Quad-core: good or bad?

Dale7 wrote on 6/3/2007, 6:07 AM
I've been doing a little research because I'm thinking of replacing my 5-yr-old P4 1.8 with a new machine soon. I'm thinking right now I'll prob. go with a Q6600 (or if I decide against quad core then an E6600 core 2 duo). I've read on various Vegas forums (inc. this one) that a lot of people are having good success with quad-cores; however there have been a couple reports (in this forum) of the "VASST HD render test" causing the system to hang at a certain point when using quads. Does anybody know if there was a definitive conclusion of this matter (what caused the hang up in these reported cases)?

Is quad-core a good thing for Vegas at this time?

Thanks for your input!
Dale S.

Comments

JJKizak wrote on 6/3/2007, 6:38 AM
I wouldn't hesitate to go the quad core route with all the ram I could stuff into the motherboard.

JJK
johnmeyer wrote on 6/3/2007, 8:53 AM
I think the hang reports have nothing to do with Quad, per se, and have often been the result of problems with the settings within Vegas; the version of Vegas (earlier versions choked on the VASST HDV test that Spot introduced about 18 months ago).

I don't have one, but I will definitely get a quad. The sales people at Polywell have been calling me lately, and I think they have one. I have been very happy with my Polywell, and it came configured without all the "bloatware" you get elsewhere. Of course, if you can, building it yourself is not a bad idea.
Dale7 wrote on 6/3/2007, 10:24 AM
Thanks for the replies. I'll look into Polywell. Has anybody had any experience with Velocity Micro?

Dale S.
up_north wrote on 6/3/2007, 12:32 PM
Dale

I think I probably started the thread about it crashing on the VASST test. EVERYONE else I've contacted who has a quad core has exactly the same problem - it repeatedly crashes in the same place. Up until that point it's very impressive. So yes, it may be a setting somehwre in Vegas but I logged it with Sony, they came up with some nonsense about 64 bit processors and suggested I log it as an enhancment request. The only was to get round it is to reduce the number of render threads to no more than 2. No improvement in 7e.

Ian
blink3times wrote on 6/3/2007, 12:38 PM
I just jumped up from a D950 dual core to a Q6600.... absolutely NO regrets!! I render in 1/2 the time I did before.

The render test mentioned I think is a bit flawed... I don't think anybody with a quad core can do it.... there is something very wrong with that project.
johnmeyer wrote on 6/3/2007, 12:46 PM
there is something very wrong with that project.

I agree. I have created all sorts of "pathological" tests during my years with Vegas that caused the program to do all sorts of weird things (like adding a solid black track above all others and then rendering using the worst possible -- and therefore fastest -- MPEG-2 setting so I could create an SFL file with the project markers). Generated media can do some strange things.

The real test of the program is how it behaves with real projects, and if the quad core users haven't had any problems with their actual projects, that says something.

Of course, there is that horrible 2-frame HDV black frame bug, but that appears to happen to everyone.
Lavoll wrote on 6/3/2007, 3:47 PM
i am going quad pretty soon myself, but i think i heard that the price will drop late july?? anyone know anything about this?

:)
Moebius~ wrote on 6/3/2007, 7:01 PM
Price cuts on quad cores coming July 22...
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=789466&starttime=0&endtime=0&page=2
DSCalef wrote on 6/3/2007, 7:34 PM
I have a QX6700 Quad Duo 2 Extreme that I paid $1050 for the processor and another $400 for an Intel D975XBX2 motherboard. I am overclocking with Intel's supplied utilities running the CPU up from 2.66 to 3.172, a 20% increase.

I have never had a crash, and are seeing phenomanal render times compared to my previous AMD single core 1.9 mhz setup that sits in a corner.

I cannot tell you how thrilled I am to have made that leap. I am running Windows XP SP2 but am ready to jump to XP64 or Vista when the new Vegas 64 is released this fall.

If you can get a quad core, do it. And get the fastest chip you can afford if you are serious about your editing. Your time is worth money. This will save you hours every week.

This is the first Intel cpu I have owned (or built/sold) since 1996. I am(was) a died in the wool AMD lover.
johnmeyer wrote on 6/3/2007, 7:41 PM
Yeah, there is something going to happen in July or August. Even the Polywell salesman, who was trying to sell me a computer, said I should probably wait. Don't know any details ...
Steve Mann wrote on 6/3/2007, 7:49 PM
"Of course, there is that horrible 2-frame HDV black frame bug, but that appears to happen to everyone."

I must live right because I haven't seen it yet.
UlfLaursen wrote on 6/3/2007, 8:59 PM
"The real test of the program is how it behaves with real projects"

I agree with you 100%, John - it is hard to tell how thing really work in a designed test. When I build a new PC I judge it after 2-3 bigger projects, where I get arround the program quite a bid and a several hours at one time.

/Ulf
Moebius~ wrote on 6/3/2007, 11:38 PM
DSC, keep a close eye on your temperatures. At a certain limit, the CPU will slow itself down to keep from overheating. With my dual core E6400 using stock cooling and default voltage (1.275 v), temperatures were reaching the mid 60's C at above 3 GHz in a 22° C room running Orthos: www.techpowerup.com/downloads/385/Orthos_Stress_Prime_2004.html

I find this program to be very good for temperature monitoring:
http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/

I bought an aftermarket cooler and now it stays under 60° at 3.4 Ghz. It still takes 185 seconds to run that test though!
DavidMcKnight wrote on 6/5/2007, 9:15 AM

I just built two quad-core boxes based on the Q6600 and an MSI motherboard. Bottom line is, quad core procs + Vegas = sweet render lovin'. By all means, in case there was any confusion - Vegas takes advantage of all 4 cores.

I haven't played with any overclocking, likely won't outside of experimentation.
agerrard wrote on 6/5/2007, 10:04 AM
If SCS wrote a Vegas render client that runs on the 6 SPUs in a Playstation3, we wouldn't need to be building $3500 PCs. There's not a lot of memory, but the OS is less bloated and it could stream off the HDD or even over a LAN fast enough to stay ahead of the encode. Please - #1 feature request for Vegas 8? (And do a PS3 VST host for ACID Pro while you're at it... :) ).

Until then... it looks like dual quad-core Xeons is the way to go, but socket 771 Xeons are much more expensive than the almost equivalent LGA 775 Xeons (775 is single CPU only, slightly slower FSB) - does anyone have a sense of the speed difference between using a single machine wth 8 cores vs. networked rendering on two machines with 4 cores each, assuming a good gigabit LAN? If you have a full Vegas license on both machines, can you do networked rendering of mpg and AC3?