Comments

Maverick wrote on 7/15/2008, 5:18 PM
If it helps, I upgraded from an Althon Sempron to an Athlon 64 X2 6400+.

Render speeds increased dramatically but not much inprovement over preview.

Cheers
fldave wrote on 7/15/2008, 5:36 PM
I've been using a 3.x Ghz P4 (Hyperthreaded) machine for years. Get used to using lots of Dynamic RAM Preview. Will it help, be sure to get the Core 2 Duo. I measured Vegas use of Hyperthreaded machines vs Dual CPU machines and got similar results, so if your machine is Hyperthreaded, then it is almost using the virtual second core to its fullest.

Core 2 Duo is a big step up, Quad is a very big step up.

Also, don't underestimate the RAM, get lots of RAM, up to 3 GB
Matt Houser wrote on 7/16/2008, 1:06 PM
Which would be better for editing AVCHD with Vegas: 3.0 Ghz Core 2 Duo, or a 2.4 Ghz Quad Core?

...Matt
Randy Brown wrote on 7/16/2008, 1:15 PM
Get used to using lots of Dynamic RAM Preview.
What do you have yours set to Dave?
fldave wrote on 7/16/2008, 1:58 PM
I have 2 GB physical memory on my machine. When I am detail editing cuts transitions, I have it set to 1 GB. I select the region I want and great the dynamic ram preview. 1 GB gives me enough headroom to not reach the limit. If I'm just color correcting or getting ready to render some or all of it, I'll cut it back to 128 MB.

One thing you don't want to do: have it set for 1 GB and have more than one instance of Vegas open at once. It seems like it takes hold of that ram and doesn't let any other program use it. So you start swapping your paging file, slows things down tremendously.
Robert W wrote on 7/17/2008, 1:22 AM
Part of my ideal vision for Vegas would be to have it ring fence a large area of memory and then just continually have one core dynamically rendering previews to it. Even if it was just ten or twenty seconds from you current position, it would make a big difference when editing or colour correcting etc.
Glenn McGinn wrote on 7/23/2008, 12:27 PM
I have just upgraded to a 3.ghz Quad core with 8gig of Ram under Vista. What a difference both in terms of rendering speed and the need to do ram preview. If it fits your budget, it is well worth it
UlfLaursen wrote on 7/23/2008, 12:36 PM
Hi Glenn

Do you use Vista 64 to use all that RAM?

/Ulf
Glenn McGinn wrote on 7/27/2008, 11:00 AM
Hi

I am running vista 32
John_Cline wrote on 7/27/2008, 2:26 PM
If you're running Vista 32 with 8 gig of RAM, then it is only able to address about 3.2 gig, 4.8 gig of that RAM is sitting there completely unused. You must upgrade to a 64 bit OS in order to make use of all the RAM. Even then, each 32bit program that you run will only be able to use 2 gig at a time.
sguandal wrote on 7/27/2008, 3:11 PM
I am in a similar situation, wanting to upgrade my PC to a machine able to make smooth use of the Vegas Pro 8.0, especially looking at the (near) future of burning Blu-Ray discs. But, in reply to the latest posting, I thought Vegas Pro and its DVD A 5.0 would NOT support Windows Vista 64 bit. Who is right here?
Terje wrote on 7/27/2008, 7:52 PM
Works fine on Vista 64. The 64 bit version will not be supported on XP 64. Probably just a misunderstanding.

On the other hand, the 64 bit version of Vegas is a mythological creature and may not exist at all and thus not be relevant :-)