Wait for the new AMD stuff to get into the market -> from what I hear it'll be well worth it.

Other then that, speedups from dual CPUs depend on what you're doing. As an example, from what I've read and seen, rendering to wmv using dual CPUs, processor utilization is far less then 100%. To me it would make sense then to use more then one PC (could probably scrounge up a few for the price of one dually) & just let one or more sit there rendering. But that's just one specific task - how much bang for your buck you get depends on what you're doing.

In the mean time, if you want to do something, invest in the rest of your setup or drives or whatever... Don't think there's going to be much benefit re-using that slot 1 board in any case.

I agree with what's been said. It's a waste of money to upgade just the processors. If I were you, I'd use that money to upgrade to a single processor AMD system (at least a 2000). You would only need to buy a new motherboard, CPU, and RAM and you can do that for well under 1k. Your performance in Vegas will be 4 times as good as your current system.

At best you are going to see a 2x improvement (educated guess) with your suggested upgrade. Definitely not worth it.

Since VV4 is optimized to utilize the new Intel 3.2Gig Hyper Threading processor chip, I'd suggest looking into that, with a little more care, as well.

Everybody's correct. The upgrade path is a waste of money. A recent review, posted somewhere on these forums, showed a single processor 3.06 P4 box smoking a dual 1.4ghz Mac G4 by about 50% in speed tests involving common editing operations. Your render times, between what you're using now and the above P4 machine, should be 5-6X faster. If you want to save money, go with AMD's current crop of very fast chips. Only difference between AMD and Intel is that Intel's hyper threading makes encoding, (rendering), go about 40% faster compared to a comparable speed AMD chip. All other operations on the AMD are as fast as on the P4-assuming the chips are matched for speed, (e.g.-XP2800=P4 3.06). Smartest thing for you to do is dump that dual rig for whatever you can get for it, and buy the fastest single processor machine you can afford, unless you use any of the small number of apps. that are actually optimized for dual processor use. In that case, go for a dual processor AMD rig..

Everyone provided some good information for you.... If you are not into building your own system...instead of the Dell, I would look into Alienware's Roswell System (for DV Editing)..although I build my own systems- I have heard very good reviews for Alienware.

Customize the Roswell to the 3.06 processor w/ 533 buss, and upgrade to 1 Gig Ram... standard with a System drive and a video capture drive- priced out at $2,770
I would install a Raid controller and two (matched) hard drives to make a raid- your choice (puts you just over $3K with 2-80 gig drives=154 gig raid)!
I like Dell- but they are a good Geb=neral Use System- build or buy your system geared at DV editing

just curious -
why the raid array - you don't need it for DV output, so will it help (a lot) in rendering??

Victor,
I find the raid to be very stable with a faster throughput than a stand alone drive... rendering time is a product of processor power, buss speed, ram, throughput.... I have screen captures showing 50 seconds of video rendered to AVI took 8 seconds... so, I tune my systems for performance and reliability. The complete package, performance tuned = faster renders, stability and V4 that flies... or it's a product of growing up in the muscle car era- the more HP the better!!!

I have been thinking of an upgrade as well, and here is a good system I found:

http://zuke.com/systemDetails.asp

configure the system, make it 3.06 processor and 1 GIG RAM (333). It prices in around $1,000 dollars. (- the monitor, and some others like keyboard, mouse.. etc)

I have an older PC from this company that I got from ebay. I have had only one problem with it (power supply needed a replacement). It is about a year old and works great, but its only a 1.5 mhz P4. A 3.06 for 1,000 dollars.... that sounds like a great deal to me!

>>>Only difference between AMD and Intel is that Intel's hyper threading makes encoding, (rendering), go about 40% faster compared to a comparable speed AMD chip.

40% sounds a bit high... where did you get these numbers?

>>>buy the fastest single processor machine you can afford, unless you use any of the small number of apps. that are actually optimized for dual processor use.

Or if you want to do more than one CPU intensive thing on your system at the same time. Rendering in Vegas while editing another project or working in Photoshop for example. Rendering two projects at once is another example where dual processors are essential.

Arks,
Just my thoughts... you would want to upgrade the motherboard 8INXP, ram, HD (to 133), Video card to Radeon 9700 Pro, Audigy Audio... by the time I cofigured the Dream System to where I wanted- I was over $2600 and still needed a few more items... I would go for the Alienware at that point for performance and cooling or build my own with all the trimmings for $2700

Yeh, I agree, but I forgot to mention that I have alot of extras already that I would just add to it, and upgrade as time goes on and more money comes in. Why would you change the motherboard?

I have a unopened P4 2.8 upgrade i will sell for $300.00

d1editor, re: HD (to 133)

Does that really make a difference? Are there any benchmarks that show ATA133 can out perform ATA100? I thought it was just a marketing ploy.

It isn't marking ploy. The ATA133 interface is indeed faster than the 100's. I have an extra IDE controller card on both of my main PC's that use the ATA133 and overlay their BIOS to do it, and they fly. Don't want to reboot just to check, I think they run at Mod 7 while if I remember right the 100's use Mod 6.

The number refers to data transer. A drive rated as ATA100 transfers at a max speed of 100MB a second, while the 133 does it at 133MB a second. The numbers are best case and rarely get that high in real world, at least not substained speed but to answer your question, yes the 133 is a good deal faster than the older 100's where were much faster the the still older 66's or 33's... Most of the newer, larger drives come with a 133 interface card, which you need to get to the higher speed. While attacking a 133 drive to a 100 controller works, it won't run as fast as it can. Of course if you have a system with mixed speed drives, your transfer speed from drive A to drive B will drop to the slower of the two. So to end this long winded comment, unless you have only nothing but 133 rated drives, and instead have some older ones, AND you transfer data from one to the other, then no, you won't see any speed increase since obviously the slower drive can't accept the data as fast as the new driver can deliver it and so it is forced to drop down.

You're right, it is a real increase, but Maxtor 250GB and Western Digital 250GB are virtually indistinguishable performance wise in a working environment according to the benchmarks I've seen, but one has an ATA133 and one has an ATA100 interface. When you say most newer larger drives come with a ATA133 interface card, are you only referring to Maxtor drives?

Even Maxtor, the ones who originally pushed for ATA133, only shows a 22% increase for ATA133 vs ATA100 in their marketing data, which is most likely generous. I would just question the original suggestion of upgrading from a 100 to a 133 for performance reasons. If I was building a new system I might go for 133's (might as well since there isn't a cost difference), but I don't see any compelling data that would get me to upgrade. I still suspect Maxtor pushed the 133 more for marketing reasons than technical since those potential speeds are rarely reached, but all in good time ;)

Cheesehole; Yeah, 40% is a bit high. I meant to say 30-40%, these numbers being gleaned from different PC magazines tests of AMD v.s Intel platform machines. I use and like AMD myself, but I've seen enough test data to know that the rendering speed difference is real and considerable. However, you're paying a lot more money for a system that'll perform at comparable speed, in everything but rendering. By going AMD you can almost save enough money to build another dedicated AMD rendering machine.The two open vegas instances to utilize dual processors is also a good idea, but considering the extra cost of a dual platform rig, I think I'd rather again have a second machine networked to the first..

jboy... right it comes down to the way people work. I don't think of dual proc's as good value in general unless doing 3d rendering or something, but they are good for me because it's like having two machines but I only have to manage one. I couldn't live without two or three machines though. Luckily I've never had to make that compromise.

I'm sniffing around for hard numbers because I'm in the market for a new system. My dual 1Ghz is feeling behind the times. I benchmarked a PIV 3Ghz w/ HT running Vegas 4 and was impressed. It handles the 24p stuff from the Panasonic perfectly at 50% (preview-auto). Still, it needs just a little more horsepower to have solid realtime performance over 1394 with transitions and effects. I'm trying to hold out until that threshhold is crossed. Unless... has it been crossed?

Look...if you’re building a new machine...why would you build the system with ATA 100 drives? I would spend an extra 20 to 30 dollars to gain even a 15% increase in performance. I make a living with my systems- it's not a hobby. If I render projects (DVD, CD, Web, Broadcast, Corporate and Animation) at a conservitive average of 4 hours a week---> I would have a savings of over $6,000 based on that performance increase. If I measure the difference in processor speeds, ram, motherboards---> I would more than double those savings! I can render a one minute edited piece to AVI in 9 seconds; MPEG 2 (NTSC DVD) in 45 seconds. Both less than real time...I have heard others talk of 3 to 1 ratios! So yes, I invest in performance upgrades when building NEW machines (not upgrading older equipment) because it only makes good business sense when looking at profitability, productivity and longevity…it’s economics 101! So go ahead and save a few dollars here and there- and cost yourself thousands when looking at the big picture…your choice!

Hey D1 -
anyone working for a living would have to agree with your reasoning...
so what is YOUR favorite system (du jour)?
and if it's not too much to ask... why???
v.

I agree with you D1, but whats the difference if you buy a reasonable machine NOW, and when you make some money from it, upgrade with accessories and hardware(assuming one knows how to install new RAM and a new HD with cables)?

d1, performance is what I'm after. I just haven't seen any numbers that say Matrox performs better than WD in every case. The ATA interface doesn't seem to be the bottleneck yet. It's kind of like having the fastest car but having to stop at red lights just like the rest of us.

edit: d1, if you don't mind could you post your system specs? Your MPEG-2 rendering speed is quite a bit faster than what I was getting on a PIV 3GHz. I was rendering 24p footage (straight DV) and getting about 1.5x - 2x realtime. I'd love to know what you are running on. The system I was testing was a friend's HP Pavilion. It was most likely not built for performance.

edit 2: oops posted at the same time! thanks for the specs.

Victor,
I do not have a favorite system-- cause I build my own systems. But, if i were to purchase an already configured sytem- it would be Alienware (customized) or maybe even ... believe it or not...a Dell, also customized. I have associates that have been using these with great dependability and performance...

One of my systems that performs rather well:

Antec SOHO File Server case w/ 550 watt power supply w/ 3 additional fans
Gigabyte 8INXP Motherboard(testing shows it outperforms most P4 boards today)
(A second sytem uses the Soyo Ultra Dragon Platinum)
P4 3.06 GHz Processor
2 Gig DDR 333 Ram (bandwidth 4.2 gb / sec)
Promise Raid controller and onboard chipset for both external SATA drives (serial ATA) and ATA133 Raid
Radeon 9700 Pro video card (8x AGP)
Creative Labs Audigy 2 sound card
60 gig 7200 RPM System Drive (Ata133)
2-120 Gig 7200 RPM (ATA133) for a striped raid
Plextor CD-RW
Sony DRU 500A
Intel Gigabyte network
XP Pro
...all for under $2,200