dualcore => quadcore, worth it?

Randall_Oelerich

Randall_Oelerich

Veteran
Anybody using Vegas done an upgrade from a dualcore PC to a quadcore PC? Was there a noticeable difference in the speed of renders, or is the bottleneck still the drives, motherboard bus, memory, etc.? I currently have a dualcore PC (ASUS mobo, AMD dualcore cpu, 4GB RAM), contemplating upgrading to a new mobo and quadcore. Just for editing and rendering short films (5-20 minute short films), wondering if it is worth it, or if I should just save my money.
 
I considered it, but apparently Windows 2000 only supports dual core.

Regardless, I've found that the bottleneck on my machine isn't my CPU (AMD 6400+ 3.2ghz Dual Core), it's the hard drive throughput.
 
you'll see a much bigger peformance increase when workin with HDV/HD formats. if all your doing is SD, i wouldnt bother.

quad core processor will allow vegas to use 4 threads during rendering instead of 2 = faster render times. unless you like waiting around for video to render, its a nice upgrade, especialy now that the core i7 proccessors are availible (more efficient architecture). quadcore will also allow you to do heavier multi-tasking - render video while working on another project in a 2nd window, ect..
 
Last edited:
You will have a very noticable increase in speed. The thing that is going to slow you down when rendering and adding effects for preview is CPU. Not RAM, video card, hard drive, or anything else.

Many render farms have minimal RAM and crappy video cards, because all they are there for is to crunch numbers. Because of the pipeline, Intel will generally give you more bang, simple due to its architecture.


If you are considering an upgrade, as cheap as CPUs are now, I'de go for it. If you can hold out until after christmas, do so.

But you will have a serious render speed decrease. And since Vegas can do network rendering, save your old guts for a render only or simple beater machine.
 
It's a lot more expensive right now, not just for the chip, but for the required motherboards and memory (DDR3). Give it six months and it'll be a no-brainer. But right at this moment, it's not a cardinal sin to look elsewhere.
 
David,
Good point. I am building out an i7 system now, and watching the forums for any input on the optimal i7 Vegas setup. Any plans to build one yourself?
 
yesterday I jumped from my E8400 duo core... (3.0)
to a Q9400 quad.. (2.66)
and my performance in preview is worse.
 
Well, I haven't compared any HDV footage performance, but I can say that 1080p and 720p P2 stuff performed much better with the quad.
 
Its odd, with my duo core 3.0ghz
the AVCHD files would play full speed (29.97) in preview half and on cuts fall down a few frames then back up to a rock solid 29.97.

With this quad core 2.66 Its fighting with every breath just to stay at 29.97 constantly
in the low 29's (29.00..etc)
Its not a rock solid playback.


Are there more settings in vegas for quad core other than the simple
"threads" choice for rendering?
 
no, there arent any more system settings...make sure your set using 4 threads.

my previews/renders are super fast (workin in 32bit FP). I went from a p4 3.2 to 2x quad xeon 3.0's.

Render times are not as fast as they should be. The only thing limiting the system is the software itself. waiting on V9 - hopefully render times should be cut by another 50% as both procs will (hopefully) be fully utilized. I hope they also increase the allowed dynamic RAM. 1024 is just not enough.
 
another question..
does the "quad" core factor only come into play for rendering?

Like for previews and such does it not utilize the quad core?

If thats the case then I think my system is working like it should (taking a
performance hit going from 3.0 before, and now only 2.66)

The render speed with the quad IS definitely faster.


The little free playback program my camera came with ,pixela..
used to take up 65% of my CPU power to play back a clip.
I do see its only using 35% now with the quad.
Silly that a free program can do AVCHD playbacks perfectly full res, and in vegas
it cant handle doing it in preview half mode.
 
I updated my bios, reinstalled windows.
Not a complete reformat though. Didn't want to deal with the hours
it takes to get all my files I want to keep organized
 
the way i understood it is that vegas natively supports multicore processors by track (one track per core). so if you have a two track time line (1A, 1V) then the 3.0GHz would out perform a 2.66GHz (with a similar architecture) regardless of the number of cores because it's a higher clock per core. rendering is a different story since vegas will make full use of all the cores and the quad should easily outperform the duo.

i think the q9400 & e8400 are both derivatives of the core2 architecture and are spec-ed similary per core so in a program like vegas where it relies more on the clock speed per track, more doesn't necessarily mean better (for preview). not all clocks speeds are created equal though; if you compare a pentium 4 3.2GHz with your q9400@2.66GHz, the quad would win hands down because it has higher efficiency per clock and it's a completely different architecture.

i could be wrong, but it would make sense that the reason quads (even if clocked lower per core) work better for p2 mxf in vegas is because of raylight's superior use of multicore processors — the more the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top