single v duo cpu

Mauriceh9 wrote on 10/23/2007, 3:36 PM
Hi,
I'm about to buy a new laptop for Vegas use. I realise that duo cpu's is good for rendering, but how is it for general video edit work and previewing. I currently have a 2.4 GHz cpu, but if I upgrade within my budget to duo then I end up with 2 X 2.0 GHz. So if for general edit including scrubbing and the like Vegas only uses one of the CPU's do I end up with a degraded performance?

Cheers, Maurice

Comments

Cliff Etzel wrote on 10/23/2007, 5:16 PM
Vegas will use as many cores as you can throw at it from what I have read. You will benefit from more cores.

Cliff Etzel
bluprojekt
xberk wrote on 10/23/2007, 7:46 PM
>>Vegas will use as many cores as you can throw at it<<

From what I understand, Vegas currently uses up to 4 cores for rendering. And that is a huge benefit. Rendering times will probably nearly be cut in half on your duo core laptop. Regards regular work on the timeline. scrubbing etc, not sure the extra cores do anything. Maybe someone else knows for sure.

Paul B .. PCI Express Video Card: EVGA VCX 10G-P5-3885-KL GeForce RTX 3080 XC3 ULTRA ,,  Intel Core i9-11900K Desktop Processor ,,  MSI Z590-A PRO Desktop Motherboard LGA-1200 ,, 64GB (2X32GB) XPG GAMMIX D45 DDR4 3200MHz 288-Pin SDRAM PC4-25600 Memory .. Seasonic Power Supply SSR-1000FX Focus Plus 1000W ,, Arctic Liquid Freezer II – 360MM .. Fractal Design case ,, Samsung Solid State Drive MZ-V8P1T0B/AM 980 PRO 1TB PCI Express 4 NVMe M.2 ,, Wundiws 10 .. Vegas Pro 19 Edit

TheHappyFriar wrote on 10/23/2007, 8:29 PM
HUGE difference between my old AMD 64 3000 & my current AMD X2 4200.
rs170a wrote on 10/23/2007, 9:07 PM
Quad cores do indeed use all 4 processors.
And they make a difference!!
I use a P4 3.4 GHz machine at work.
A 10 minute project from last year took 3 hr. to render (very heavy on the FX).
My quad core did it in 28 minutes :-)

Mike
Mauriceh9 wrote on 10/24/2007, 12:13 AM
Thanks for those replies. I think we are all agreed that multi-core makes a big difference to rendering.

But key for me is whether the multi-cores are both utilised in the general editing work and therefore make a positive difference in responsiveness. If not then you could find yourself with a less responsive system if the speed of a single core of the duo was less than the non-duo you were upgrading from. e.g speed of one of the 2 cores in a duo system 1.8 GHz, and of the single core system upgrading from is 2.4 GHz. Does anyone know?

I realise I could just spend more money, but if you haven't got it you can't.

Cheers, Maurice
TheHappyFriar wrote on 10/24/2007, 6:08 AM
well, for me to upgrade from an AMD 64 3000 to the X2 4200 cost me $70. That was worth the price. Previews are a lot faster too, if that's the answer you're looking for.

If you have a P4, *ANYTHING* will be faster, even a Pentium D (the x2's & core 2's will be a lot faster though). If you have an AMD 64 @ 2.4ghz (not 2400 but actual 2.4 ghz) that's already pretty fast but a pentium core 2 will be faster.
Richman wrote on 10/24/2007, 7:15 AM
Maurice,
The difference between a core 2 Duo at 2 GHZ & a P4 at 2.4 GHZ even without using the second core is significant. It has to do with the optimization of the processor and that the current RAM is faster than that used for the P4's. Check anandtech.com cpu charts. We did almost the same thing with desktop computers. Went from 2.4 GHZ P4 to 1.86 GHZ core 2 Duo. If i recall most everything tested was 50-100% faster.

Richman
Mauriceh9 wrote on 10/24/2007, 12:03 PM
Thanks for the info. It's just put my mind at rest.

Maurice