Best processor for Vegas?

ddogrush · #1 (**permalink**) 04-16-2008, 05:03 PM

Have a question I'd like to put out there. Would most appreciate if anyone knows the answers.

I'm getting the Dell Vostro 400 desktop but can't figure out what's better between Intel core 2 duo at 3.0 ghz(faster clock) or the newer core 2 quad at 2.40ghz. Some say the quad runs hotter (noisier fan?) and is better for software that multi-threads. I'm using Vegas Pro 8. Also, is there any appreciable difference between the 256mb and 512mb NVIDIA video cards?
Thanks

Mark W · #2 (**permalink**) 04-16-2008, 06:26 PM

Video cards - does not matter.

Processor - I havent checked any bench marks but as vegas can use up to 4 cores i would go with the quad core option. My mate has one and it is very quiet.

But, if you play games and that is more important to you then the dual core may be better.

Get 2 gig of ram min if you can and make sure you run it in dual channel mode.

TimStannard · #3 (**permalink**) 04-16-2008, 08:25 PM

Agree with Mark about the 2GB RAM and he's absoilutely right about the video card.
A couple of bods on the Sony forum seem to rave about Quad core for Vegas though PC Pro this month (June - of course!) doesn't seem so convinced that Quad cores are worth the higher price over Core 2 Duos. What we really need is extensive tests of Vegas comparing Core 2 Duos and Quads (rather than older Dual cores vs Quads)
I'd avoid the Vostros though. There must be a reason they are the cheap range. I investigated buying 20 for a school I work for and Dell flatly refused to sell them to me. A bit more pushing and they said they weren't to sell more than 5 into a network as they weren't "fully tested for networking" - so goodness knows what else isn't fully tested.
I suspect they're great for a non-important second machine (for the kids, for keeping internet browsing away from your workhorse, for playing with different OSes etc etc) but I wouldn't entrust my video editing to one.
No problem with the Dimension (now replaced with Inspiron which used to be their laptop branding) or Optiplex though. No real experience of XPS or Precision, but I suspect these are fine.

surfstylez · #4 (**permalink**) 04-16-2008, 09:02 PM

Hi , I currently run an intel Q6600 2.4 and its is great for games and video editing.
The render takes less time and get great results. I used to have a pentium D 3.6 dual core and it did good too. So I cannot say anything bad about either. But as Stannard said, you might want to think about a better pc for the job, maybe build your own if you have the money

Good luck

Final thoughts. Might as well get the quad core since the prices have dropped, or will be dropping very soon!!!

Sithxace · #5 (**permalink**) 04-16-2008, 10:31 PM

big question u have to ask yourself... are you editing HD or non HD? Cuz HD will tear your machine apart if its not top notch.

ddogrush · #6 (**permalink**) 04-21-2008, 02:54 AM

I'm going to be mainly doing SD. But the machine wouldn't be good for HD? I mean I want to get a computer that's going to have some legs and be able to do HD too without going broke. What do you suggest?
I hear so many different opinions on the dual vs quad but the price is supposed to be dropping this coming week on the 6700 quad. I'm think I'm leaning towards that given what everyone above is saying. Not going to be using it for a network or gaming so that's not an issue.

Sithxace · #7 (**permalink**) 04-21-2008, 03:06 AM

u have to figure that out yourself. Bottom line for me is the reason im on pc rather than mac is cuz pc u can build one and save so much comapred to the overpriced macs.... I cant tell u exactly wat will work for a HD as I edit SD as well, but I am going to assume my Athlon X2 3800+ 2GB DDR computer wont be the fastest with HD, so ill upgrade before i go hd.

Oh yeah and i think with HD hard drive speed is quite a factor now since ur dealing with GB sized files atleast.