Speed comparison between 32 and 64 bits OS.

[radeon]

As I have a triple boot machine, I made comparisons rendering the same project with VideoStudio Pro X3:

XP Pro 32 bits took 6'20"
Seven 64 bits took 6'25"
Linux 64 bits: does not work unless using a virtual Xp machine which is slower.

As you can see, there is no benefit to run VideoStudio Pro X3 on a 64 bits OS.

14" opening time on my Xp Raid disk 7 " opening time on my Seven SSDisk
Working with a SSD only increases VideoStudio Pro X3 launch time.


All video editing software under linux are available for both 32 / 64 bits machines, and native 64 bits is almost 2 times faster with video.
I do not understand why all Windows software are not 64 bits compatible, but it's out of topic.


SonyVegasPro 9 can operate 32 OR 64 bits natively, but it is approximately 5 times more expensive.

Corel should provide a 64 bits X3 software, just because more and more people use Windows 64 bits.
I hope to find a 64 bits release soon.
I do not really know about windows, but compiling for 32 or 64 bits is just an option if you develop underLinux, so it's easy to provide both releases.

I keep my XP 32 bits VideoStudio Pro X3 installed without additional packages, so I can compare with my seven upgraded software.

Not upgraded: Upgraded:
14 titles 34 Titles
67 FX 67 FX
25 audio 25 audio


I have captured screenshots of both; I am able to post them if you think it can be interresting.
And I can do some more tests for you, Xp32 versus Seven 64, on my same machine.

[philip_l]

Hi

Thanks for the info, but your findings are not too surprising.

A 64bit OS isn't faster than a 32bit OS, in some respects a 64bit OS is slower as there are bigger pointers which takes up space in the CPU cache, meaning under 64bit your CPU cache appears smaller.

The only big performance difference seen with a 64bit OS is when you have very large datasets that need very large amounts of memory, and you install over 4Gig of memory. With a 32 bit OS you are limited to around 3Gig. Extremely few people really need > 3Gig of RAM at this time.

Video rendering isn't memory intensive as only a handful of frames are needed in memory to encode them, the bottle neck really is waiting for the disk Input/Output and raw processing speed.

The other areas you may see big speed differences between 64bit and 32bit is often in artificial benchmarking when very large numbers are being used.

Corel should provide a 64 bits X3 software, just because more and more people use Windows 64 bits.
I hope to find a 64 bits release soon.
I do not really know about windows, but compiling for 32 or 64 bits is just an option if you develop underLinux, so it's easy to provide both releases.

Compiling for 64bit will not result in any performance improvement unless the program need access to huge amounts of memory, which VideoStudio doesn't.

See this link, a similar request keeps cropping up for VisualStudio to be 64bit, this blog article explains why that hasn't happened that.

http://blogs.msdn.com/ricom/archive/200 ... rsion.aspx

Regards

Phil

[radeon]

Hi

...
See this link, a similar request keeps cropping up for VisualStudio to be 64bit, this blog article explains why that hasn't happened that.

http://blogs.msdn.com/ricom/archive/200 ... rsion.aspx

Regards

Phil

Thank you philip_l: I have red all the above thread.
I have checked and you are right: VideoStudio does not use much memory.
I really thought 64 bits OS was faster than 32 bits OS, may be due to commercials. Under linux, it's really faster: you can try a live cd to check.
Your link also explains why everything is available in 64 or 32 bits with Linux.


Regards.

[philip_l]

Hi

It is marketing really, the bigger the number and we are so conditioned to believing bigger is better and faster The marketing has just let us go with that belief.

To give some credit to the big two (Microsoft and Intel) if you look on their websites you can't actually find anything stating 64bit is faster than 32bit, unless it is in the context of being able to use large amounts of memory. Of course they neglect to point out that at the moment there are very home users (even business users) that need greater than 4Gig of memory that 64bit allows.

Regards

Phil

[aljimenez]

I recall when the first computers were 16bit and the same discussion happened then. Who needs 32bit when 16bit is faster and works just fine. Well it wasn't long before 16bit couldn't handle what we wanted to do. The same will happen this time. It won't be long before 32bits won't handle the applications that will come. There are not many apps that take advantage of 64bit addressing right now since so many don't have it, there is no incentive to exploit it yet... Al

[JackTheBear]

Now I know why X3 does not hardly work on my win xp pro 64 machine. It hangs for every between tasks - If I bring up control panel or task manager - and try to close them - they don't close and all functions cease for what seems like more than a minute (I should time it)
X2 still works OK on the same machine.
X3 doesn't seem to be using any memory
Maybe it is a windows setting
Thanks
Jack The Bear

[Roberto]

Actually I would like to get a version that fully utilize the multi-core power...
That's where it can make the difference in speed.

[Accolades]

X3 runs fine on my puter..

The memory and having FAST DATA drives 10K or SSD certainly help when scruubing back and forth in vidideo.

Having 1gb of superfast ram on a high end video card (Nvidia GTX295 for instance) certainly helps.

If the program does not use the ram >3gb on motherboard I am sure it uses the ram on video card for processing.

Having a fast CPU helps even if the program is not optimised to used all cores

[DVDDoug]

I recall when the first computers were 16bit and the same discussion happened then. Who needs 32bit when 16bit is faster and works just fine. Well it wasn't long before 16bit couldn't handle what we wanted to do. The same will happen this time. It won't be long before 32bits won't handle the applications that will come. There are not many apps that take advantage of 64bit addressing right now since so many don't have it, there is no incentive to exploit it yet...

More bits is only faster when working with big numbers or big amounts of memory... Adding 1+1, a 64-bit machine is no faster than an 8-bit machine! (Assuming the same clock speed.)

16 bits (65,535*) is truly not enough for many applications, but we are rarely dealing with number sizes that 32-bits can't handle (integers bigger than 4 billion).... In those "rare cases", the computer can use 2 sequential memory locations to store 64-bit numbers.

The width of the address bus (number of bits) similarly limites the number of memory locations (addresses) that you can direclty access.

There are scientific applications that use lots of 64-bit floating point numbers. In those cases, a 64 bit machine is a big advantage. (A 32-bit machine can do do 64-bit floating point, but it's slower.)

8 bit -> 265
16 bit -> 65,535
32 bit -> 4,294,967,295
64 bit -> 18,446,744,073,709,551,615


* This is an unsigned integer. With signed integers, one bit is used as the sign, and you can only "count" to about +/- 32,000 with 16-bits. Floating point (decimal points) gets more complicated.

[Accolades]

Its a little BIT confusing heheheheh

[Roberto]

In reality, there are advantages and disadvantages.
For example, it is true that the cache can store less "information" (as each pointer is double-sized), but it also true that object structures stored in RAM can be read and written with less instructions, because if I need to read an array of 32-bit variables, I just need 1/2 of the memory cycles to read them with 64 bit instructions (assuming also the bus is 64-bit).