Comments

MyST wrote on 5/29/2005, 12:55 PM
http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/Products/showproduct.asp?PID=965&FeatureID=8245

Notice the part where it says... Improved muti-processor rendering.

Mario
farss wrote on 5/29/2005, 3:50 PM
I'm running dual Xeons on one of my systems, sure screams along but I wouldn't consider it a 'few dollars more', it set me back about 4x dollars more but then it does have a very expensive case, hardware RAID etc. My only regret is having only 3 GHz CPUs but fitting 3.6GHz CPUs would have added another $1K.
Bob.
xjerx wrote on 5/29/2005, 9:18 PM
This is what i'm looking to get
Dual XEON DP 3.0GHz, 1MB cache, 800MHz FSB

it's that or single xeon 3.4, 1MB. 800mhz FSB

would the dual still be better than the single in this case?

haha...and yes...by a few dollars I meant..a lot

thanks
jeremiah
GlennChan wrote on 5/29/2005, 11:50 PM
slightly OT, does anyone have benchmark results comparing dual processors to single processors?

Something like rendertest.veg, or your own real-world project.

In Windows, you could simulate single processor via:
crtl alt del
click processes tab
right click vegas*.exe process
set affinity
leave one CPU check (or two in case of hyperthreading)

Then render.
farss wrote on 5/30/2005, 12:09 AM
I really haven't had a chance to give it a caning with V6 but encoding sure runs fast in V5, even DVD prepare etc is very fast, being able to run multiple instances of Vegas with no impact is great, we do lots of simple DVDs and things like building the waveform files can be a slowdown, now I open 1 instance of Vegas and drop say 20 hours of video clips into that, then while it does its waveform building thing I open another instance and start editing the first clip.
Bob.