The renders I did when comparing the performance with the number of threads restricted using the Vegas Options parameter was done with a real-life project (i.e., NOT the generated media in render test). I was using the MPEG-2 codec.

Since then, while I haven't done any more testing, I have continued to monitor the CPU usage and it is pretty clear that not only do different fX use cores differently (as others have reported) but each codec performs quite differently.

Jeff, you should be able to overclock your QX9650 on your motherboard (depending on the cpu cooler) all the way up to 3,8HGz. I'm running on a similar setup (overclocked - rock solid all the way up to 3,9GHz) - and reach 82 seconds. Seemingly still the fastest system among single CPU and 4 core PC:s out there (excluding the new i7 cores - that perform even faster).

Christian

I was fiddling trying to OC and came accross an HPET (high Precision Event Timer) in the CMOS. Either 32bit or 64bit. I enabled mine but did not notice any extra power. Are there similar settings on anyone's mobo's outhere and what noticable benifits are there?

Gigabyte X48, 2.83 Quad
XP64
SV 8.b

Lightads - you will get the best results from

1. 64 Bit OS and 8GB or more of RAM
2. OC the CPU to highest possible stable settings with adequate cooling
3. Fast RAM timings

The rest of the set up is about drive configurations to have one reading all the time and a different one writing the finished file. OS on a 3rd Drive helps as does a good hardware raid card - lowers the CPU load managing the drives when you have RAID.

QX6700 @ 3.2ghz , GByte x38dq6, 4gb ddr2 @800mhz, Vista64,Vegas8.1...
1:37 to m2t

System as follows:

QX9650 with 8 GIG of DDR3 ram. Rendering done in V8.1 with settings as described, namely MPEG2 - HDV 1080-60i. Creates an "mt2" file.

Render time: 1:34

I was previously getting over 3 minute render times and figured out that it was due to BIOS timing issues.

Anyhow, it does not seem that V8.1 is making full use of memory and CPU.

From your system specs, I'd say you're definitely right, clearvu. More info, for what it's worth; when I ran it in Vegas 8.0c, it took 1:47, only 10 secs slower than Vegas 8.1, all else being the same.

I have analyzed some of these times and calculated an average figure that represents how many GHz is needed for a given physical core to render this test at 1fps.

Core i7 - 32bit - 8.1GHz
Core 2 Duo - 32 bit - 8.8GHz

Core i7 - 64bit - 5.1GHz
Core 2 Duo - 64bit - 8GHz

What do these numbers mean? If you are running 32bit (8.0c) and a Core2Duo you would need a 4.4GHz dual core to run the test at 1fps. Or a 2.2GHz Quad. Since there are 149 frames in the test that would mean you need a 2.2GHz Quad to run the test in 149 seconds.

But if you were running a Core i7 quad a with Vegas 8.1 (loading all cores physical and logical) you'd only need 5.1/4=1.28GHz to run the test at 1fps or 149 seconds.

What does this mean? In my opinion if you are going to stay with 32bit Vegas for a while and are deciding to build a new system or upgrade your CPU, since the i7 is only about 8% faster with 32 bit rendering you'd be wiser (IMO) to simply upgrade your CPU. This of course assumes you can simply pop in a new CPU. If you have to build a new system then I'd build around the i7 using the 920 cpu.

If you are running 64 bit Vegas and want a faster rig then you should build a new Core i7 based system because it is about 36% faster per clock cycle than Core2Duo.

So the bottom line is that if you are running Vegas 8.0c with a Core2Duo Quad just run the fastest processor you can and there is no need to envy the i7 guys, the performance difference isn't that great.

But if you are running 8.1 then i7 absolutely crushes Core2Duo Quad performance. i7 looks to be a beast with Vegas 8.1!

- Mark

But if you are running 8.1 then i7 absolutely crushes Core2Duo Quad performance. i7 looks to be a beast with Vegas 8.1!VERY nice analysis!

I was not as scientific, but came to the same conclusion. In fact, I was so blown away by the 8.1/i7 combo that I purchased a license for both XP and Vista, just so I could run 8.1 under Vista. So far, I have installed nothing else under Vista and as soon as I am finished rendering in 8.1 under Vista, I re-boot and get back into XP Pro where the weather is pleasant and the people friendly.

Vista is every bit as bad as I expected, with all sorts of completely random and unneeded changes that don't provide one bit of benefit to me or the time it takes to get something done. The engineers involved clearly were just trying to "put their scent" on the thing.

But, when I watch those frame numbers spin by during a render, I feel that the extra $$ for the Vista license was definitely worth it, even if I only use it during render.

I still create my projects under 7.0d. 8.0c has turned out to be exactly what I feared: a little flaky around the edges, and just not as trustworthy as 7.0d (which has been a rock for years, and continues to be on this new computer).

Okay more fun with math.

Assuming linear scaling, in order for a Core i7 to render this test at realtime, 60i, it would require one core running at 153GHz.

Or a quad core running at 38.25GHz.

Or an octa core running at 19.13GHz.

Or a 16 core system running at 9.56GHz.

Or a 32 core system running at 4.78GHz.

I'd say the last system could finally, in fact, be called "software real time!"

Assuming we stay at 1080p resolution for some time then in perhaps 5 years we will be substantially real time for just about all video editing tasks.

- Mark

"...Or a 32 core system running at 4.78GHz."

You do realize that the Core i7 series will be expanded to more than 4 cores per CPU, under the Xeon "badge", some time this year? I'll bet it takes a lot less than 5 years to achieve RT encoding. Besides, as there is more progress toward hybrid encoding, (using both the CPU cores and the GPU processors), RT encoding could be here, before you know it. Well, maybe not "here", like my office, since I can't afford all that hardware, but "here" in the figurative sense.

Cuda processing will handle RT encoding much sooner than the i7 will if we get an upgrade to Vegas Pro 8 that supports it - I can't imagine it will be too long before it does - or Vegas will get passed quickly as other NLEs adopt it as some already have.

1:11 on i7 920 @ 2.67GHz 6gb ram Vista 64 Vegas 8.1 :-)

Will try some overclocking to 3.2 when I've completed my current project.

it took 3:13 on a quad quad opteron with virtualization disabled.. with virtualization it took 2:38

quad 2360se on a tyan s4980g2nr board. no page file used only memory... 64GB capacity on board.. little was used... I am running windows 2003 comput server edition

16 cores run slow..

the specs for my system reveal more computing power than two of the 6core xeon 7000 top end processor costing huge dollars..

I built my system for cuda only software and recently purchased a tesla c870 on ebay.com for 750..

over a teraflop of computing power...

system chassis and power 600
mb tyan s4980 330
4 8358se's used off ebay.. 1200
64gb of kingston ddr2 667 ecc reg memory new.. 1600usd
100 worth of fans...
1000 watt dual 8-pin power supply is required just for the MB.. PC power and cooling of course

i7 920 @ 3.8g
8.0c
XP Pro

1:17

I'm putting together an i7 system. I have the Intel X58 board. It has 4 Ram DDR3 RAM slots, 3 purple slots are tri-channel and one black. I want to know if I populate only the 3 purple slot will I still get 8 processors active?

Has no effect on number of processors. ( four of them virtual ) That is determined by whether or not HT ( Hyper Threading ) is enabled in the BIOS. It is usually on by default.

I found Vegas 8.0c with XP Pro, to render slightly faster with HT disabled..
I may have needed to adjust some other setting.. Really don't know ..

i7 920 no OC
Asus P6T - 6 GB RAM
Windows 7 Beta 32 bit - Vegas 8.0C

1:50

/Ulf

Thats interesting - it would seem that 64bit and 8.1 gives a boost, as otherwise your hardware is the same as mine, and I got 1:11.

Just tested mine. It was a measly 5:54 on my 2 year old cheapy computer.
Vegas 8.0c
Core2Duo
6300@1.86Ghz
1.59Ghz - 1.99 RAM

I'll be getting a new system soon.

0:49
Intel core i7 920 @ 4 GHz
Win 7 beta
Vegas 8.1 using 8 threads