Semi-OT: How much can a Core 2 Duo?

vitalforce wrote on 4/25/2007, 11:09 AM
About to buy either a PC or iMac with Core2Duo. Does anyone have experience with how well an iMac "limited" to a 2.33 speed Core2Duo, can play back HD type material (HDV, etc.) on a Vegas timeline (using something like Parallels or Bootcamp) as opposed to a PC that TigerDirect can build me with a 2.67 Core2Duo chip? Is there enough headroom in either chipset?

Comments

John_Cline wrote on 4/25/2007, 11:34 AM
Either machine can probably play HDV material from the timeline at full framerate (assuming that the rest of the components in the machine are up to the task.) However, since Vegas' performance is directly related to computer horsepower, go for the fastest CPU you can afford.

John
vicmilt wrote on 4/25/2007, 11:34 AM
(see first post)
and... is it worth an extra $600 bucks to go for quad core PC?
dat5150 wrote on 4/25/2007, 12:00 PM
Your post prompted me to check out the AMD site and I sat through a presentation on the Opteron....laying the groundwork for a new system later this year in anticipation of the Vegas64. Right now I'm in the camp of waiting for the quad core prices to come down. I think it will be worth it.
MH_Stevens wrote on 4/25/2007, 12:50 PM
I'm waiting for quad costs to plateau also, but did any of you read the article "Anatomy of an uncompressed workstation" in this months DV mag. For mac systems they recommend the Mac Pro Towers with dual 2-cores running at 2.66ghz. For the Windows system they recommend the dual-core Xeon over the Core-2 Extreme 2.93GHz. They don't say why. Can anyone advise on the practical advantages of the E6600 or the X6800 over the slower E6300 or E6400?
RBartlett wrote on 4/25/2007, 3:31 PM
The 1.80GHz E4300 on a motherboard that accepts and supports (hopefully accepting >1.8V) DDR2 800 (PC2-6400) memory [proven in dual or single channel mode] on 32bit XP and Vegas7 amply supports HDV 720p and 1080i m2t sources. I was using onboard graphics for this verification and a single hard disc (Seagate 320GB 7200.10 SATA).

The top of the range machines with WD Raptor drives may let you run longer without any housekeeping, but you'll be caught out eventually to put your house in order. The microsoft gremlins find their way about the place in the end!

Intel have just knocked a good percentage off the cost of the CPUs, the E4300 is the bargain basement Core2Duo model but it is very affordable. UK£80 or less. Marvellous performance even if you don't crank it up to ~3GHz using a clever motherboard and some nerve and PROVEN research. I'm unsure how much benefit having 4MB of cache is for real world timeline activities. The Allendale 2MB cache doesn't seem to be a limiting factor anyway.

Most off the peg PCs have 667MHz (double data rate) or slower memory. Even though they may have chipset support for higher (the motherboard BIOS may lock you from upgrading yourself).

If you are not sure about what I've just gone on about, ask the nearest system builder to price you up a machine with some of the above attributes. It ought to be sub-US$1000/£500 for the chassis base and XP.

Buy the Mac if you want OSX too or the lifestyle. They are good value even if you have to buy XP too.
GlennChan wrote on 4/25/2007, 4:47 PM
Rendertest.veg results:


14s - Intel QX6700 4 cores @ 2.66ghz
SOURCE: John Cline @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=496672
SOURCE2: JohnnyRoy @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=501735&Replies=19

15s - Macpro 2X2.66ghz dual core Intel processors (Vegas 7; old result was 45s)
SOURCE: Charley Gallagher @ http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=78558

19s - Intel Core 2 Duo overclocked @ 3.56ghz (*overclocked systems should be tested for stability)
SOURCE: ro_max@http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=497038

27s - Overclocked Intel E6300 @ 2.33Ghz (266mhz FSB --> 333mhz, 2MB cache, 1.86ghz originally; V6d; V7b = 28s)
SOURCE: Guy Bruner @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=488694&Replies=31

28s - Intel E6600 Core 2 Duo (Vegas 6d; 2.4ghz, 4MB cache)
SOURCE: Emailed submission.

34s - Intel E6300 Core 2 Duo (Vegas 6d; 35s in Vegas 7b)
SOURCE: Guy Bruner @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=488694&Replies=31

39s - AMD X2 4600+
SOURCE: JohnnyRoy @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=423138&Replies=4

*39s/74s - AMD X2 4400+ (Toledo core, 2X2.2ghz, 2X1MB cache, no dual channel memory, Vegas 6.0b)
SOURCE: philfort@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=399447&Replies=26

*39s - AMD X2 4400+ overclocked to 2420mhz
SOURCE: Jayster @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=465519&Replies=0

*40s/76s - AMD X2 4400+ (Toledo core, 2X2.2ghz, 2X1MB cache, no dual channel memory, Vegas 6.0b)
SOURCE: TheRhino@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=396239&Replies=61

44s - Pentium D 3.0ghz
SOURCE: GMElliot @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=454055
see also: http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=423138&Replies=8 (45s)

45s - Macpro 2X2.66ghz dual core Intel processors (Vegas 6)
SOURCE: Charley Gallagher @ http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=78558

47s - Core Duo 1.83Ghz (laptop)
SOURCE: FrigidNDEditing @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=477142&Replies=3
SOURCE: GMElliot @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=454055

*75s - P4 3.6ghz overclocked from 3.0 Pentium. A new 5xx-series 3.6ghz should be as fast or slightly slower.
SOURCE: Stormcrow@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=396239&Replies=57

78s- AMD64 3700+ (san diego core??? [2.2ghz, 1MB cache], vegas 6, dual channel RAM)
SOURCE: Charley Gallgher@ http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=45178&page=2&pp=15

*78s- P4 3.2 overclocked to 3.8ghz (Northwood core???, 800FSB [it's overclocked, so the FSB is actually higher])
SOURCE: jamcas@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=256422

79s- AMD64 3400+ (unknown core, Vegas 6)
SOURCE: Charley Gallagher@ http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=45178&page=2&pp=15

89s- 3.0E Pentium Prescott (865 chipset, dual channel RAM, Vegas 5)
SOURCE: Glenn Chan@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=396239&Replies=57

90s - 2.8ghz Pentium (Prescott)
SOURCE: TalawaMan@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?Forum=4&MessageID=262716

90s - Opteron 246 2.0ghz X 2 (dual channel memory, old 2004 core, *VEGAS 5*)
SOURCE: rohde@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=256422
*Please keep in mind Vegas6 has optimizations for dual processors, while Vegas 5 does not.

93s - AMD64 3200+ (2004, so probably old core)
SOURCE: PH125@ http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=256422
99s is Sid Phillip's report in the same thread.

95s - AMD64 3000+ (2.00ghz, 512kb cache, single channel, socket 754, 2004 core)
SOURCE: ibliss@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=256422

114s - Pentium-M 1.7ghz laptop
SOURCE: The_Jeff@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?Forum=4&MessageID=262716

128s - Sempron 2400+ 1.4ghz (Palmero core, S754, 256KB cache)
SOURCE: Glenn Chan


2- If I have some time I will try to put up a new rendertest + some calibration patterns. One obvious problem with this test is that the new machines are too fast!!

3- Vic: I'd probably get the quad core since time = money. And your time is invaluable.

(Ok but at the same time, a dual core machine will work nicely too.)
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 4/25/2007, 4:56 PM
How much can a Core 2 Duo? half as much as a Core 2 Quad.

HA HA!

:P

Dave
RexA wrote on 4/25/2007, 5:14 PM
Or you could go with a Henway.

Henway? What's a Henway?

About two pounds.

(Ba-dump-bump - crash!)
dat5150 wrote on 4/25/2007, 5:59 PM
The AMD Opteron presentation states in a nutshell that the AMD quad core architechture doesn't have a bottleneck problem that the 'competition' has at this time and they use other techniques to cover for this shortcoming. They say that it will take a while for the 'competition' to catch up with their superior design.
vitalforce wrote on 4/25/2007, 11:03 PM
Thanks all, much food for thought but my feeling too was that the more horsepower, the more muscle in Vegas 7.

By day's end this has evolved into a sub-choice about (1) getting a Mac just to be able to play it both ways (and perhaps play with FCP and its 10-bit architecture a bit), BUT (2) having to learn the workarounds for not being able to write from Mac to an NTFS firewire drive.
TeetimeNC wrote on 4/26/2007, 5:56 AM
This past weekend Intel reduced the price of the quad core from about $1000 to $600.

Jerry
JohnnyRoy wrote on 4/27/2007, 4:08 AM
> This past weekend Intel reduced the price of the quad core from about $1000 to $600.

Wow $600. So now the question is, should I get a motherboard that has two sockets and buy a second QuadCore and have an Octa-Core!!! ;-D

(8 cores would be like having your own rendering farm on one PC)

~jr
Guy Bruner wrote on 4/27/2007, 1:19 PM
I don't believe you can do it with the socket 775 processors. You'll have to move to Xeon processors to be able to get a dual socket motherboard.
John_Cline wrote on 4/27/2007, 2:13 PM
"This past weekend Intel reduced the price of the quad core from about $1000 to $600."

Not exactly, the 2.66Ghz Quad Extreme (QX6700) which is the one that JohnnyRoy and I used in our Quad-core machines a few months ago, is still around $970 at NewEgg, the Q6600, which is a 2.4Ghz Quad is $543, the newer QX6800, which is a 2.93Ghz Quad Extreme is $980.

The QX6700 Extreme is based on the Kentsfield core and has 64k+64k L1 cache and 4M+4M L2 cache. The newer QX6800 is based on the Conroe core and has 32k+32k L1 and, apparently, all four cores now share 8M of L2 cache. The $543 Q6600 is based on the Kentfield core.

John
jdinkins wrote on 4/27/2007, 2:18 PM
Thanks for this post.

I was coming on the forum to ask (or search) for this exact information!

I have a 2.6 GHZ machine and from looking at the rendertest results, I need to upgrade in a bad way. I have an HC3 that Vegas struggles doing any sort of editing with m2t files with my current setup, so an upgraded system is in the immediate future.

I'm wanting to hold off just a BIT longer for the quad cores to come down in price a little.

Take care.
summer07 wrote on 5/8/2007, 10:55 AM
my vasst render test result for intel e6300 1.86ghz intel core 2 duo processor (xp media center/vegas 7d) with rendertest.veg rendering to avi dv pal : 66 sec.!!!! compare with guy bruner results almost double! has somebody an idea what makes the difference?


34s - Intel E6300 Core 2 Duo (Vegas 6d; 35s in Vegas 7b)
SOURCE: Guy Bruner @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=488694&Replies=31
John_Cline wrote on 5/8/2007, 11:26 AM
I just posted a new, modified "rendertest.veg" file. I hope to get a lot of you to run it and post your results. See this thread:

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=526098
mark-woollard wrote on 5/24/2007, 6:20 AM
Got a refurbished HP Pavilion m7650n with a 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo (E6300) and 2 Gig of DDR2 4200 RAM. I Installed an nVidia 7900 PCIe card (which shouldn't affect Vegas) and two SATA 7200 drives striped as RAID 0. I expected this system to render faster than my 3-year old dual Xeon 2.8 GHz, 533 FSB which did the old rendertest.veg in 56 seconds. I was disappointed when the it took 60 seconds. I suspect that the relatively slow RAM is creating a bottleneck.

Any thoughts/advice?

Mark