Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Processor(s) question

  1. #1

    Question Processor(s) question

    I got sick of being faster than my computer so I bought a new one.

    My Computer Specs:
    Brand / Model: HP z600 Workstation
    System Type: 64-bit
    Processors: (2) Intel Xeon & E5645 (both at 2.4GHz)
    RAM: 24GB

    However, it doesn't seem like it's moving too much faster than my older, far inferior one. I suspect my Vegas 10 isn't configured properly to take advantage of my system. Could this be the case? I'm not sure how to get the most of this set up when doing video work with Vegas.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    10,844
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    What do you mean by faster. Faster at what?
    Tim

  3. #3

    Default

    Faster response time with editing video. For example, when moving the scrubber around to various points for editing, the computer needs to keep up by "reading" the information. Processors and RAM are the main points of responsibility for this type of action.

    When working with a video editing program (like Sony Vegas), the more robust one's computer is, the more it can handle it. This makes for a smoother editing session before the final rendering. The lesser a computer means a likelier chance it will take longer to process what it's asked to do - causing it to appear like it's frozen or even worse, crash the system.

    Working with video editing programs are rather taxing on a computer because of all the data that needs processing in a short period of time. The more you work with programs like this, you'll start to realise this. Good luck!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    10,844
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I don't know why you feel the need to be so condescending.

    I'm well aware of all that, having worked in computers since 1978 and having been editing in Vegas since 2006. I asked the question because you failed to define the problem adequately. It was a perfectly reasonable question as no-one here could possibly know from your post whether you were talking about it feeling slicker when editing were simply expecting a more significant improvement in rendering times.
    Tim

  5. #5

    Default

    I honestly wasn't trying to be condescending about anything. I genuinely thought you were asking because you didn't know about it. I thought the implication of Vegas performance to my system was strong enough. I guess not!

    At any rate, let's leave this open as the initial question has yet to be discussed. I did search for multiple processors when working with Vegas, but to no avail. This same question was asked to the Sony Support team on Monday and I have yet to hear back. Amazing how quick they are to take your money, but not answer any question on what was purchased!

  6. #6

    Default

    Your new processor/RAM spec is way beyond that needed for editing and more towards the heavier end of CGI work. My first thoughts are that you have a bottleneck somewhere. The most obvious place being that you are working form a single drive or a USB external drive. If this is the case then you can put as much RAM and as fast a processor combination in as you want and it wont help, perhaps even your previous system was otherwise more than adequate.

    Does this sound like it could be the problem, if not can you give a fuller description of your system and how it's configured. Also what type of work are you doing and with what format of video?

    David.
    Last edited by david walsh; 07-29-2011 at 09:11 PM.

  7. #7

    Default

    You bring up a very interesting point, David. Due to the enormous file sizes of these videos, I like to keep them on an external drive which I have connected to via eSATA. It was giving me trouble as of late so I switched to USB 3.0. Now I'm wondering if it doesn't just need to be on the same drive as the program in order to utilize the most of the system. Though, it is difficult to accept most don't do this because of the file sizes.
    As far as the types of files, they vary from .mp4 to .mov, .avi, etc... What ever they throw at me. lol

  8. #8

    Default

    You definitely don't want them on the same drive as the program, then you'd be trying to access that same drive in all directions at the same time. eSata (external) is fast enough for Standard Definition video, But I've never worked with it with HD. In theory, it's the same as an internal Sata II drive so should have been ok (but a raid makes a big difference, especially with highly compressed HD video) USB3 I've never worked with a tall, in theory it's fast enough, but in theory USB2 is faster than firewire and firewire drives work better with media than USB 2 drives.

    If you have access to an ethernet drive I'd give that a go and see if it makes a difference. Or if your eSata issues before were with your old system, now that you have a new system try the eSata route again, maybe there was a problem here rather than your RAM/Processor before. If they still don't help at least you've ruled out that as the problem and know you need to look alsewhere.

    The list of file types you mention are the containers, I take it your working with various codecs too. Again a raid would make a big difference here (I wouldn't go back to working in HD without one) even if you have a problem elsewhere to find. Finding a regular intermediate codec to work with may also help.

    David.

  9. #9

    Default

    Cheers for that.

    I'll re-try the eSata connection to see how much of a difference it makes. Do you know if Vegas has any option for recognising the system at all?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    10,844
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by masada View Post
    I honestly wasn't trying to be condescending about anything.
    No worries. I just reacted to your final line.

    Quote Originally Posted by masada View Post
    I thought the implication of Vegas performance to my system was strong enough. I guess not!
    I was just trying to narrow it down.

    When I asked advice on the Sony forum before rebuilding my system (nothing like as juicy as your workhorse) I stated I was more interested in a responsive editing environment rather than saving time when rendering, these potentially make different demands on the PC, hence the desire to narrow it down.

    (For what it's worth my option was to go with a standard clock speed i7 2600 and 16GB RAM, or an i7 2600K overclocked to 4.7GHz with only 8GB RAM. I was surprised that all who responsed recommended the greater clock speed. I do have one edit on my PC utilising 1440x1080i AVCHD clips concurrently on four tracks which I can scrub through quite comfortably. Just SATA 2.0 drives - no RAID. But this is just pushing it and I believe RAID would have an impact.)
    Tim

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Processor help
    By bfisher in forum The Perfect Video Editing PC
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-03-2009, 11:31 PM
  2. Best processor for Vegas?
    By ddogrush in forum Sony Vegas video editing apps
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-21-2008, 04:06 AM
  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
  •