I am thinking to upgrade my system and considering a workstation with dual processors. Dose Vegas Pro support multi-processors and how that will affect Vegas Pro if it does not support it?
Also, what about dual graphics card?
Of course vegas pro runs on real workstations with dual processors and makes use of all cores , especially when rendering ( see my profile ) . Sony vegas pro 11 already did that 😉 . Dual graphics card makes no sense , better 1 decent one .
I did choose for the HP Z820's since those are also optimised for maximum performance with avid media composer with guidelines . Those can nowadays be bought refurbished with warranty for less than 1/3 the price I paid when they were released 😒
For modern Windows OS there is almost no differences between two single-core CPUs and one double-cores CPU. The system sees it as two logical CPUs/cores and prioritize workload automatically. So your system is already some kind of "multi CPU". If 8-cores CPU is not enough you (all logical cores have 100% load in your critical task) you can go to system with two 8-cores CPUs, however do not expect that it would be twice faster.
It's a bit different for dual GPUs. I do not think Vegas will be able to use them itself. However, some plugins can and you can get quite big boost in this case. In dual GPUs setup you can configure NeatVideo plugin to use one GPU and Vegas (including encoder) -- another so they will not fight for the single resource.
Unfortunately, you will need to find out youself if plugins you use can be configured to use separate GPU. If they cannot -- there is no reason to have dual GPU setup.
P.S Well, one two-cores CPU usually better that two single-cores CPUs.
On my older i7 3770k system, I had both an Nvidia and AMD card installed at one time, thus providing three GPU options, thus making it possible to use one for Vegas fx support and another for rendering. However, the motherboard only supported one PCIe 16 slot so that both video cards ran at 8x thus limiting performance. So if you decide to try 2 video cards, just make sure that your mobo supports dual PCIe 16 slots.
Of course vegas pro runs on real workstations with dual processors and makes use of all cores , especially when rendering ( see my profile ) . Sony vegas pro 11 already did that 😉 . Dual graphics card makes no sense , better 1 decent one .
I did choose for the HP Z820's since those are also optimised for maximum performance with avid media composer with guidelines . Those can nowadays be bought refurbished with warranty for less than 1/3 the price I paid when they were released 😒
Thanks @wilvan
I'm actually thinking about HP Z8 with dual Xenon CPUs. Dose dual CPUs means I will get double the performance in VegasPro?
For modern Windows OS there is almost no differences between two single-core CPUs and one double-cores CPU. The system sees it as two logical CPUs/cores and prioritize workload automatically. So your system is already some kind of "multi CPU". If 8-cores CPU is not enough you (all logical cores have 100% load in your critical task) you can go to system with two 8-cores CPUs, however do not expect that it would be twice faster.
It's a bit different for dual GPUs. I do not think Vegas will be able to use them itself. However, some plugins can and you can get quite big boost in this case. In dual GPUs setup you can configure NeatVideo plugin to use one GPU and Vegas (including encoder) -- another so they will not fight for the single resource.
Unfortunately, you will need to find out youself if plugins you use can be configured to use separate GPU. If they cannot -- there is no reason to have dual GPU setup.
P.S Well, one two-cores CPU usually better that two single-cores CPUs.
Thanks @fifonik for your feedback.
However, I don't think you are correct about the performance between "two single-core CPUs and one double-cores CPU." I still belive that multi processor offers better performance than single processor with more cores. Otherwise, why dual CPU system is much more expensive than single CPU with the same core count, if both offer similar performance?
Vegas currently benefits from CPUs with faster MHz vs. more cores which applies to multi-cores, multi-processors, etc... Threadripper is essentially (2) CPUs joined by AMD's infinity fabric, so the $850 (USD) AMD 2950x is similar to having (2) 8-core CPUs @ <4.0 ghz. However, in Vegas, my $500 (USD) 5.0 ghz 9900K with 8 cores performs similarly... New Intel chips also have built-in Quick Sync Video which contributes to HEVC MP4, etc. renders which can be enabled even when an external/capable GPU, like the Vega 64, is utilized. In fact, a few benchmark tests demonstrate that Vegas does NOT perform significantly better on the high-end 32-core Threadripper 2990wx mainly due to its 3.0 ghz (stock) clock limitation.
As noted elsewhere on this forum, I spent $1350 to upgrade an old 6-core 4.0ghz Xeon to a 9900K, Asus Z390 WS, 32GB DDR4 & Vega 64. After 2 months of research, IMO, this was the best bang/buck at the time of my upgrade. It completes the Vegas 11 Red Car Test in 13s-14 (HEVC QSV). Overall most of my various daily renders are nearly exactly 2X as fast on the 9900K vs. single-cpu Xeon. Therefore, even a dual CPU Xeon 6-cores each) would not catch a 9900K because both CPUs are clocked slower... IMO CPUs with high core counts and/or multi-CPUs are better for Virtual Machine servers vs. editing workstations. However, this could all change if software designers write code that better-utilizes today's multi-core CPU capabilities... Even with the 9900K I don't see 100% CPU utilization unless I am rendering (2) projects at once...
Vegas currently benefits from CPUs with faster MHz vs. more cores which applies to multi-cores, multi-processors, etc... Threadripper is essentially (2) CPUs joined by AMD's infinity fabric, so the $850 (USD) AMD 2950x is similar to having (2) 8-core CPUs @ <4.0 ghz. However, in Vegas, my $500 (USD) 5.0 ghz 9900K with 8 cores performs similarly... New Intel chips also have built-in Quick Sync Video which contributes to HEVC MP4, etc. renders which can be enabled even when an external/capable GPU, like the Vega 64, is utilized. In fact, a few benchmark tests demonstrate that Vegas does NOT perform significantly better on the high-end 32-core Threadripper 2990wx mainly due to its 3.0 ghz (stock) clock limitation.
As noted elsewhere on this forum, I spent $1350 to upgrade an old 6-core 4.0ghz Xeon to a 9900K, Asus Z390 WS, 32GB DDR4 & Vega 64. After 2 months of research, IMO, this was the best bang/buck at the time of my upgrade. It completes the Vegas 11 Red Car Test in 13s-14 (HEVC QSV). Overall most of my various daily renders are nearly exactly 2X as fast on the 9900K vs. single-cpu Xeon. Therefore, even a dual CPU Xeon 6-cores each) would not catch a 9900K because both CPUs are clocked slower... IMO CPUs with high core counts and/or multi-CPUs are better for Virtual Machine servers vs. editing workstations. However, this could all change if software designers write code that better-utilizes today's multi-core CPU capabilities... Even with the 9900K I don't see 100% CPU utilization unless I am rendering (2) projects at once...
THanks @TheRhino for the feedback, but what is 9900K?
Otherwise, why dual CPU system is much more expensive than single CPU with the same core count, if both offer similar performance?
I believe the answer to this is that the dual Xeon CPU motherboard architecture was primarily intended for servers. It USED to be a good way to make workstations with higher core counts than otherwise would be possible, but now that you have single CPU options with very high numbers of cores it no longer makes economic sense to do this in a video editing workstation. There are some good articles about configuration here:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/solutions/content_creation/post.php
THanks @TheRhino for the feedback, but what is 9900K?
The Intel I9-9900K is a $500 (USD) 9th generation 8-core CPU that works best with Z390 motherboards that provide adequate power to the (single) CPU because with good cooling it can overclock to 5.0 ghz. Workstations running apps like Vegas often perform better on 8-cores running at 5.0 ghz vs. more cores at slower clock speeds. Google "9900K overclock benchmarks" and you can compare it to processors you are more familiar with. In-between builds I also lose track of the latest/greatest CPUs/GPUs so it is always a learning curve to get back into the game, design & build a new system... For editors, the Asus Z390 WS is the best motherboard for the 9900K because it overclocks well and due to the onboard PLX chip you can fully utilize all of the 5 PCIe slots to include a Blackmagic Decklink, hardware RAID cards, 10G network, Thunderbolt, etc. IMO it is the best bang/buck right now until AMD releases Zen2 on motherboards that support PCIe 4.0, a new standard for PCIe cards...
However, I don't think you are correct about the performance between "two single-core CPUs and one double-cores CPU." I still belive that multi processor offers better performance than single processor with more cores. Otherwise, why dual CPU system is much more expensive than single CPU with the same core count, if both offer similar performance?
Some application have special optimisations for multi logical cpu and their speed increasing. I'm talking about something like multi-core web servers or virtual servers. Every core processing one request (well, almost) and it is very good idea to have many logical CPUs in one system.
However, there are only a few CPU manufacturers and they do not offer 32+ cores CPU for PC market. So you cannot use only one CPU to get 32 logical CPUs. If you'd like to have more -- you need multi CPU sistem (every CPU will be multi cores). Multi CPU systems more expensive because MB are much more complicated, separate memory/IO per physical CPU (so they are not fighting for these resources) etc.
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/multiple-cpu-vs-multicore-33195.html
https://www.howtogeek.com/194756/cpu-basics-multiple-cpus-cores-and-hyper-threading-explained/
Along with this thread and Gazie's new build thread from a few weeks ago, I've started thinking about upgrading to a new computer since my current one is now 5 years and 1 month old (exactly).
I'm actually thinking about HP Z8
I've looked at options in HP's range a few times over the months, and today an HP work station Z8 does seem quite appealing. One of the things that worries me is that HPs have NVIDIA GPUs whereas it seems that AMD cards are preferred for Vegas Pro, as highlighted many times on this forum over the years. Any thoughts?
THanks @TheRhino for the feedback, but what is 9900K?
The Intel I9-9900K is a $500 (USD) 9th generation 8-core CPU that works best with Z390 motherboards that provide adequate power to the (single) CPU because with good cooling it can overclock to 5.0 ghz. Workstations running apps like Vegas often perform better on 8-cores running at 5.0 ghz vs. more cores at slower clock speeds. Google "9900K overclock benchmarks" and you can compare it to processors you are more familiar with. In-between builds I also lose track of the latest/greatest CPUs/GPUs so it is always a learning curve to get back into the game, design & build a new system... For editors, the Asus Z390 WS is the best motherboard for the 9900K because it overclocks well and due to the onboard PLX chip you can fully utilize all of the 5 PCIe slots to include a Blackmagic Decklink, hardware RAID cards, 10G network, Thunderbolt, etc. IMO it is the best bang/buck right now until AMD releases Zen2 on motherboards that support PCIe 4.0, a new standard for PCIe cards...
Yes I know about the Intel i9 CPU I just did not get it when you didn't mention "Intel i9"
Some application have special optimisations for multi logical cpu and their speed increasing. I'm talking about something like multi-core web servers or virtual servers. Every core processing one request (well, almost) and it is very good idea to have many logical CPUs in one system.However, there are only a few CPU manufacturers and they do not offer 32+ cores CPU for PC market. So you cannot use only one CPU to get 32 logical CPUs. If you'd like to have more -- you need multi CPU sistem (every CPU will be multi cores). Multi CPU systems more expensive because MB are much more complicated, separate memory/IO per physical CPU (so they are not fighting for these resources) etc.https://smallbusiness.chron.com/multiple-cpu-vs-multicore-33195.html
https://www.howtogeek.com/194756/cpu-basics-multiple-cpus-cores-and-hyper-threading-explained/
Got it.
Along with this thread and Gazie's new build thread from a few weeks ago, I've started thinking about upgrading to a new computer since my current one is now 5 years and 1 month old (exactly).
I'm actually thinking about HP Z8
I've looked at options in HP's range a few times over the months, and today an HP work station Z8 does seem quite appealing. One of the things that worries me is that HPs have NVIDIA GPUs whereas it seems that AMD cards are preferred for Vegas Pro, as highlighted many times on this forum over the years. Any thoughts?
All my old and current systems have nVidia GPUs and I don't recall even once that Vegas Pro had problems with them!
@aboammar ... many thanks - that's very encouraging to know. I definitely won't rule nVidia's out.
After doing way more research over the last few days, including from this forum thread and other forum posts, clock speed and number of cores seem to be the most important considerations for video editing with most NLEs, the notable exception being Davinci Resolve which apparently relies more on the GPU. The HP Z8 and Z6 look great, but to option up either to both a good clock speed AND 8 cores or more with hyper-threading, those units become even more insanely expensive. It's not all that different cost-wise with Dell's workstations either. Then there's even more cost to get the GPU up to 8GB from the 4 or 5GB GPU in the base model and, in some cases get the boot drive up to 512GB a M.2 SSD from the base 256GB SSD. IT Creations TV on YT has some good reviews of both HP and Dell workstations, and one comment by a viewer on the YT HP Z8 review page worked out that to fully option a Z8, including dual CPUs, would cost around $100K USD. Eeek!
From what I've read so far via Google and YT review/comparison searches (inc: pcworld), the i9 9900K does seem worth much more consideration (also mentioned earlier in this thread by TheRhino).
The more I've looked into it over the last few days, the more apparent it is that Grazie's new build is in the 'sweet spot' for video editing - and he's opted for an nVidia GPU as well.
Decisions, decisions! But more research first.