Unbelievable – Maybe
http://rainrecording.co.uk/vista/performance
I don’t know about this. I know it’s possible, but it seems too good to be true.
Of course, it does get down to drivers and supported hardware, and a few other tweaks.
(Let’s just say I’m very skeptical of the numbers, not that it isn’t possible.)
http://rainrecording.co.uk/vista/
I’m not skeptical of the numbers. Look at the system configuration…
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| based upon our new Element PQ1 with a Core 2 Quad Q6600 processor. The RAM was upgraded to 8GB and the audio drive was upgraded to 1TB RAID0. |
They are running 4 processors with 8 GB of memory. That is exactly what Vista likes to run. XP is not optimized to run that hardware. The real question is, "How many of us have a quad core system with 8gig of ram and a Terabyte of raid 0 storage?"
On my pitiful AMD Dual core system with 2gig of ram, XP runs just fine.
Mike
Similar tests have been done between DAWs and that Cubase behavior seems to be common on XP (CPU all over the place. Look at the Cubase forums and there are mutinies over ver 4 and this issue). Cubase 4 being completly schooled by other DAWs on XP has been done too. Additionally, they were installing Cubase 4 as a 32 bit app in all cases. I would not expect to see any difference between Vista 32 and 64 either. If they compared a 32 bit and 64 bit version of Cubase, again we now have something to talk about. I think it has less to do with Vista and more to do specifically with Cubase on Vista IMO. It would be much more telling if they did a similar test between several popular DAWs as I know I can squeeze a lot more out of certain DAWs versus others.