Also - there are different versions of Vista 64 bit - some are capable of handling more RAM that others. If you upgrade make sure you pick the one that handles the amount of RAM that you plan to use.

Vista 64 Home Premium just installed here 2-3 weeks ago. The OS cost me $99 from TigerDirect, and an additional 4gb RAM cost $45 or so with shipping. So for about $150, you'd be up & running on 64-bit.

Or, you could go the other way and spend $50 on UpShift--the new version will be out in a few days, and should make your AVCHD woes go away. I would seriously consider testing HDV files on your system. If it handles them easily, then try UpShift. I did both, and version 8.1 on Vista 64 handles the original AVCHD files just as nicely as version 8c handles the transcoded HDV files on Vista 64.

Tonight I ran a comparison of AVCHD vs (transcoded) HDV files on XP Pro 32 with version 8c. The minimum rate I saw with the original AVCHD files from my SR11 was 4.8fps; but with the trasncoded HDV files, the rate was 29.97fps at the same point on the timeline. And these files were transcoded with the new version of UpShift (version 10g...the original version was 10d), so I know that it works well. Also, the WAVE files that it created had pristine audio.

So there are a couple options for you. The last thing to remember is that if you stay on the 32-bit OS, all the Vegas plug-ins will work without issue. That *isn't* the case on 64-bit, and that's why I will use both 8.1 on Vista 64, and UpShift on XP Pro 32 when necessary.

TB

Terry:

I too am working in 8.0c on a 32 bit Quad core and have an Nvidia 8800 GTS.

I edit 24Mbs AVCHD files. The preview is not realtime, but the renders are fine. VLC (latest version) also has problems with playback.

I recently had a memory problem on my ASUS P5K Deluxe MB. This lead to experimenting with 2 and 4 GB memory installations, running Memtest and benchmarking using Performance Test.

Bottom line, Vegas had no observable rendering or playback difference between 2 and 4 GB of memory. So I don't see how 8 GB would help.

On my machine, the memory benchmarks were a little slower with all 4 slots populated with 1 GB Dimms vs. the 2 primary slots populated with 1 GB Dimms. This seems to be because the more Dimms installed, the slower the possible memory clock speed before errors result. I have also seen on the Asus forum that people report having to run 2 Dimms of 2 GB each slower to prevent errors.

I believe that on the PGA775 platform, large amounts of RAM are not helpful because of the memory controller architecture, aside from the 32 bit limits.

The new Nehalem platform addressed this issue and completely re-designed the way memory is accessed.

Also - there are different versions of Vista 64 bit - some are capable of handling more RAM that others.

This is in reality not correct. All versions of Vista 64 can handle all the memory you can stuff into any normal PC today. This user must be thinking of CPUs or something similar.

You do need Vista 64 however.

Vista Home Basic 64 RAM is limited to 8gb
Home Premium 64 is limited to 16gb
Business, ultimate and enterprise 64 are limited to 128gb

XP 64 is limited to 128gb

I run XP64 and the difference between 8.0c and 8.1 with 4gb of ram is very noticable rendering - substantially reduced page filing and time required is much less.

Realistically - most will never want more than 16 but some might want more than 8gb - I will when the price comes down on 16gb sets.

All you need for 16gb besides the sticks is a intel P45 northbridge motherboard which is becoming very common now days - the i7 may open up more options for lots of RAM since most boards will have 6 slots for RAM. You can buy 16gb DDR2 in 4 sticks now for under $250 and that price will keep dropping - faster when the i7 comes out and DDR3 becomes the rage.

Hi Jeff. You may recall I also am editing 24Mbs AVCHD. I plan to order a new Nehalem soon after the Nov 17 release . Do you think 4GB ram will be sufficient (or at least a good place to start) for Vegas and Vista 64 on Nehalem 920?

Jerry

> The new Nehalem platform addressed this issue and completely re-designed the way memory is accessed.

Jerry,

Why don't you download the trial version of UpShift and give that a shot? If you haven't done so already, transcode your AVCHD files to 12 or 15Mbps, and see how they work on the timeline. The trial version will let you transcode 2 minute files, as I recall, but it's certainly enough to give you an idea of how well they'll work for you. The other thing would be to go get some HDV files someplace on the net--and try those first.

But I think you'll be happy with UpShift. Since New Blue FX has fixed the bugs, it's a great application. I use it on XP Pro 32 about as much as I use Vegas 8.1 on Vista 64 bit, and I cannot really tell a difference in performance--and then I have access to all of the scripts and plug-ins.

TB

TB, the UpShift alternative is a good suggestion, but I'm due a PC upgrade anyway. I'm currently running on an old and slow Pentium 4, 3Ghz with 1GB ram.

To get by my on my Pentium I have been transcoding to the stock cineform HDV intermediates for use on the timeline. I've been please with the results but look forward to the streamlined workflow much faster PC will provide. I am assuming that SCS will significantly improve AVCHD and 64bit support in the not-to-distant future.

Jerry

This is a good idea, and (basically) exactly why I just build a new PC. I have an older unit with a P4 3GHz CPU, but the new Quad core handles them much better.

I would strongly consider a 64-bit OS too though, as Vista 64 handles the AVCHD files quite nicely. At the very least, you could process them with Vegas 8.1, and then render to an intermediate in order to apply effects, etc. I have never tried Cineform myself, but am happy with the way things work now. And I share your optimism as far as SCS improving AVCHD handling in the next release of Vegas--every NLE out there seems to be in the same boat, as far as I can tell...

TB

I want to thank all you friends for replying to my post! It's great to have you all to turn to. Anybody getting misty yet? No, I mean it.

Terry

Awww.... I love you man...

Seriously though, I have never used it because I built the Quad core machine, but I have read several peoples' posts reporting that they have great success using GearShift when their machines aren't quite as capable as they'd like them to be. I only mention this because I haven't seen you mention the product, and am not sure you know about it--but it's apparently designed to do exactly what you need.

I don't think it will take the place of a new machine for you, but it might bridge the gap anyway. And I would think that there's a trial version for you to look at as well.

TB

Hi Jeff. You may recall I also am editing 24Mbs AVCHD. I plan to order a new Nehalem soon after the Nov 17 release . Do you think 4GB ram will be sufficient (or at least a good place to start) for Vegas and Vista 64 on Nehalem 920?

Jerry:

On any Nehalem CPU, 4GB would certainly be a good place to start. The initial Intel i7 demo computers had 3 GB for some reason. Not sure why or how.

You will need to do some research on the memory aspects of Nehalem. Here is an older link with a little discussion on the memory.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-x58-nehalem,5829.html

The Nehalem is a whole new level of performance. We can expect massive performance increases over Quad cores. It will be the only way to tame AVCHD IMO.

Of course it will cost us. But Im going for it as soon as it's commonly available.

I forgot, you have a HMC150?

Jeff

Yep, loving the HMC150. I'm sitting here transcoding some footage I shot today. Wishing for that Nehalem ;-).

Jerry

>I forgot, you have a HMC150?