Comments

Terje wrote on 5/27/2009, 8:22 AM
>> Any benefit to using high-end workstation video cards

Nope

>> is Vegas 9 still limited to 4 cores

Was it ever?
jrazz wrote on 5/27/2009, 8:35 AM
I get about the same render times on 8.1 as I do on 9 64 and I am using two quads in my machine.

j razz
dibbkd wrote on 5/27/2009, 12:08 PM



Maybe what he's referring to is the number of rendering threads in the Options.

If so, then yes, VP9 still has a max of 4 rendering threads.

I think a lot of people equate this to the number of cores/CPU's it takes full advantage of on a system, which I think is correct too.

Terje wrote on 5/27/2009, 3:50 PM
>> it takes full advantage of on a system, which I think is correct too.

Probably depends on the codec. Don't know what the interface is like. No reason the codec could not start threads, but as I said, don't know the interface to a codec so I can't say for sure.
Pachanga wrote on 5/28/2009, 2:13 AM
I am trying to determine if there is a significant benefit in using 2 quad-core processors versus 1 quad core, to reduce rendering times.

Vegas is limited to 4 threads (not cores), so it is not clear to me if you would need 8 threads to fully utilize the 8 cores.

So, would a dual quad core workstation reduce the render time when compared to a single quad core? Significantly ?

I was told a while back that the system overhead to manage the more than 4 cores/threads was so great (traffic jam) that there was no significant benefit to having more than 4 cores or threads, thus the maximum of 4 threads in Vegas.
srode wrote on 5/28/2009, 3:35 AM
there's 16 rendering threads in the 64 bit version - that's where you will most likely see help with a dual processor machine.

For video card - just make sure you get one that doesn't share the RAM with the motherboard - uses its own RAM only. I don't think the video card will have any effect on rendring othewise.