Dual Processor Support

Vegas supports multi-processor previews for filters that support them (90%+ of the default filters). It also supports multi-core for rendering (again, for filters that support this).

2- You can always download the demo to see what kind of performance your system will get.
 
Vegas DOES NOT take advantage of multiple cores during timeline work. We have an dual dual-core Opteron system here (that's 4 cores total) and when doing realtime work on timeline it seems like it's only using one core for video and one core for audio, or something similiar. It does however take full advantage of multiple cores during rendering, but that won't help you much if you want to do realtime HD-editing though.


I truly hope they will figure this out soon, since multiple cores/cpu's are the future.
 
What OS are you using Johan? This may be a long shot, but if you're using Windows XP Home then the OS won't support dual processors. XP Home can support dual COREs, but NOT dual processors. So you'd at most be able to access one of your dual core processors, which may explain the performance issue. Then again, it may not. :D
 
According to a sony tech, vegas supports dual core ONLY during final render, not playback:violin:
 
We are using Windows XP Professional. Other applications run fine using all cores, and Vegas is using all the cores while rendering. The problem is the Vegas can not use the cores on playback (ie realtime work on timeline).
 
does vegas utilize hyperthreading during timeline work/playback or only during final render as well?
 
Hi folks, Are we talking purely dual core processors or dual processors (such as intel zeon). Some of the replies seem to drift into dual processors and some are refering to dual core. And then there are core 2 duos. All sound similar but are quite different and unique. Plz be clear as to which ones you are refering to when you benchmark them. Thanks.
 
plainman007 said:
Hi folks, Are we talking purely dual core processors or dual processors (such as intel zeon). Some of the replies seem to drift into dual processors and some are refering to dual core. And then there are core 2 duos. All sound similar but are quite different and unique. Plz be clear as to which ones you are refering to when you benchmark them. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Actually, for the purpose of this thread it really doesn't matter. A core is a core whether it's two physical single core Opterons or one Dual Core or Core 2 Duo chip. It's still two cores. We are only talking about Vegas taking advantage of multiple cores, not the pros and cons of different CPU architectures. I agree with you that the implementations yield different performance but we are just talking about the existence of multiple cores here.

Johan_Lundberg has two dual-core Opteron's which is four (4) cores as is my single Intel Core 2 Quad Extreme which is one chip with 4 cores. The results are still the same. Vegas will only use one core during playback and all the cores you can throw at it during render.

~jr
 
Last edited:
Johnny, it might:

I think the reason it's being asked is because many people use Windows XP Home, not Professional, and it's been called into doubt that the 'Home' version will use a 2nd processor, whereas it *will* use all the cores on a single processor. See this link:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosing2.mspx

However, with all the recent hubub over the quest for more cores, things change really fast & I've not toyed with it myself-

Johan, did you have to use Pro to use those dual Opterons?

Dip
 
dippytwitty said:
I think the reason it's being asked is because many people use Windows XP Home, not Professional, and it's been called into doubt that the 'Home' version will use a 2nd processor, whereas it *will* use all the cores on a single processor.
Click to expand...
You're right. I forgot about that. Home will still see the dual cores where it won't use multiple processors. Still there is no difference to Vegas but I understand your point.

~jr
 
And don't forget, if you're a silly person and are using any of the "server" OSes, rather than XP, multiple cores are freebies for ya.

Multiple processors (separate chips) are not. They require a license for each CPU. :)
 
I'm using XP Media Center Edition and it looks like Vegas 7 uses both cores all the time. If you press "ctl-alt-del" to bring up the Windows Task Manager and select the "Performance" tab it will show you activity for each processor core. Also, if you right click on Vegas in the "Processes" tab one of the options is "Set Affinity". By clicking on this you can force Vegas to use only selected cores and see the difference. Naturally, in order to be able to do this Vegas has to already be running in order to appear in the processes list.

Chris
 
Yes Johnny, But that wasnt the point. Im also talking vegas only here. Maybe ive not put it rightly or in depth. But what im trying to say is your logic of "a core is a core" irrespective of whether its 2 processors or 2 cores, is not true. In fact you have even said that a dual core or a core 2 duo its just the same. ???. LOL. how can a dual core processor and core 2 duo be the same ? core 2 duo is meant to be more high end than a dual core. Also im not too sure but ive heard a core 2 duo is something like about 4 cores (2 being virtual etc) but ive heard its way faster than even dual core. Thier architectures are so different that it applies to the discussion at hand unlike what you say. For eg like dippity has mentioned etc. The manner in which the cores are made available differs between these architectures. But im really interested in knowing which would be the best processor i could go for when opting for a new system. I mean which is the best processor that will actually make a difference when editing ? For me real-time timeline response is more important than render speed. My renders can take their own sweet time and i wouldnt care though i wont complain if they get faster too. Any ideas ??
 
plainman007 said:
Yes Johnny, But that wasnt the point.
Click to expand...
I know. I was answering the original posters question. You are asking a different one. :happy:

plainman007 said:
But what im trying to say is your logic of "a core is a core" irrespective of whether its 2 processors or 2 cores, is not true. In fact you have even said that a dual core or a core 2 duo its just the same. ???. LOL.
Click to expand...
You didn't read my post thoroughly. I said:

"We are only talking about Vegas taking advantage of multiple cores, not the pros and cons of different CPU architectures. I agree with you that the implementations yield different performance but we are just talking about the existence of multiple cores here."

So I was acknowledging that there are differences in architecture (i.e, an Intel Core Duo is slower than an AMD X2 Dual Core which is slower than an Intel Core 2 Duo which is slower than in Intel Core 2 Extreme) but that Vegas doesn't care. To Vegas a core is a core. It will take advantage of all of them when rendering and one of them when playing back the timeline regardless of what architecture you choose.

plainman007 said:
But im really interested in knowing which would be the best processor i could go for when opting for a new system. I mean which is the best processor that will actually make a difference when editing ?
Click to expand...
Since Vegas does not take advantage of multiple cores for timeline playback, the fastest single core should yield the fastest timeline playback. Having said that, IMHO you'd have to be crazy to buy a single core processor today. I would get the fastest Core 2 Duo you can afford. That would give you a good balance of playback and rendering speed.

~jr
 
plainman007 said:
LOL. how can a dual core processor and core 2 duo be the same ? core 2 duo is meant to be more high end than a dual core.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you got confused about this one, and let's not get off on a lengthy tangent, but to clarify: "dual core" simply means any processor with two cores in it. "Core 2 duo" *is* a dual-core processor, a specific one made by Intel. AMD also makes several which are dual-core. Intel's original "Core duo" line simply got replaced by the newer "Core 2 duo" line, and yes, generally newer lines are intended to be better than older ones. No news here.

JohnnyRoy said:
the fastest single core should yield the fastest timeline playback
Click to expand...

Out of passing interest, that's not what I found- I suspect a dual core must leave lots of "breathing room" for the rest of the OS that really does get used. I also found that Vegas was keeping both cores in use, though not 100%

So I'd heartily second your opinion that the single core chips are no real bargain these days. It used to be a low-end CPU would still be useful in a couple of years, but there's such a difference in performance I'm using dual-cores even for basic machines for my kids, for the few extra bucks it costs.

Just my $0.02 (maybe $0.015 after taxes?)

Dip
 
dippytwitty said:
Out of passing interest, that's not what I found- I suspect a dual core must leave lots of "breathing room" for the rest of the OS that really does get used. I also found that Vegas was keeping both cores in use, though not 100%
Click to expand...
It is possible that Vegas uses a second core for audio but I have found that my playback was only 12 - 15 fps while my QuadCore is only 25% busy. It's not about "leaving room for the OS", it has to do with being multi-threaded and thus allowing a second thread to run on a separate core. There was plenty of processor power left in my QuadCore (75% free!) yet Vegas was dropping frames and playing back choppy instead of utilize more CPU power and playing back smoothly at full frame rate. This is why I said, if your only interest is smooth playback, give Vegas the fastest single core you can find.

If you want to decrease rendering time, get a dual CPU motherboard with two QuadCores (that's 8 cores!) and you will have the fastest desktop rendering PC currently available and Vegas will take advantage of the all 8 cores.

~jr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top