Comments

DavidSinger wrote on 11/26/2006, 5:20 PM
"System restore can sometimes be useful for installations that go wrong."
Turn it on before installation. Why leave it on after you know the installation is stable (grin)?
CotyJarret wrote on 11/27/2006, 5:59 PM
I'm thinking seriously about buying the HP you mentioned...are you happy with the performance over all for the system while working in Vegas?

How much memory did you get with your system? Firewire ports?

I'm looking for a new system and monitor...so any help you can throw my way would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,
Coty
DGates wrote on 11/27/2006, 7:19 PM
Hey Coty,

Who are you asking the question to? If it's me, I bought mine at Best Buy for $849 for just the tower. It came with 2GB of RAM and firewire ports on the front and back. Nice system for the price.
CotyJarret wrote on 11/30/2006, 4:10 AM
Dgates,
Thanks. Just came up for air from days of cutting, so haven't been able to check the forum. That sounds like a great price...I'm seriously thinking of going in that direction now.
Coty
Erni wrote on 12/2/2006, 3:27 PM
29seconds (This is the old Rendertest)
Vegas 7b
Rendered to NTSC DV (render quality=best)
Default template

Asus P5LD2-VM SE
Core 2 Duo E6400 (overclocked 10%, 2.34GHz)
2x512/667 generic
Western Digital SATA 2 160 and 300GB drives no RAID
ro_max wrote on 12/3/2006, 2:07 PM
19 seconds (This is the old Rendertest)
Vegas 7b
Rendered to NTSC DV (render quality=best)
Default template

(Core 2 Duo OC'd to 3.46 GHz, 4 GB, RAID 10, XP pro)
mark-woollard wrote on 7/5/2008, 2:38 PM
56s - Dual Xeon 2.8ghz (Vegas 7, 2GB RAM)
33s - Intel T8100 Core 2 Duo (Vegas 8b, 2.1ghz, 3GB RAM Vista32 laptop)
UlfLaursen wrote on 7/5/2008, 10:01 PM
Wow - dual xeons are not that hot anymore :-)

I'll get a dual quad xeon Dell workstation next week, I'll try the rendertest then :-)

/Ulf
John_Cline wrote on 7/5/2008, 10:02 PM
This thread is a year and a half old. Please post your results in the current "rendertest-hdv" thread.

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=526098
UlfLaursen wrote on 7/5/2008, 10:07 PM
Ok, will do, John - sorry :-)

/Ulf
DGates wrote on 7/6/2008, 4:30 AM
One's the original render test, and the other is for HDV. Different threads are perfectly appropriate.

There are SOME folks who aren't shooting/editing HD.
John_Cline wrote on 7/6/2008, 5:01 AM
The rendertest-hdv.veg isn't about whether you're shooting HD or not. I designed it because modern machines were getting so fast that they were screaming through the old rendertest and, since the results are in seconds instead of seconds and fractions of seconds, there wasn't enough precision in the results to determine subtle differences between the speed of different machines.

Rendertest-hdv.veg is all about the speed of the CPU and it takes longer to complete. There is a far greater difference between two results like 15 vs 17 seconds and results like 120 seconds vs 200 seconds.
mark-woollard wrote on 7/6/2008, 5:13 AM
John, I posted in this "old" render test thread because my dual Xeon system can't even finish rendering the new render test. It seems to be more than it can handle.
John_Cline wrote on 7/6/2008, 5:37 AM
Curious... in what way is it not able to finish the test?
DGates wrote on 7/6/2008, 6:29 AM
I hear ya, and you're right. It's a great indicator of your system's processor capabilities.