Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Better Processor, Better Preview?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    San Diego, Ca, USA
    Posts
    148

    Question Better Processor, Better Preview?

    Will a better processor make my preview better?

    I have a dual monitor video card so I'm previewing on one whole monitor and I have the program in other. Rightnow I have it on "preview-Auto" but if I want to get a better picture I have to put it on "Good" or "Best" and it starts to skip/go slow

    Will a better processor make my preview better?

    AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor
    3700+
    2.20 GHz, 3.25 GB of Ram

  2. #2

    Default

    I moved-up to a Quadie and my previewing is better. The reasons for this are not as straightforward as it might seem. First off, my new CPUs runs slower than my Pent P4 - P4 was 3.2 and now my quad is 2.3. Secondly Vegas does not make use of the graphics card for better real-time. Yes there IS an optimum GC requirement, but that is all. Now, WinDoze might want to use much of the unused/redundant resources and thusly freeing-up space for Vegas to thrash about in, but that's as good as it gets. Yes a faster more task savvy CPU configuration will cope with more activity BETTER than a single FASTER CPU but having this reflected in better real-time, that's complex reply. What My QUADIE will do is do the more complex editing I do faster and more intelligently than my single P4, now THAT I've found borne out with my work. I now try-out and design my work using sweeter fxs and CCs and so on that I would never ever contemplate or attempt with my single P4 - it would just have been too frustrating/impossible to attempt - so I didn't, period!

    Now there is another value to a "better" CPU: rendering. Just plain ole rendering is much MUCH faster. "Why is he talking about rendering when I want better real-time!!" Well, here's the thing: I NOW use more prerenders (Shift+M) and RAM Previews (Shift+B) solely because my QUAD can does this activity much faster and THAT, friend, DOES provide a knock-down of the time-to-realtime Previewing that we are all after.

    So, to recap, moving up to a QUAD has made a big difference to my creativity even though that QUAD runs slower than my single P4.

    OK, that's my experience of moving up to a "better" CPU. But there is something you could try straight away, try Preview FULL. Preview auto will attempt to match your Timeline Preview window to "another" monitor. Meaning, Auto is less clear than Full to another monitor. I have this with the 2nd Monitor as you say AND with my external monitor too. Try it. As far as I can work out, Vegas does much maths when doing anything. Assisting the program to achieve this is a good thing. So remove anything that is working against it taking calcuations to the CPU. Turn off uneeded windows; turn off Scopes or at least their realtime updating facility and temporarily disnegage any ANY background non-essential programs. that could be saping your CPU power.

    Bottom line, Vegas makes use of smarter (QUADIEs) and then in conjunction with faster CPUs.

    I still remember stepping up from a PIII running at 2.0 to the P4 at 3.2 and that was just awesome. I remember thinking, "Ah - so THAT'S how Vegas should work?" And now I've moved up to the QUAD, well, it's unthinkable to go back. Presently I'm still working in SD. I am convinced that the Vegas platform works and works so well is that behind all of this is an architecture that often "waits" for faster and cannier MBs and CPUs to come along to be made use of. Going to HD editors will want a platform that CAN make use of the same too.

    Thanks for asking a very interesting question. I don't have many answers, all I can do is share my experience.

    Grazie

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    10,851
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I can only reinforce Grazie's excellent reply with my experience. I upgraded from a 2.66GHz P4 to a Core 2 Duo 2.44 in Feb '07 and gained similar (though presumably not as great) increases in performance. Faster RAM and bus peeds will also have affected this.
    Tim

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Hi Tim, and everyone else, MystiFyde here. Have been reading threads on rendering, CPU speeds and other related threads. I am going to buy a new PC. It will be solely for video editing and then making DVDs of the edited footage. I put it this way because I was taught to keep the original footage in the highest quality for editing, therefore all my stored clips and raw footage is in .avi format. (I shoot on miniDV tape). Of course, I understand a faster CPU is better all round. So to my points...

    Firstly, which is better for video encoding Intel or AMD?
    What is bettter, when using Sony Vegas (I have Movie Studio Platinum Edition), a faster CPU or better video card? I.e. where should I spend the money?
    Now, what about these two options,
    AMD Athlon x2 6400+ with Nvidia Geforce 9500GT, or Intel Quad Q6600 with Nvidia Geforce 9300GS? The price of each of these 2 PCs is 500. Other spec items are similar: 3Mb RAM, HDD, DVD writers etc. both have Firewire, onboard sound. I know items can be upgraded. But you cannot interchange Intel/AMD without changing the mother board. Total spend cost is restricted to about 500.
    AMD enthusiasts tell me that the AMD processor works more efficiently than Intel. This advice is usually from local (cornershop) resellers. Magazines and highstreet stores recommend Intel.
    What thoughts do you all have? Not conflicting I hope! Regards to all.....

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Intel or AMD? - irrelevant so long as it is fast fast - each has it's own proponents.

    Vidoe card or cpu - CPU everytime - the gfx card is irrelevent, well almost. Mine was 25 quid.

    Suggested systems - either - but the g card is overkill.

    It is very advisable to get at least 2 hard drives - one for system and one for video.

    In the creative chain as long as the pc is ok it is probably the least important choice - a pc is a pc is a pc.

    Camera choices are far more important.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    10,851
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    For years AMD offered better bang for buck. Until the Core 2 Duo where Intel pulled the rug from under their feet. I get the impression AMD are catching up again.
    Fast, fast (as Mark says) yes BUT
    more important is reliability.
    I've nothing against AMD and use them extensively in the schools I look after (I've been in PCs since 1988 and was a mainframe programmer for 10 years prior to that so I have some exerience). I also use Intels. This is only anecdotal evidence but I have only once had a problem I've been able to trace to an Intel processor, whereas I've had quite a few on AMD based PCs (not necessarily traced to the CPU - it's usually cheaper to swap out the whole Motherboard/CPU than spend hours tracing the fault)
    Of my own PCs (self built) the Intels have been flawless, whereas of the two AMDs, one I had problems with and the other performed flawlessly for me but failed after about a year once handed over to my son.
    Get a good, reliable motheboard - I've always been a fan of Gigabyte (the ones with the emphasis on reliability rather than overclocking)
    Don't overclock.
    Keep everything nice and cool and quiet with a LARGE (120mm) fan or two.
    Definitely separate hard drives for system/progas and data/video. And an external to back up your video onto.
    It doesn't matter how fast and furious your PC is - if it crashes unpredictably, you'll lose work.
    Tim

  7. #7

    Default

    After upgrading from Duo core the preview as better and I was getting more FPS then before, but a lot does depend on the size of the preview and the amount of effects on the video and audio.
    As for rendering my old 2.6ghz would do a 2:1, 2 hours to render 1 hour of video no effects
    The duo-core was about 1;1 and the quad is 1:2 1/2 to render 1 hour

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Thanks Mark W,

    I have been reading some other threads, you recommend extra cores for speedy rendering
    elsewhere so why do you say "suggested systems- either" surely Intel Q6600 would be faster than
    AMD Athlon x2 6400+ ?

    Okay, so you say the "gfx is irrelevant" and "g card is overkill", I have got it in my head from
    somewhere that a speedy grahics card speeds up rendering?
    (Note by "rendering" I mean converting the edited film to a format to be recorded on DVDs,
    playable on standard DVD players, am I correct?)

    I have USB and NAS hard drives.


    I take your point about camera choices. Actually most of my film ( about 1000 hours) is already
    recorded on Hi8 tape.
    I have come from analogue editing using twin Sony players to a third Sony recorder. Which ran
    through an programable editing/audio/effects deck. I spent some time finding a way of recording
    these tapes to digital format. Playback through the old camera became problematic, and needed
    an analogue/digital converter lead which didn't give very good results. So my present method of
    recording these tapes is to record them onto miniDV tape using a fairly high quality JVC recorder.
    Then it is easy to get them onto HDD. Many hours are already stored in .avi format on NAS HDD's.
    After editing the edited "master" is saved to USB HDD.

    I gave up on using Pinnacle Studio because I found it too limiting and rendering took for ever.
    I now have Sony Vegas Movie Studio Platinum Edition.

    It occurs to me having read your reply, and just remembering I have an old PC. -- a new
    motherboard, uprated power supply, extra cooling and spend as much as I can afford on a Quad core CPU, would be a better solution.

    Whilst composing above (and getting interrupted again and again), I see Tim has replied, thanks, and Z Cheema is rendering 4x faster now, WOW.
    Last edited by MystiFyde; 10-19-2008 at 06:13 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grazie View Post
    I moved-up to a Quadie and my previewing is better. The reasons for this are not as straightforward as it might seem. First off, my new CPUs runs slower than my Pent P4 - P4 was 3.2 and now my quad is 2.3.
    NOT TRUE!
    If your quad is clocked in it 2.3, multiply that by four for an estimate of its power compared to the P4

    the quad absolutely blows the pentium of of the water...not even close, no chance

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tave View Post
    NOT TRUE!
    If your quad is clocked in it 2.3, multiply that by four for an estimate of its power compared to the P4

    the quad absolutely blows the pentium of of the water...not even close, no chance
    And about blowing things out "of the water", and getting back to the "figures" I was NOT estimating its power, I was only presenting the bald-faced clockspeeds that are presented to you/me/us when we read specifications. On the one hand I had had a 3.2 and now I have 4 CPUs that individually run slower. Was I incorrect in stating that? I'll tell you what I did NOT state, that the combination of all 4 would NOT be greater than 3.2? Where did I state that? If I did NOT state that where was I being untrue? Always willing to learn!

    What IS true, are the results. (Actually where DID I say I was estimating the power? Quite frankly I wouldn't know how to go about it? Maybe there are some complicated formulations that would need to be employed. that take into account more integrated power management items that maybe I am not privy to? Maybe you are?)

    Grazie

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Best processor for Vegas?
    By ddogrush in forum Sony Vegas video editing apps
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-21-2008, 04:06 AM
  2. Is Ram more important than the actual processor
    By john12 in forum Adobe Premiere, Premiere Elements, and After Effects
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-29-2006, 12:21 PM
  3. Dual Processor
    By OneWayMetal in forum Hardware Problems
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-30-2005, 09:47 AM
  4. what processor?????
    By vegas in forum Adobe Premiere, Premiere Elements, and After Effects
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-22-2005, 09:25 PM
  5. dual processor or dual core processor
    By david walsh in forum Hardware Problems
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-05-2005, 05:59 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •