
> postings I've seen about those Athlon 64-X2 CPUs.  I can always
> put the Celeron system back into music service if the X2 doesn't
> work.  But, I'd rather avoid that whole ordeal, if the reality is
> that it just won't work yet.
>
> Thanks....
>
> --
> Kevin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ardour-users mailing list
> ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
> http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-users-ardour.org
>