Grazie wrote on 8/21/2019, 11:09 PM

Is it worth it to go to 424?

@Widetrack - Only you can tell. Why not install the 424 and try it out? If you don’t like it you could always Back-Build. I’m a serial Buildster and run headlong into the latest. Nick Hope was always busy creating reactions and bug lists to recent Builds. I’ve not noticed Nick around lately and not since VP17 was released.

I’m now fully committed to VegasPro17 on my new MONSTA, and very satisfied I’ve made the investment. As you were asking me for costings, are you now rather going to stay with VP16? I’ve now left VP16 behind, but I did find 424 stable.

Kinvermark wrote on 8/22/2019, 12:38 AM

I think 424 is the most stable v16 version, but cannot remember at the moment what got fixed in that release. YMMV. It's a painless install, and takes only a few minutes.

Widetrack wrote on 8/22/2019, 12:44 AM

I'm certainly with 16 for the immediate future, but one way or another, I do have to get better performance across the board. I'm keeping as many options open as possible while I do a serious cost/benefit rundown. I'll probably take the specs you posted (thank you once again), try to translate them into a 4k context, and see what my costs look like. I'm mostly doing amateur drone videos, so I'll stay in 4k for the duration.

Grazie wrote on 8/22/2019, 12:49 AM

@Widetrack - Very wise indeed.

fr0sty wrote on 8/22/2019, 1:24 AM

@Widetrack There's a benchmarking thread in these forums a few pages back that has benchmarks that indicate playback speed, render time, etc. for a number of system configurations. That is what I used to make recommendations with in the other thread. Take a close look at those to get a good idea of what responds well to Vegas.



AMD Ryzen 7 1800x 8 core 16 thread at stock speed

64GB 3000mhz DDR4

Geforce RTX 3090

Windows 10


ASUS Zenbook Pro Duo 32GB (9980HK CPU, RTX 2060 GPU, dual 4K touch screens, main one OLED HDR)

Widetrack wrote on 8/22/2019, 3:21 PM

Thanks frOsty. I'll check it out.