Request: stories of improved performance with computer upgrade

cheroxy wrote on 3/3/2005, 6:38 AM
I have seen various sites that say you get an X% improvement (usually very small, like 3%) if you upgrade from Y processor to Z processor (ex - 2.0 Ghz to a 2.4 Ghz).

Does anybody have any experience as to upgrading from a very small processor to a very big one (ie- .866 Ghz to a 3.2 Ghz or something similar)? I would like to know what all those small incriments add up to over a long span. If anybody has any info on time differences for vegas and other apps over a larger processor range increase please post. I would be very interested.

My computer history if you want it:
I have an .866 that I bought from a store that garauntees you can't find a faster computer with that same processor. I have fournd that I can multi-task better on that than other people can with their 2.0 processors in the cheap Dells. I haven't upgraded yet because I have never until recently had anything noticeably slow, and I don't care if my render times take four hours instead of two. I always render when I go to bed so it makes no difference. I upgraded my still shot camera to the digital rebel and I am definately noticing some slowing when I try to work with those images in PSE 3.0. For that reason I am looking to upgrade.

Thanks,
Cheroxy

Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 3/3/2005, 7:09 AM
Been buying from Totally Awesome, have we? :-)

Going from an 866 to a 3.6 will be lightspeed. I can't give you a comparison in terms of X%, but the way SuperDel sets up his systems is pretty responsive for a "store shelf" system. Mark Dileo's got a speed test site, or you can use our benchmark veg file to test/compare.
johnmeyer wrote on 3/3/2005, 8:54 AM
You will get a rendering speed improvement that is at least the multiple of your processor speeds, i.e., if you double your processor speed, your rendering time will drop in half. Usually you get more than this, because other subsystems are improved as well, and some of the new processor architecture often makes speed improvements in media software. Most modern processors have instruction sets and architectures that include many of the specialized things previously found in DSPs (Digital Signal Processors). Because of this, we are seeing fewer and fewer specialized "rendering boards" which is why Sony's software-only architecture makes so much sense.

Memory makes less difference, because most computers today have so much memory. However, if you use RAM preview a lot, then you want to get several Gbytes. Also, I have verified, through actual testing, that DVD Architect can get into "thrashing" situations with "only" 512 Mbytes of RAM. The minimum system requirements of 128 Mbytes is a total joke. For any computer on which you will be running Vegas and DVD Architect, I recommend 1 GByte in order to make sure RAM does not constrain your performance.
cheroxy wrote on 3/3/2005, 10:19 AM
DSE, that was pretty clever to pick up on that! I did buy from TAC even though I moved to Maryland four years ago. I will probably build my next machine because I don't like their current systems as much, too picky I guess.

My current machine has 1 Gig RAM. I personally feel that is just barely enough, but that is probably because I like to play itunes, have vegas open, a couple web pages open and probably a word or excel doc open as well. My 866 has been humming, but its two months from being FOUR years old. I think it is time I get a new one and use this one to take advantage of the network rendering.
Cheroxy
MH_Stevens wrote on 3/3/2005, 7:56 PM
Cheroxy:

I'm getting ready to replace my Vegas system also and have been researching the current offerings. There are only TWO choices. Cheap soon to be replaced technology or expensive "prepare for tommorow" technology. I think I will go with the former as when tommorow comes, tommorow's system will be cheaper than it is today by more than the cost of the old technology now, and as we do not have a 64bit Vegas the increases are marginal anyway.

By Old technoly I mean an Athlon 64 3700+ on a 775 socket motherboard with AGP graphics and DDR-400 (PC3200) RAM. Such a system with an 128MB AGP 8x DirectX9, DVI video card, and a pair of 200MB RAID hardrives will set you back $1500. (MicroCenter PowerSpec model 9431 $1499)

If you want better than this then you must look forward and get a 939 socket motherboard that can handle the newer Athlon's 128-bit dual-channel mode or something like a P5AD2 motherboard for the 64 bit Pentiums with a 1066FSB. These boards can handle DDR2 RAM up to the DDR2-800 (PC2-6400) and dual PCI-E graphics and SLI if you are a gamer. To take advantage of such a motherboard though you need the top speed processors and the top speed memory which is new and we are talking big money.

I know you asked for info on just what improvemnets others HAVE seen but as I believe the Athlon 64 3700+ is the best you can do with affordable tecknology I say go with it and then tell us. (Or wait a week until I get mine.)

Keep in touch and let us know what you do.

Michael

PS Three days ago I knew nothing about this and was asking "silly questions" so I'm just passing on my homework - nothing original!
cheroxy wrote on 3/3/2005, 8:00 PM
MH,
thanks for that reply. I am actually a couple months out right now from buying a computer. I thought I would start my homework and see if I should try and squeeze another 6-9 months out of mine or upgrade in a couple. It looks like I'll be very happy with an upgrade. I liked your specs. Please post (or send me an email) when you get yours and let me know how it goes.
theforce wrote on 3/3/2005, 8:10 PM
When I upgraded from a Pentium 3 @450GHz to a Pentium 4 @1.8GHz I also saw a roughly 4X improvement (as per johnmeyer's comment). The computer I upgraded from was only about 2 years old at the time, but for the 4X improvement (which I was anticipating), it was worth it. Now, my 1.8 machine is 3 years old, and the fastest machine I could buy would only be about twice as fast (Moore's law no longer applies, I guess), so I am waiting for real 64-bit software or multi-core processors to become mainstream before I feel compelled to upgrade again. Almost everything except video rendering is virtually instantaneous, and I don't do it for a living, so I'm not in any big hurry. I will probably upgrade my RAM from 640MB to 1GB, though, and maybe get a new video card that supports DVI (because I just got a 19" flat panel).
Spot|DSE wrote on 3/3/2005, 8:12 PM
Carson, We were working with TAC until just recently, trying to get a Vegas monsta system going, but Del wanted too much for the overall system for what he was offering, so we abandoned working with them. They are pushing Pinnacle systems instead of Vegas. He still has those cheesy late night commercials, but now he's added "professional video systems" to the lineup.
We recently spec'd an AMD 252 system based on recommendations and performance from the folks at Cineform, and so far, this system is screamin' fasst. You might want to look into one of these, although they aren't cheap.