Quad Core 2.4Ghz vs Core 2 Duo 3.0Ghz - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Cross-Platform Post Production Solutions > CineForm Software Showcase

CineForm Software Showcase
Cross platform digital intermediates for independent filmmakers.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 5th, 2007, 10:54 AM   #16
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Auburn Hills, USA
Posts: 217
Hmnnn... Ok, Let me ask you a question. Aren't you the Jon from Videoguys? If so, then you know what the X2 can do! You also know that many users(me included) have wished for Matrox to also use another NLE, and especially Vegas as it is extremely powerful in it's "native" state.

I love CS3 to be honest, and though it did not add alot to the feature set for Premiere, on my machine it is much, much more stable and the performance, even when I had the Pentium D, is much higher and tighter. If you are that Jon, it would be good for you guys to try and pick up a Quad and test the difference it makes, because it really does. Not even native Premiere does what your in need of, and because you want to run "realtime", I think if there are any, you would need to look at some form of hardware acceleration to bridge the gap. I think to be honest these days, with processors and the programs, if for nothing else besides what your saying, the cards and accelerators speed up exactly the things to the point of them being for the most part nonexistent. I am not going to say that there isn't a set of issues when you first begin using any hardware card(contrary to what some believe) because your adding something to your machine that originally wasn't there. But once your past the learning curve of the card(which is strange, for this one, it was an easy migration and not as picky as the X100).

I know this sounds crazy, but from everything your asking, and what your doing, the Matrox card would solve all of this. I know you probably don't or will not do that, but its the truth. With color correction it is very rare tht I ever have to render it, even when using multiple layers. Dissolves never require rendering unless you get to say multiple layers with dissolves at the same points, you never get a render requirement.

For the multicam, simply if it's anything like premiere, you end up with one layer of video with the cuts between that cross dissolves and other transitions can be added. If your like me with the multicam that I use alot of times to cut that single resulting timeline, I add titles, pips, and little animations on top of that to spice things up a bit and for by and large I don't get a render necessity. My projects usually aren't that complex and end up with the above and maxing out after the multicam with maybe two to three layers at the most and two audio tracks. I also usually use colored mattes for dissolve to's and fade to's on top of cross dissolves, and they never require renders. Its just the fancier matrox effects with my graphic card that I experience the slowdowns on framerates every once in a blue moon that your speaking of.

And also for the multicam, I think it is a disc intensive operation, anything from what I have observed using HDV files is very disc intensive. When I did that test of the three layers, and even scrubbing the timeline, my Hdd led was lit up like a christmas tree. So I think it's really hdd intensive, and is something I am thinking about also as I am just running a simple two drive raid O. I actually while they are still available am looking at the AB9 Pro motherboards since I know the layout and they have more SATA connections to allow me to run say a 4 disc array and split the requirements of the burdon.

But did you try to find a Vegas user on their forums if they have any? I am sure there have got to be one or two?

But since this is Vegas, I will leave it be. I wish you the best and am sure you will find your ideal solution these days.. Cpus are soo much more powerful than they used to be that it's daunting.. And sorry about the long post again..

BTW, what is (sp?)?

Damon
Damon Gaskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2007, 02:14 PM   #17
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 634
Nothing to be sorry about. (sp?) was inserted by me to basically say "How the heck to you spell this? Did I get it right?

I'm not the same Jon who evidently works at the Videoguys.com. Wish I were though because if I were, I'd probably have my answer! :)

I'm going to go check the Sony Vegas forumns now. I hate the way it's laid out and it takes forever to find something, but with some luck, I will in fact stumble across somebody else who has found the answer to this question.

Jon
Jon McGuffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2007, 02:37 PM   #18
New Boot
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fairview, NJ
Posts: 22
Quick thought.

I'm not really heavily knowledged when it comes to hardware interaction when working within an editing timeline, but could the lack of full CPU usage in a quad-core setup be a result of a bottleneck elswhere in the system? Like in either the hard drive setup, as you mentioned might need upgrade, or elsewhere in the system.

Also, out of curiosity. What happens if you disable the use of one of the processors by the application through task manager. Do the other CPUs kick up to a higher usage rate? And no I'm not infering that'd be better, although I'd be curious to see the performance differences if the 3 processor did kick up, but still not all the way up.
Michael F. Grgurev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2007, 03:04 PM   #19
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Auburn Hills, USA
Posts: 217
LOL, Jon, its funny tht you asked that because when I read your last post on that, I will both have to borrow the sp? and also, I kinda scratched my chin on that word. It used to bother me as a kid with spelling, but I think with my old tired mind that it is thorough? Who knows man, but I get your point(you know context clues) and we aren't english teachers here... LOL If its anything like this and most of the forums out now, a quick search would probably answer it for you. I hope you do find this out, as now you have me really curious. I did however on tomshardware do some comparative specs before I purchased the quad. You can test just check a few specs, though they don't really answer your question or for your application/concern. I don't know if this would help but here is the link:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

And Micheal, I thought about your question for a second and I doubt it. Simply because I am using the same harddrives I had prior to the Quad. The only things I have upgraded since the 100% utilization are the processor and also I upgraded to 4GB of PC6400 ram from 2GB of PC5300. So I wouldn't think this would be possible, at least from my quick thinking of the situation. For my machine at this time to be honest I think the largest bottleneck on my machine are the optical drives. But everything is much faster, so i don't think it is the harddrives that are bottlenecks. I to be honest because of the performance, think(and I could be wrong, but by the reviews and feedback I have read on newegg, this is pretty normal from what people are experiencing and stating in their varying applications that they use also. This along with benchmarks and other reviews led me to the purchase of the processor.) that this processor is really that good. But I wouldn't think that it's bottlenecked at all. If it is, I am afraid to see what it would be like if it were not. But I don't think it is. I could see if it didn't perform as well as my previous processor, but it's performing well above and beyond the previous one.

I am certainly not bragging, I am amazed every time I do something on this machine now. Pretty much every program with the exception of say CS3 is open once I click it, which never happened before(which others have stated also). And even the CS3 applications only take maybe 10 seconds if that, to open compared to probably 30-40 seconds before on the previous version. I even had to reload windows and that only took like 5 minutes. It is just insane to me, especially considering how cheap they are now, including the Duo's also. Add to that, this thing runs ice cold, its the best of both worlds!
Damon Gaskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2007, 03:16 PM   #20
Trustee
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posts: 1,315
I have read that to take full advantages of quad or greater cpu's, you need a lot of ram. I watched a tutorial video of Nucleo 2 by GridIron software. This is render software that makes advanced use of multi core systems for large speed gains, for those not familiar. It was mentioned to realize full potential you need 4GB minimum. They say 16GB Minimum!! for a eight core system. Ouch!! There is menu options to reduce the number of cores used to alleviate system and memory drains. It makes sense if you think about dividing 2GB between 4 cores. The Intel sytems also do not have an integrated memory controller like the new AMD quads will, so even at 1333fsb there is a bottle neck (1066fsb even worse). More ram will help keep each core happier.
So the bottom line is IMO, first you need the right software to take advantage of the cores, then you need the memory to handle it. If you have that combo you can really blow the doors off what was possible befor.

http://www.gridironsoftware.com/Nucl...oPro_Tutorials
__________________
Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.
Ken Hodson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2007, 03:34 PM   #21
New Boot
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fairview, NJ
Posts: 22
Fair enough. I was just wondering because in the past on my P4, I wasn't experiencing full CPU usage when doing things far simpler but yet not realtime. I think it was because of my poor hard drive setup, which since then I think I've taken care of. While yours is way far from poor, my rationality when talking about bottleneck wasn't that the processors perform worse, but that they perform so well that they demand more speed from the hardrives; given your working with multiple video tracks. My rationalities tend to be ill informed guesses though :}
Michael F. Grgurev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2007, 03:56 PM   #22
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Auburn Hills, USA
Posts: 217
Michael, in a way, I think your completely right and agree with you. But this is from the standpoint of the raid and other motherboard I mentioned. I believe pretty confidently that if I were able to get another motherboard that had another two connectors that I could add to the raid, making it for example a Raid O 1TB if I added two more 250GB harddrives, that my layering capabilities would be even higher than mentioned above. How much higher, I am not sure to be honest. But I do agree with you, and I really think that the processor could handle it.

And I am not sure how heavy Jon wished to go with his layers. From what he stated, I am not sure if he was interesed in larger than a simple raid O or not, but this is also something definately to consider as he stated he uses multicam alot. I do also, and haven't experienced a problem, but better to be safe than sorry. I just recently began thinking about adding a few more drives also just for the same reason you are speaking of. The issue previously was always the cpu and ram IMHO, but now that it is strong as hell, my mindset is on the drives and their performance. Its like a vicious circle... LOL A fun one, but still..

For a while I was exporting to another drive also(I still do, but this is a bulk drive that I use for everything such as motherboard drivers and the like). The only thing I had on this drive were files for creating dvd's and exports from the timeline. I am not sure if this was really any faster to be honest because I added another dvd burner to the machine which took up this last SATA slot.

These days, there is alot to consider with HDV, the stronger processors, ram performance, raid, etc. Its definately more performance, but alot to consider now that I and I am sure others didn't have to when they began building their machines.

But with more drives, I am sure it would scream even more. You have me thinking about it! I need to order that board before I no longer can...

D
Damon Gaskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2007, 05:47 PM   #23
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 634
I'm currently using a 640Gb RAID 0 made up of two 320Gb drives. In this next system, I'm going to go with Three 320Gb RAID 0 drives which should increase performance, not to mention I'll be buying slightly better drives.

Jon
Jon McGuffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2007, 07:42 AM   #24
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 320
Apologies, I'm too lazy to read through this entire thread, but would just like to know if I've understood this correctly - A newer Dual Core CPU running at say 3ghz on a 1333mhz FSB will enable better real time performance until Quads have better support, but a Quad Core CPU such as the Q6600 on a 1066mhz FSB would still enable faster rendering providing the editing app is multi threaded and can access all 4 cores?
__________________
Personal Website: http://www.avene.org
Glenn Thomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2007, 10:54 AM   #25
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Natal, RN, Brasil
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damon Gaskin View Post
Thats interesting guys because my Q6600 idles at 25C and hasn't gotten over 42C since I have had it. That includes encoding(which btw only utilizes at most thus far 42% of cpu power). One thing to keep in mind with any machine is cooling in the case. The Antec 900 case that I have now, lowered my cpu temps by at least 10C from what I remember. And yes, it does overclock really easily. I just played with mine to see how high it would go without problems, and I easily took it to 2.86 on just air and stock cooler, and if I remember it went up to 32C and 44C when encoding. I currently have it at 2.6Ghz and 26C while I type this.


Just my .02..
Damon, can you post your full system config? Our Q6600 runs a LOT hotter than that! Almost double your temps, as a matter of fact. We've changed heatsink compound 3 times thinking it must have been bad, but ... this stock cooler really seems to be lousy. I can't even get the fan to run at higher than 2500 rpm with this Intel D975xBX2 motherboard. We've got a fast RAID 0 setup for the previews, but are still getting audio stutters on timeline.

We are editing using CS3 with CF Prospect at 1920x1080 resolution, often with multilayered HD video, so it is a huge amount of data running through the bus.

We are not happy with Matrox's Parhelia either, and are looking for a better card (any suggestions anyone?).

Since we need a new system also for AfterEffects, I'm looking hard for a better setup. The quad is definitely better than our old dual XEON, but I am not real impressed with big speed gains. I'd have imagined something a little faster. Like I said, makes me wish for a V-8 (dual quads) if it would help.
__________________
http://lightinaction.org
"All in the view of the LION"
Stephen Armour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2007, 01:37 PM   #26
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Thomas View Post
Apologies, I'm too lazy to read through this entire thread, but would just like to know if I've understood this correctly - A newer Dual Core CPU running at say 3ghz on a 1333mhz FSB will enable better real time performance until Quads have better support, but a Quad Core CPU such as the Q6600 on a 1066mhz FSB would still enable faster rendering providing the editing app is multi threaded and can access all 4 cores?
Glenn,

The second comment is definately true. From a rendering performance standpoint, Quad Core's (in Vegas at least) are definately faster than their Dual Core counterparts, roughly TWICE as fast as an equivelently clocked Dual Core.

The jury is still out whether a 3Ghz Dual Core will feature better playback performance on the timeline than a 2.4Ghz Quad Core. I suspect it may be, but then again, if Vegas is *truly* taking advantage of all 4 cores, maybe the Quad is better here as well. I do know several people with Quad's who have said that after applying color correction, sharpening, etc, etc effects on an HDV timeline in Vegas, playback performance suffers. How much is unknown. I certainly see it with my Dual Core E6600.

I'm really trying to get this question answered but nobody seems to know.

Jon
Jon McGuffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2007, 01:40 PM   #27
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Armour View Post
Damon, can you post your full system config? Our Q6600 runs a LOT hotter than that! Almost double your temps, as a matter of fact. We've changed heatsink compound 3 times thinking it must have been bad, but ... this stock cooler really seems to be lousy. I can't even get the fan to run at higher than 2500 rpm with this Intel D975xBX2 motherboard. We've got a fast RAID 0 setup for the previews, but are still getting audio stutters on timeline.

We are editing using CS3 with CF Prospect at 1920x1080 resolution, often with multilayered HD video, so it is a huge amount of data running through the bus.

We are not happy with Matrox's Parhelia either, and are looking for a better card (any suggestions anyone?).

Since we need a new system also for AfterEffects, I'm looking hard for a better setup. The quad is definitely better than our old dual XEON, but I am not real impressed with big speed gains. I'd have imagined something a little faster. Like I said, makes me wish for a V-8 (dual quads) if it would help.

Hmmm.. Maybe try a new motherboard (Gigabyte or Asus maybe?) and find somebody with Vegas and a Quad core with Cineform NeoHD and see how performance is there compared to what you're seeing in Adobe.

Jon
Jon McGuffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2007, 01:11 PM   #28
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 320
Jon, I'm running a dual core E6600 also and trying to decide whether it would be worth upgrading to a Q6600. Especially now the prices have dropped.
__________________
Personal Website: http://www.avene.org
Glenn Thomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2007, 02:06 PM   #29
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 634
I think if you are making a living using your editing machine, then time is money and the Quad Core would *definately* be worthy of an upgrade for the "twice as fast" rendering times alone. If you are a hobbyist or "semi" professional, not sure I would bother upgrading at this point. We're probably not farther than 9-12 months away from a much faster and better Quad Core all the while that much more software at that point taking advantage of it.

I have an E6600 now and if I weren't in the market for a secondary, new system, I wouldn't bother with the Quad yet..
Jon McGuffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2007, 06:12 PM   #30
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Auburn Hills, USA
Posts: 217
Hi Stephen and John.

Stephen:

System Specs:

Abit AB9(non pro version)
Q6600(old stepping version) with stock intel cooler
4 GB OCZ PC6400
Nvidia 7600GS
Mushkin Enhanced Power Supply(550 watt)
System Drive: Western Digital 36Gig Raptor(or 80GB 7200.10 SATA)
Video Raid 0: 2 Segate Barricuda's(7200.10 SATA versions)
Export Drive: 200 GB Segate 7200.10 SATA
Matrox RTX2(3.0 Drivers)
Ethernet Card
Antec 900 Case

Thats pretty much my setup. The case to be honest has alot to do with the cooling. That along with cable routing, but more the airflow in the case. Before I transferred to the Antec case, it was indeed registering warmer. But not nearly as warm as your saying yours is. To be honest, my pentium D was running those temps your experiencing, but I wouldn't expect a core to run that hot at all from what I have read. I also alternate the 80 gig and the raptor for system drives if I need to reinstall windows(I haven't figured out which one is truly faster as of yet because of the raptors size that gets eaten up quickly).

My fan rpm on the heatsink doesn't go over 2220 from what I can remember. It also probably depends on what your ambient temp is also, which will determine with what your working with as far as temps are concerned. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but what kind of airflow do you have going through your case? Also, if your heatsink is on correctly(which it to be honest doesn't sound like it is with those temps, but then again, your in Brazil, which from my geographic is a pretty hot region)? Does the fan wiggle when you attempt to move it by hand? Something really doesn't seem right.

But if your ambient is 100F, then you can only do soo much cooling with the stock hsf. You also may want to consider aftemarket HSF if your ambient is really high or airflow throughout the case is poor. In a situation that the ambient is high, I wouldn't begin to think about using a stock HSF. Thats to me just asking alot(with my assumption that your ambient is that high).

Also, I will not post any comment on the rendering to be honest smply because I am using the matrox editing board, so I am not running into the same rendering experiences you guys would have with software alone. But I will say that for the temps, you may want to consider some sort of upgraded cooling. Something I learned with my older AMD's and also the pentium D is that the cooler I was able to keep them, the better they ran. I am not sure what your thermal setup is in your bios, but maybe it's throttling because of the higher temps? It shouldn't be at that low of a temp, but then again, if your rendering temps are getting into the 60's and 70's, I suppose it's possible.

All of these are just stab's in the dark, because it's not just the cpu hsf that makes it cool, its pretty much the whole setup, or at least my thought.
Damon Gaskin is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Cross-Platform Post Production Solutions > CineForm Software Showcase

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:42 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network