Core 2 Duo 2.4 ghz Vs Dual Core 3.4 ghz (which would be better for vegas)

P

plainman007

Well-known member
Hi guys,

Can any of you suggest which would be a more optimal processor to go with. Anybody who made these choices when getting a system recently etc ? Thanks in advance.
 
Anything previous to Core 2 is just ancient. I'd atleast get that, even if clock is lower, the architecture is more advanced.
 
Greeches saves the day ! LOL.

But Seriously,, I checked out some benchmarks on Toms Hardware. The difference between the Core 2 Duo 2.4 ghz and the Dual Core 3.4 was betw 20-30% in performance. Seemed marginal. A test video render took the core2 12 minutes. DC 3.4 did the same render in 9 minutes. My question is since im not mainstream into video. Im mainly into live events. Will you belive it we got into Media Production just for our own internal jobs so we dont have to rely on outside studios. So theres a level to what we can invest on. This entire setup im making is working out to about 2000 USD. DualCore 3.4, 2 gb ram, 3 x 250 gb HDDs, Nvidia card 7300gt, DVDRW, 2 LCD monitor. So for us waiting out the small extra time for renders is no probs at all. What do you think. I accept it will make a difference. But for my usuage you really think i need to go higher than this ? My productions are max 45 minute videos. The Core2Duo costs more than double of the latter. Would like to hear your views. Thanks.
 
You should get the core2 and overclock it to whatever you want. Much better value. Get a beefy hs and fan and overclock it. The architecture is far smarter and will be better supported and utilized in the future. To get anything less than core2, when you have a choice, just seems backwards.

:)
 
Hmmm, Your right. But i guess i just got my system with the DC 3.4. I tested some performance benchmarks betw the 2 optons and there seemed to be only 20% difference in performance.
 
two 3.4s are 6.8 and a duo 2.4 wouldbe just a tad faster than a dual core totaling 4.8 so the dual cores would be faster, but if I had that budget I'd still be look into single CPU mother boards that take duos and will be able to use Quadros.

--If you can have dual core duos and quadros, then this is the other way to go about ending up with one down the line while starting off with a fast system right now--

A - Are there dual processor boards that take duos and quadros? If so I'd get one of those even if I had to start off with E6300 (1.86ghz) because of the sick system it would develop into in only a year quen you can get the slowest quadro/fastest dow for $200 each
B- You might want to look into a MoBo like the Gigabyte I got (look at the other thread) and get a Quadro for it... then when the dual core MoBos get cheaper and the second Quadro becomes more affordable you switch to the next MoBo and add a second CPU


I just built a computer with a 1.86 duo and will start overclocking tomorrow (hopefully) and it should end up being around 3ghz duo wich would be slightly faster than a dual core totaling 6ghz. The system should be super stable, the mobo was $118, the chip is the E6300 and costed me $198. I have a thread about it here. It has costed me so far $2200 and that includes 1.3TB of space a 320GB and a 500GB 7200.10 (perpendicular) HDDs and a 500GB external USB HDD, 2G of great 800mhz RAM, two 22" Dell monitors, a case with exellent cooling, great 650W power supply, great CPU heatsink, mouse, keyboard, and a gForce 7800 GT video card... the MoBo had 7.1 sound, DVD burner, nothing else though...
 
Last edited:
You can't add up the clock speeds. The core 2 duo is much more efficient than the older generation Prescotts. It does a lot more work per clock cycle.

Here are some rendertest.veg results:


14s - Intel QX6700 4 cores @ 2.66ghz
SOURCE: John Cline @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=496672
SOURCE2: JohnnyRoy @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=501735&Replies=19

15s - Macpro 2X2.66ghz dual core Intel processors (Vegas 7; old result was 45s)
SOURCE: Charley Gallagher @ http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=78558

19s - Intel Core 2 Duo overclocked @ 3.56ghz (*overclocked systems should be tested for stability)
SOURCE: ro_max@http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=497038

27s - Overclocked Intel E6300 @ 2.33Ghz (266mhz FSB --> 333mhz, 2MB cache, 1.86ghz originally; V6d; V7b = 28s)
SOURCE: Guy Bruner @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=488694&Replies=31

28s - Intel E6600 Core 2 Duo (Vegas 6d; 2.4ghz, 4MB cache)
SOURCE: Emailed submission.

34s - Intel E6300 Core 2 Duo (Vegas 6d; 35s in Vegas 7b)
SOURCE: Guy Bruner @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=488694&Replies=31

39s - AMD X2 4600+
SOURCE: JohnnyRoy @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=423138&Replies=4

*39s/74s - AMD X2 4400+ (Toledo core, 2X2.2ghz, 2X1MB cache, no dual channel memory, Vegas 6.0b)
SOURCE: philfort@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=399447&Replies=26

*39s - AMD X2 4400+ overclocked to 2420mhz
SOURCE: Jayster @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=465519&Replies=0

*40s/76s - AMD X2 4400+ (Toledo core, 2X2.2ghz, 2X1MB cache, no dual channel memory, Vegas 6.0b)
SOURCE: TheRhino@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=396239&Replies=61

44s - Pentium D 3.0ghz
SOURCE: GMElliot @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=454055
see also: http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=423138&Replies=8 (45s)

45s - Macpro 2X2.66ghz dual core Intel processors (Vegas 6)
SOURCE: Charley Gallagher @ http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=78558

47s - Core Duo 1.83Ghz (laptop)
SOURCE: FrigidNDEditing @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=477142&Replies=3
SOURCE: GMElliot @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=454055

*75s - P4 3.6ghz overclocked from 3.0 Pentium. A new 5xx-series 3.6ghz should be as fast or slightly slower.
SOURCE: Stormcrow@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=396239&Replies=57

78s- AMD64 3700+ (san diego core??? [2.2ghz, 1MB cache], vegas 6, dual channel RAM)
SOURCE: Charley Gallgher@ http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=45178&page=2&pp=15

*78s- P4 3.2 overclocked to 3.8ghz (Northwood core???, 800FSB [it's overclocked, so the FSB is actually higher])
SOURCE: jamcas@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=256422

79s- AMD64 3400+ (unknown core, Vegas 6)
SOURCE: Charley Gallagher@ http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=45178&page=2&pp=15

89s- 3.0E Pentium Prescott (865 chipset, dual channel RAM, Vegas 5)
SOURCE: Glenn Chan@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=396239&Replies=57

90s - 2.8ghz Pentium (Prescott)
SOURCE: TalawaMan@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?Forum=4&MessageID=262716

90s - Opteron 246 2.0ghz X 2 (dual channel memory, old 2004 core, *VEGAS 5*)
SOURCE: rohde@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=256422
*Please keep in mind Vegas6 has optimizations for dual processors, while Vegas 5 does not.

93s - AMD64 3200+ (2004, so probably old core)
SOURCE: PH125@ http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=256422
99s is Sid Phillip's report in the same thread.

95s - AMD64 3000+ (2.00ghz, 512kb cache, single channel, socket 754, 2004 core)
SOURCE: ibliss@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=256422

114s - Pentium-M 1.7ghz laptop
SOURCE: The_Jeff@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?Forum=4&MessageID=262716

128s - Sempron 2400+ 1.4ghz (Palmero core, S754, 256KB cache)
SOURCE: Glenn Chan

Athlon XP: There are results if you look around. They aren't as fast as Pentiums or AMD64.

Platforms that support dual channel can run a few percent slower when running memory single channel. See Glenn Chan's (that's me) benchmarks at
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18841
Systems with 2 pairs of identical RAM may also perform slightly faster.

Northwood-core Pentiums are about 6% slower than Prescott-cores (the 5xx series). Northwoods are typically faster at everything else, and consume less electricity.

Overclocked systems are not necessarily stable. As well, they may perform slightly better or worse than a stock system running at the same clock speed. Overclocking on Intel/Pentium platform implies an increase in FSB speed, and an increase or decrease in RAM speed (depends on the RAM they use).

Vegas 6 results may differ from V5 results. see http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=396239&Replies=57
Johnmeyer writes:
My results on the old render test, using a 2.8 GHz P4, no hyperthreading:

Vegas 6.0b 1:46
Vegas 5.0d 1:43

**I am not really updating this list anymore since the latest core 2 duos are too fast.


These results are for the original rendertest.veg, not the new one. You can download it from:
http://www.vasst.com/resource.aspx?id=35443070-0b67-4a2e-807c-a7f431ebd02d
Remember to set best rendering mode. The file --> render dialog will override other settings, so be sure to set best mode there.
 
I said "slightly faster" because I was affraid of overstating it since I didn't know exactly... so there you go! thanks for that Glen! nice!!! wow!

also, I am currently testing for stability on my 27th increment of FSB WITHOUT TOUHING THE VOLTAGES from the stock $189 1.86GHz up to 2.8GHz!!!!!!!

I will stay up later and post on the workstation project thread... I will try to find a stable speed with no voltage increase and leave it testing as I sleep...



where can I get that same rendertest.veg? I'd love to run it on my system,and do a before and after OC...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top