Comments

redstar8 wrote on 10/22/2009, 10:13 PM
well - I installed vegas pro 9b 64bit.
It installed and seems to be working fine so far.
I don't know how much faster the render is but it is using over 3GB of ram and all 4 AMD cpu cores are over 85 % utilized! I'll add an additional 7200RPM drive for media soon. Not bad for a $500 system !

daryl wrote on 10/23/2009, 6:59 AM
Good to hear that your 64bit version is running well. My new system is due in any day, I plan on installing Vegas 64 bit first thing.
UlfLaursen wrote on 10/23/2009, 7:44 AM
I have one PC with win 7 64 and vegas 64 too - so far so good... :-)

/Ulf
Christian de Godzinsky wrote on 10/23/2009, 8:16 AM
I would opt for installing both, especially if you need to use some FX that is only 32-bit compatible. Unfortunately many filters are not yet 64-bit enabled. There is no problem installing both on the same PC

Christian

WIN10 Pro 64-bit | Version 1903 | OS build 18362.535 | Studio 16.1.2 | Vegas Pro 17 b387
CPU i9-7940C 14-core @4.4GHz | 64GB DDR4@XMP3600 | ASUS X299M1
GPU 2 x GTX1080Ti (2x11G GBDDR) | 442.19 nVidia driver | Intensity Pro 4K (BlackMagic)
4x Spyder calibrated monitors (1x4K, 1xUHD, 2xHD)
SSD 500GB system | 2x1TB HD | Internal 4x1TB HD's @RAID10 | Raid1 HDD array via 1Gb ethernet
Steinberg UR2 USB audio Interface (24bit/192kHz)
ShuttlePro2 controller

ddm wrote on 10/23/2009, 10:55 AM
I would recommend installing both as well. For the plugin reason and if you don't need plugins, or if you've prerendered pieces that required plugins, you can later do a final render in x64 which seems more robust and faster than x86. I had to render a very long and complex veg that would just not complete in vegas 32, I prerendered a few parts that had plugin fx on them and then was able to render the whole piece in vegas x64. There's just no penalty to pay for having both on your system, at this point I wouldn't consider hard drive space an issue.