2, 4 or 8 cores?

farss wrote on 6/16/2008, 3:21 PM

Need to replace one of my PCs, it's an ancient P4 2.4GHz that's run Vegas up until V7.0d under Win2K, without a crash, ever!
Apart from the bewildering array of different kinds of mobos and CPUs I'm seeing that almost everyone that's having V8 crash is running Quad core CPUs. On the other hand I've got a lowly Core Duo that runs V8 that doesn't crash. It has all the other V8 issues, red, green and black frames. It'll takes minutes to read a frame from a m2t file if there a minor glitch from the tape but it don't crash.

My thinking is 8 cores is rather expensive and might not yield much of a gain with Vegas. A quad is affordable although for the same money the OCing mob tend to favour the Core 2 CPUs as most things wil not use 4 cores, I realise though games are different to Vegas. However if I factor in that Quads seem to be Vegas's nemesis and that Core 2 Duos can be OCed very easily I'm still in a muddle.

It's only taken me a month to decide on a case, at this rate deciding on a mobo and CPU will take me years :)

If you're wondering, the case is an Antec Twelve Hundred, thank you John Meyer who recommended the Nine Hundred. I went with the 12 because it's got air filters.

Bob.

Comments

Coursedesign wrote on 6/16/2008, 4:26 PM

I vote for quads on the PC side right now, specifically the Q6600 gives the most bang for the buck (US$199.00 or less).

Either an Intel mobo, or if you want deluxe performance: a US$224.99 Gigabyte GA-X48-DS4 with the Intel X48 high performance chipset, cost-effective and high performance DDR2-1200, 1600 MHz FSB, runs cool with heat pipes, energy saving design, ...

That with 8GB of RAM is close to perfection for bang/buck ratio this month.

When you start putting in more memory than that (which you should for 8-cores), I think it actually makes sense to follow the leader and use error-correcting RAM, which however usually leads to more expensive but functionality-stripped server mobos...

CorTed wrote on 6/16/2008, 4:39 PM

Bob,

I have shared my frustrations with Vegas on a few occasions, and I too have a quadcore (Q6600). You are right, there seems to be more trouble being reported from users that are running using a Quad core processor. I must say though that when Vegas does run & renders, using my Q6600 it flys by like a racecar.

My hope is that the programmers at SCS have these problems figured out by now (theyve had over 6 months to find/fix them) and that 8.0c will be the start of Vegas becoming rock solid again.

And I would suggest you go with the Q6600 as well.

Ted

farss wrote on 6/16/2008, 4:42 PM

Thanks,
I've got one Supermicro system that's been rock solid with buffered ECC RAM but it was expensive. I do agree, not enough attention is given to RAM, it's the largest single factor in system MTBF calcs.
Many years ago we did a system wide MTBF calc, this control system had 50 mini computers, the final MTBF was 5 minutes thanks to the RAM.

Bob.

farss wrote on 6/16/2008, 4:59 PM

I can get Q9300 2.5GHz CPU, GIGABYTE GA-X48T-DQ6 , 2GB of DDR3 RAM pretty cheaply at AUD $793.

The other alternative is Intel Bone Trail mobo.
Looked at Skull Trail but yikes, two of those Xeon CPUs would do serious damage to the bank balance and Intel have newer CPUs in the wind anyway and I'll save that money to upgrade my Supermicro system.

One major concern for me with most of these mobos is the lack of expansion slots. Compared to my older mobos I get around half the number of slots. Probably not too much of a drama as I have outboard audio.

Bob.

jrazz wrote on 6/16/2008, 6:57 PM

Bob, I went the skulltrail route and 32 bit Vegas will not utilize 8 cores. 4 cores/threads render/encode faster than 8.

j razz

Xander wrote on 6/16/2008, 7:08 PM

Somewhat unrelated, but I read that for After Effects the recommended amount of RAM is 2GB per processor. If you go by that then a Dualcore should have 4GB, a Quad should have 8GB and a 8-Core should have 16GB. I've not heard any better guidelines so that is what I go by. Obviously a 64-bit operating system is a must.

I had a 3.2GHz Pentium, now I have a 3.2GHz Pentium 840D. I will go with a 3.2 GHz Quad for my next machine. I too am deciding between Quad and 8-core.

Coursedesign wrote on 6/16/2008, 8:10 PM

Bob,

Why pay 50% more for the X48T-DQ6 board, especially since that board needs much costlier DDR3 RAM (and 2GB is boot memory for Vista, not enough to actually run much beyond the built-in Calculator app)?

And the DQ6 board is much more difficult to work with. See newegg's reviews for details on problems with installing Q9300, instability, RAM voltage issues, and much more.

Sample from Newegg:
I've read many a frustrated posting on this site about instability with this motherboard. Unless you're using JEDEC standard (and plain boring DIMMS) you will require custom settings - period - as BSOD will result with low voltage settings autodetected. As an example; OCZ Reaper HPC needs 1.85v for stability but this board will try and run 1.5v (JEDEC) which WILL result in instability. That is NOT a motherboard issue. It's the nature of the beast when using O.C. capable memory. So as a refresher, pay close attention to rated specs of your memory and make sure to get them set in the BIOS before you get to loading the operating system - whichever that may be - otherwise u WILL suffer.

The X48-DS4 board doesn't have these issues, and memory for it costs less, which really adds up by the time you get 2GB per core = a 2GB stick in each of the mobo's four slots.

The difference between the Q6600 and the 9300 is modest indeed.

IMHO, it's better to use the significant cost difference (with the 50% more expensive mobo and the much more expensive RAM) towards upgrading to Intel's next generation sooner.

farss wrote on 6/16/2008, 9:21 PM

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html :

Intel Q6600 = 2,674
Intel Q9300 = 3,347

Q9300 has SSE4 and is a 45nm part.

DDR3 RAM now runs at 2GHz on that mobo, yikes!
4GB of it costs AUD 780, YIKES!

Decisions, decisions.

Probably take your advice anyway, nice to dream about what you'd do if money was no object. Still got to buy some 16GB SxS cards.

Bob.

Coursedesign wrote on 6/16/2008, 10:28 PM

With the X48-DS4 board, you can easily open the spigot a bit wider and make the Q6600 whistle past the 3347 number if you should feel so inclined, and it will do it without breaking a sweat, and using inexpensive DDR2 RAM.

SSE4 will remain a curiosity until someone actually writes code that uses it, which will probably be just in time for when you are ready to hand down the Q6600 box to a junior staffer.

apit34356 wrote on 6/16/2008, 10:37 PM

Bob, I agree with Coursedesign about the Q6600, the best bang for the $ for probably the next month or two.

Tinle wrote on 6/17/2008, 5:39 AM

Bob,

Go with either the 6600,6700, or 9300,9450 for now, based on your own budgetary choices, and save your real money for the Nehalem introduction in 6-9 months.

All indications are for very useful video performance increases over any of the current units above.

JJKizak wrote on 6/17/2008, 5:42 AM

I suppose the Nehalem will require a new motherboard, memory, etc.
JJK

farss wrote on 6/17/2008, 6:04 AM

Now I'm confused!
I was looking at the Q9300 and it's only $80 more than the Q6600!
Someone else asked the same question on the local OC forum and the resounding answer was the Q9300. The 6600 has more cache but that doesn't mean much. The 9300 uses less power, will OC happily to 3.0GHz, maybe 3.20GHz. It also runs faster at the same clock speed as the 6600. DDR3 RAM is now hitting 2GHz, not to be overlooked. When Nehalem hits it will be DDR3 exclusively, does us a different socket so new mobo needed but they're pretty cheap.
It looks like the Nehalem chips will first come out in extreme versions at around 4GHz, I'd expect them to be over $1K each.

Bob.

InterceptPoint wrote on 6/17/2008, 7:01 AM

Farss/Johnmeyer:

If you're wondering, the case is an Antec Twelve Hundred, thank you John Meyer who recommended the Nine Hundred. I went with the 12 because it's got air filters.

What was the basic rationale for selecting Antec?

Although I'm going to wait for the Nehalem processors later this year for a new quad system, I'm starting the hunt right now for just the right enclosure. So I'd be interested in what the tradeoffs were in making the selection of the Antec.

Coursedesign wrote on 6/17/2008, 9:20 AM

It's key to look at the right benchmarks. Synthetics don't help rendering all that much.

The Q6600 overclocks really well, and easily too which is nice for less experienced OC'ers.

Buying DDR3 RAM now because it might be possible to use it with one's next mobo is a hit/miss. I certainly haven't had a good track record in predicting the future of chips and mobos, so I have resorted to buying what's best for the moment, and then handing it down when the time comes.

"Future-safe?" Bwahahahaha, hasn't happened in my lifetime of computer use :O).

apit34356 wrote on 6/17/2008, 1:12 PM

" "Future-safe?" Bwahahahaha " , I think you mean, Bwahah &*!!A?##@$$ Bwahah***.......................... it's really relatively... to the time frame(time/space theory) and marketing spin ........ ;-)

farss wrote on 6/17/2008, 3:43 PM

Nothing really, it's a pretty personal choice and there's not much in the way of objective parameters by which to judge a case.

The 900/1200 have good airflow, the 1200 will take an eATX mobo and the new very large graphics cards and the PS goes at the bottom. I also like it because it has air filters and decent cable management. The big fan at the top is kind of appealing too.

On a purely personal aspect, it's big, has subtle bling and weights a ton. There's no shortage of similar cases though, choose the one you like. I don't think you can really go wrong with any of them so long as what you want to put in it will fit. I nearly went for the Corsair S. I've also got a Shuttle XPC that I really like and a full Supermicro system.

Bob.

jwcarney wrote on 6/18/2008, 12:10 PM

For those in and around Fairfax VA, MicroCenter has the retail version of the q9450 for 299.00.
I got one, and maybe will get. another. I'm also looking at the msi platinum x48 mobo from Newegg. Mainly because it has 2 pci express 2.0 16 slots and 2 4x slots for installing a capture card and external raid system. The Aja card supported by Vegas uses pci ex 4 I believe. So does the 8 port Raid card I'm looking at.

I'll look at that antec 1200. I bought a 900 and it had a bad on/off switch. Pretty rare, but it happens.

farss wrote on 6/19/2008, 5:23 AM

Weeell, in the end I caved in and bought the Gigabyte X48-DQ6 and a FX570 video card.
In a moment of buyer remorse I started doing some more digging around overclockers.com.au. Course is right, that board can be a bit of demon to get some RAM running right but as I know what the problem is not that much of a hassle and the RAM I bought is good to around 2V.

But the good news is it uses the Marvel Yukon network chip. They're one of the few network chips worth much, that I knew already. On top of that though quite a few boards connect the network chip to the PCI buss thereby kind of clobbering network performance, this board connects it to the PCIe buss. As I at times render over my GigE network that should be better. Also get drivers that'll port aggregate.

Just thought some of this might be of some help to those trying to use network rendering. As I Iearned some time ago getting connected at 1 GB/sec doesn't mean you can get anything like that speed in the real world.

Bob.

mdopp wrote on 6/19/2008, 12:19 PM

Why not look at Apple's Mac Pro? They have two quadcores (X5400; 1600 FSB; 45nm Penryn based) and they are very competitive.
Vista 64 runs on these machines like a charm (dual boot).
I've received mine just three days ago and have installed and tested everything but didn't find the time to do speed tests with Vegas so far.
Martin