the Xeons are going to be faster, but at what cost? yeah the processors are reasonable, but have you priced out the platform? it's WAY more expensive than a dual AMD system so it better be faster. I think the XEONs are way overkill when you consider the cost. of course I haven't seen Vegas perform on a dual Xeon system, so this is all educated guesswork. I have actually used VV2 on the older Xeon's (pre-P4 days... dual Xeon 550) and was impressed by the *width* of the processors. you can throw a lot more at them at once without noticeable bog-down compared to non-Xeon systems. but still... if you are going to upgrade every 1.5 to 2 years like normal people... I think that will kind of blow away the value of a Xeon system. if you are the type who wants to spend a bunch of money at once and not upgrade for maybe 3 years, then it might be worth it because the Xeons will hold up better over time as software gets more MHZ hungry... but personally by that time I would be jealous of all the systems out that cost half of mine and perform way better. so was any of that helpful? sorry ;D

if you want real numbers and benchmarks, you might be able to find something at www.tomshardware.com comparing the platforms. post what you discover if anything...

btw - i just built and posted specks for a single processor AMD system and it works awesome. single procs are the best value unless you know how to utilize dual.

cheesehole (say, what 'is' your Christian name?), I'm 'not' eager to throw money away (though because of our bracket, the difference between the two systems when amortized over two or three years isn't really that great). In any case, a similarly configured machine costs out within 600 bucks, or so (and thanks to advice on this board, I'm saving 800 bucks in just a video card). That said, I'll nonetheless only spend the difference if I get something in return - which is what I was asking. I appreciate the advice and have researched at Tom's but their references correlate to nothing I have experience with . . . it's why I asked here since I figured SoFo personel and/or expereinced editors reading this would have ready advice.

My friend, I could care less about oneupmanship, my concern is over workflow. Currently I am editing on a realtime system (albeit without 1394 capabilities) and bought the VV3 software on the recommendation of a good friend as a tool perhaps better suited to creating bumpers and shorts that what I currently use. Frankly, if dual Xeons will work significantly better than AMD MP processors, then that's what I will spec (or not as the case may be) as "I" cost the company far more than the difference in hardware costs (if I'm less productive due to constraints in hardware). I dare say that's true of every editor reading this . . . and it's strictly a business decision, i.e. your beancounter can easily do the math which confirms this, if somebody is an obstructionist with the purse strings as editing is not a hobby around here.

In any case, thank you for the advice on Tom's and I trust if somebody have specific advice they'll jump in and say. Since this post has only been up a short while, perhaps we've not heard the final word.

Boy, I bet keeping up with all the questions posted here is a 'job' for SoFo folks - so thanks in advance!

Best regards,

John Beech

The January edition of DV magazine had a dual processor workstation showdown with Polywell providing a dual Xeon rig and a dual Athlon MP rig. Dual Xeon workstations from Dell, HP and Compaq were also compared as well as a dual 1Mhz Apple G4.

In short, the Dual Athlon MP workstation came out on top. It didn't win all the benchmarks but the ones it did win, it won convincingly and the ones it lost were lost by a small margin.
Of course the benchmarks were significant when looking at a graph, but in the real world we percieve, you would be looking at maybe a second or so difference in time. Truth is, both are so fast, most people would never see the diffeence in performance. Either system is a fine choice so for me it would boil down to a performace per dollar comparison. In this case, the Athlon MP system would win hands down. Xeon systems are awesome but for the price, you don't get a significant performance advantage for the money you pay.

As far as Hyperthreading, I've not seen one test that shows any real benefit of Hyperthreading so thus far it's just been "hype" because though your computer may show 4 processors in a dual processor system, it sure won't act like it's got 4 processors.

Here is the best deal I've seen on a dual Xeon rig:

Dual Intel Xeon 2GHz Processor
512MB RDRAM Memory
18.2GB SCSI Ultra160 10,000 RPM Hard Drive
16x DVD Drive
3.5" Floppy Drive
Matrox G450 32MB Video
SoundBlaster 128 Audio Onboard
10/100 NIC Onboard
Internet Keyboard
3-Button Mouse
Windows 2000 Pro Operating System
Warranty
- 3 Years Parts
- 3 Years Labor
- 3 Years On-Site

Price: $1999

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-Details.asp?sku=C170-1020%20P

Good Luck,
James Green

>>>In any case, thank you for the advice on Tom's and I trust if somebody have specific advice they'll jump in and say. Since this post has only been up a short while, perhaps we've not heard the final word.

and jump in they did... :D thanks for all the info nonkjo. I'm surprised the Xeons didn't win. the older Xeons were priced way above a normal Pentium. this new breed of Xeon is priced similarly to a P4. I guess there isn't a real significant difference between a P4 and a Xeon. it's just intel's way of making more dough on multiprocessor systems. similar to AMD charging more for an MP processor when it's just an XP processor with an option set.

It would be nice if someone had some 'Vegas specific' numbers since all apps use the processors in different ways and with different optimizations, but my mind is already made up. it's dual AMDz for me! I can't afford to waste a drop and I've seen enough Athalon vs P4 benchmarks to know where the *value* is at :D

- Ben (cheesehole!)

I am also looking at going with a Dual Athlon. Could VV Athlon Dual Processor users comment on the Motherboard they have chosen, and in particular whether they have had any problems or alternatively are very happy with the reliability and performance of their motherboard?

Many thanks

Brian

Briang there are forums at www.2cpu.com that have first hand users of all SMP rigs imaginable. Maybe you could give it a try and ask them what they think?

Here is the motherboard forum (make sure you read/browse the forum first and use the search option before you post because the peeps there hate questions that have been answered over and over again)

http://forums.2cpu.com/forumdisplay.php?s=352d88f110180e9bf6312f81160d8de9&forumid=13

good luck on your search!

Shaun

Hi Shaunn

Many thanks for the tip. I will give the web site a visit.

Kind regards

Briang

Ben, eh? My wife got a giggle when I pointed out the handle cheesehole.

Shaun, thanks for the info (and the warning about peeps at the cpu/motherboard site :>)

John

No problem, don't mention it guys :)

I am just glad that I can help out especially when it comes to "what should I get!?!?!?" problems...I know the nigthmare: I had many sleepless night before trying to decide which mobo+cpu+ram+video card+etc,,, combination that would give me the best bang for the buck.

Choosing the components for a dual cpu setup is a very delicate project that is why most people don't build it by themselves but buy a turnkey ready made PC like the BOXX custom build turnkey solution.
The guys at www.2cpu.com know their stuff and even if they can flame someone because he ask a stupid/"already answered many times" type of question, they wouldn't hesitate to give you a hand.
I know the forums there because I wanted to have a dual AMD rig once but to my dismay after some research of what components I should get (400W Power supply, registered Ram etc,,)I came to the conclusion that it was too expensive for me to even contemplate about it.

Ahhh well, maybe next time ;)

I have a dual Athlon system. The tyan s2460 is still the best deal at the moment I think.
Vegas really shines on it. RAM is very important. They have a list of recommended RAM types for this Motherboard on the Tyan site.
Windows XP is also the preferred operating system for this motherboard.
Keep in mind that it can run with one CPU if you are tight with funds. Just add the second when you can. The motherboard will automatically detect single or double so there is no jumper or dummy to set.
Just some thoughts,
W

Hmm question then regarding VV3 does it at all support dual/multiply CPU's ?!

/Kim

Great response Watson! Is it possible you would consider giving us a some specific benchmark times (practical one used in everyday VV3 living) - since you can pop one CPU out relatively easily? Just idly wishing, I know this is likely not practical but I had hoped somebody form SoFo owuld jump in and tell me more - of course they're probably tired of answering the same darned questions over and over again. Say, why does the FAQ not have sections on these topics?

Well it is not so easy to "pop" a CPU out. You would have to clean and reapply contact grease.
I can tell you that for Vegas there would be Very little operational difference in speed.
You would only notice a difference when you are background rendering. This is when you use your second CPU. Just editing is a single cpu operation for the most part. That is what I have been lead to believe anyway and please correct me if I'm wrong sonic Foundry people.

W

Reading through back posts on the dual CPU topic leave me somewhat confused with some saying not much improvement, others ranting about how good it is. Of course, much of the data is obsolete dealing with VV2 - and it all left me wondering why there isn't a FAQ on this obviously frequently asked question, I mean what are FAQs (by definition)!

In the end, as usual, I will throw money at the problem.

JOhn Beech

If VV3 only supports one CPU I would go on your guess that the rendering would than take advantage of using one of the CPU's and the system (OS) could use the other. So the difference in speed would be very little. One great thing is that the system usually never hogs up by any processes; so using a dual board is great. I've recently used ABit BP6 dual Celeron board and that was great using when OS supports more than one CPU, such as Win NT4/2k/XP, Linux and OS/2. Which are the OS I usually uses for various tasks.

/Kim

it isn't tackled in the FAQ cuz it's too complicated I think. I know I've posted this info many times, but you are right it's hard to search back with all the discussions on this topic.

dual cpu in VV3 works in the following situations:

editing

- while playing a project, depending on how much and which effects are being used, about 65% of both CPUs can be utilized by Vegas simply by playing back.

- while playing a project, any interaction with the interface will be offloaded to the second processor. (you will see up to 100% utilization of both CPUs) this keeps the interface responsive, the preview frame rate high, and the audio perfectly smooth under the most taxing conditions (zooming in, scrolling down the timeline, moving events, all while playing back).

rendering

- rendering to Windows Media typically utilizes 90% - 100% of both CPUs

- DV rendering is offloaded to the second CPU to allow the first CPU to process effects. this typically utilizes 65% of both CPUs but I've seen it higher in certain situations.

background rendering

- load up multiple instances of Vegas and render or edit without much slowdown. typically you would start rendering a project, then open a new instance of Vegas and continue editing the same project, or render/edit another project, or render/edit another portion of the same project. this is a way to utilize 100% of both CPUs.

there are other more general benefits but those are all I can think of that specifically relate to VV. if I'm forgetting anything please add to the list. this is just off the top of my head so I might have posted info earlier that applies. VV2 info should apply too. I don't think there is much difference in dual cpu utilization from VV2 to VV3 except for the DV rendering.

for me dual processors are key, but I spend a lot of time on one system doing tons of stuff at once. some people say it's better to build 2 singles than one dual, but to me having a dual PC is almost like having 2 PC's. and one PC is much easier to manage than two.

I think the biggest factor in this decision should be your computer usage style. don't think of duals as being faster because that only happens in special dual-optimized tasks. think of them as giving you more computing bandwidth.

I've just built my first PC. I chose to go with a Tyan S2466 Tiger MP mobo, dual Athlon MP 2000, 1 Gig ECC DDR 2100 DRAM, Antec case with 430W power supply, and MS XP Pro. I spent a good deal of time researching the alternatives, and decided that the Tyan offered the best stability/value for the price. I weighed this choice against single processor Intel alternatives, but the price differential was so small in the end I went dual. I was afraid I was building a monster truck of a PC. It turns out it's rock solid, screamingly fast, and able to perform complex tasks without any trouble at all. I've captured video while installing programs (really) without dropping frames. Rendering while playing MusicMatch audio, no prob. Full quality composite previews, a cinch! I wouldn't have thought Windows would be this much fun. You have to use XP Pro to get multi-processor support, apparently. But the OS allocates tasks to each processor dynamically based on processing demand. Plus, I still have room for another 2 Gig of RAM...

"You have to use XP Pro to get multi-processor support, apparently."

I second everything you say in the above post (having built myself a similar machine), EXCEPT this. Win2k will do dual processors no problem.

- jim

Great point! I use both OS's, Win2K at work, XP pro at home. Both are very stable, XP Pro does boot faster and has much better multimedia capabilities, which is good. But it comes with a bunch of irritating programs from MS that you have to hunt down and kill - MS Messenger being one. The upcoming service pack is supposed to take care of a bunch of this. BTW - I found that java virtual machine for XP Pro is no longer available as a download from MS, but will be available on the CD-ROM version of the service pack only.

Here's what I did.

First I looked at a Dell 530 Precision workstation, but Vegas Video doesn't effectively use the 900 XGL OpenGL video-card so scratch that. Next I looked at a dual Xeon leftover from Compaq - sold by Tiger Direct for about $2k w/512 RAM and an 18 gig 10k RPM Seagate. Almost did that . . . instead I went with my old habits of rollin' my own. Here's what I've ordered.

1) Supermicro SC760P4 case
1) Supermicro P4DCE motherboard
2) Intel Xeon 2.2GHz
2) 512meg RAMBUS registered = 1 gig
1) XP Pro

$2265 w/2nd Day Air delivery.

This motherboard includes Dual EIDE Ultra DMA and while I'm quite aware IDE (RAID too) is effective, I'm pretty sure processor use shoots thought the roof - so it's SCSI for me again as usual.

I almost went with a P4DC6+ MoBo which incorporates onboard Adaptec SCSI, but decided I wanted a separate SCSI hardware RAID card for the disk subsystem instead of software RAID so I got . . .

1) Adaptec 2110S single-channel 64bit/66MHz SCSI card
1) Seagate ST336752LW 36 gig 15k RPM for the system drive.
2) Seagate ST373405LW 73-gig 10k RPM drives for video (RAID)
1) Pioneer DVR A104 kit (good advice on DVD-R drive instead of DVD+R/RW drives Clesson)

Total $1834 w/2nd Day Air delivery. Another few hundred bucks would have gotten me the Adaptec ASR-3210S dual-channel SCSI card, maybe I should have done that.

As you can see, I spent $4000-ish. What's more, I've not ordered the video or audio cards yet. The application for this workstation is Vegas Video 3.0c. This app seems to not use OpenGL so I'm figuring on something like a Radeon 8500 (or maybe the newer 9700) - except I'm worried about driver stability for the newer card and may opt for the more established 8500. Audio card is likely a . . . I don't really know, but I'm open for suggestions on this too. I'm leaning toward a Turtle Beach something or other.

I'm also hankering for a pair of 18" LCD monitors from Sony which Circuit City has for $809 each, but my pal David Devocoux (who led me down this path in the first place by recommending VV3) strongly suggests I'm smarter with conventional tube-monitors for the cost savings (though 21" is what I'd buy in that case - no cost savings really).

Anyway, there we are folks, opinions?

SoFo tech support - did I make a mistake going with the SCSI subsystem? Seems like many have expereince with IDE drives, but . . .

Best regards,
-
John J. Beech - GM (and janitor)
modelSPORT Video Magazine
P.O. Box 12557
Jacksonville, NC 28546

Telephone: 910/938-3371
Facsimile: 910/989-1912

http://www.modelsport.com

>>>strongly suggests I'm smarter with conventional tube- monitors for the cost savings

thanks for posting your specs John. here's my opinion... cost savings?! with your system?! I'd say your system is more about no-holds-barred speed and bandwidth and a lot less about value. I say forget about heat generating, power hungry, refrigerator sized, CRTs and spring for the flat panels! you'll save $$$$$$ on power in the long run anyway. CRTs have a wider range of colors, especially in the black region, but if you are going to edit video properly, you'll be using a video monitor anyway. I think the visual benifits outweigh the problems on an LCD, as long as you get a higher quality panel. there are crappy ones out there. www.tomshardware.com just did a big review with some important technical info too.

there is a dual DVI card out from Matrox. you would have to make sure your panels have a DVI input to take advantage of the all-digital solution. from what I understand, there isn't a huge difference so you could get a pair of panels with analog inputs and go with any of the dual-head video card solutions out there. for your purposes (non-3d) I'd lean towards the Matrox dual-DVI. I think you can get a cable for it with dual analog outputs too.

LCD panels are much better in a dual setup anyway. I have to be very careful about the angles and distances between my 3 tube based displays or they will interfere with eachother. it's kind of a pain. with lcd's you could have both right next to eachother right in your face.

some of them are really nice looking too. not just the displays, I mean the monitors themselves are designed to look sleek and elegant. forget about the manufacturers who slap a display into a plastic frame. they haven't caught on yet... Samsung has some real sharp looking displays. these are devices you could put in your living room or massage parlor without spoiling the mood.

anyway I hope you post your results if you get panels. I would love to do the same, but haven't the funds. I'm still waiting for the prices to come down. one thing I know for SURE though, is I would never by another CRT. even if I had to buy now, it would be an LCD panel.

these are devices you could put in your living room or massage parlor without spoiling the mood.
------------------------
Cheesehole, you have a massage parlor in your home? Too cool!
I'd vote LCD also. Radiation from CRTs is nasty stuff. Sweden is all over the LCD panels. Sounds like a great computer, but did you not know about the 533mhz FSB Xeons coming out soon ?
Craig H.