It's not really playable for me. With a Core i5 2500K 4GHz, 16 GB RAM, and GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB, I get basically a constantly 19 FPS at a render distance of 64, and that's after giving it the few minutes to load all those chunks. That was with anti-aliasing disabled too, whereas usually I can use it at a render distance of 32 and mostly always stay at refresh rate.
There comes a point where an increasing amount of the further view you get becomes lost behind terrain in front of it (for example, and can only be seen at higher elevations). Also, that terrain appears distorted more and more, if that makes sense. What I mean is, say you have a large lake/small ocean that would extent from one land mass to another on a render distance of 32. On a render distance of 64, if that body of water was near the edge of your render distance, it'd take up such a small amount of screen estate that it's appear smaller, perhaps because in the real world we have a horizon due to the curvature of the globe, but it's another example of how it's a large trade-off for small gain past a point.
I did not, however, notice any anomalies with snow or terrain generating incorrectly.
I won't deny if I could use a higher render distance that I might (but there'd come a point I'd be happy with it and wouldn't go higher, maybe around 40-something), but 32 feels like a decent sweet spot for me.