Building a new system and am finding lots of conflicting opinions. Amongst Vegas users, which is working out best?

Also, do I need a dual boot system (32/64 bit)? Or can I go with one or the other?

Thanks!

James - I would base a build off of the specs for the i7 Master Suite computers (http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/mastersuite). In addition, I would utilize a dedicated RAID for source files and render out to a separate render drive. Encode any highly compressed footage (AVCHD, DSLR footage, etc) to DI's - either Cineform for AVID's DNxHD. I've done this and seen an increase in stability with Vegas Pro 9.0e 32 & 64. IMO, you're only asking for trouble editing native footage from these types of file formats.

I have a sneaking suspicion that when the next version of Vegas is released, there are going to be some capabilities for utilizing the GPU from the graphics card.

I would play it safe and go that route if you can.

You don't need a dual boot if going Windows 7 Pro 64bit - both versions of Vegas work perfectly - at least they do for me.

HTH,

I have both versions of Vegas working no problem on Win 7 64bit also. We currently use a Tempest i5400XT (S5396) dual Xeon motherboard with 2.83ghz processors, 16gigs of memory, 3 SAS Raid 0 internal drives, Raptor 300gig 15,000rpm boot drive and 3 external raptors e-sata raid 0 to drives to render to. Win7 64 professional. All water cooled, no slowing this monster down. My son, the builder of this system said something about doing another one using a dual i7 motherboard, but I don't know that set up. I will ask when he's around.

There is no "best" board for everyone. However you will be hard-pressed to find a more stable board for the 920 than the the Asus P6T Deluxe V2. It is a cinch to overclock, has built in Raid on two separate controllers. It has only six internal hard drive connectors, but also has an esata in the rear panel. Very nice board.

I've seen mixed reviews on virtually all boards, but the P6T V2 has among the highest ratings on Newegg. I've built two systems with this board and have been very pleased.

I'm running a Asus P6X58D mobo with I7 930 and it's been great. Also supports USB 3.0 and 6G SATA. I'm not overclocking it, but I've read that it's easy to do.

No need to dual boot. Windows 7 64 bit will run 32 bit applications. There are many options out there for your motherboard, and like Mr. Harper said, there is no true singular *best board*. It varies a lot, but you generally can not go wrong with a full ATX Intel or Asus brand board. Don't waste your time with Micro ATX or other small form factors, they lack on quality and functionality.

Thanks everyone -- much appreciated.

I just bought an AsRock X58 Extreme 3. AsRock is a spin-off from Asus, and the Extreme 3 seems to be stable for overclocking according to Toms Hardware and other reviewers ASRock X58 Extreme : X58 On A Budget: Seven Sub-$200 Core i7 Boards (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cheap-x58-motherboard,2368-3.html) (also good reviews at Newegg).

I paid only $179 at Newegg sale; it has USB3 and other modern goodies that are lacking on the P6T. Also: 2 of its 3 PCIe-16 slots are widely spaced so that you can install a pair of huge graphics cards in case Vegas soon supports GPU-assisted rendering.

I'll be putting a 940 on it (I got mine for $225 - cheaper than I could find for a 920). I should have all the parts in 2 weeks and will report back here on the forum . . .

I've build a lot of editing computers and one thing I now consider is a machine's capability to become a Hackintosh. With that in mind, I lean toward the Gigabyte X58 motherboards.

It varies a lot, but you generally can not go wrong with a full ATX Intel or Asus brand board.

Actually, there are better choices than the Intel-branded X58 motherboard. This is because the Intel board is missing a few of the tweakable settings that are necessary to attain the optimal performance from any i7-9xx processor. What's more, there have been no fewer than five BIOS revisions that came out for this motherboard this year alone (although one of them has since been removed from Intel's download site). Most other X58 motherboards have had no more than three BIOS versions released for them since the beginning of this year.

Actually, there are better choices than the Intel-branded X58 motherboard. This is because the Intel board is missing a few of the tweakable settings that are necessary to attain the optimal performance from any i7-9xx processor. What's more, there have been no fewer than five BIOS revisions that came out for this motherboard this year alone (although one of them has since been removed from Intel's download site). Most other X58 motherboards have had no more than three BIOS versions released for them since the beginning of this year.

I did say "generally", you also have to remember not everyone is a tweaker or overclocker. There is always a better option in some way, if you are willing to go far enough to get it. Since James did not specify if he was building it from parts he was buying individually or having it built for him and was given a couple of options, I find it best to not assume too much.

I have a sneaking suspicion that when the next version of Vegas is released, there are going to be some capabilities for utilizing the GPU from the graphics card.


I am still skeptical that Vegas will ever implement hardware specific render support. Its main selling point is that it runs on anything.

Dont' get me wrong, as someone with an SLI system (if I choose to enable that feature) I'd love to set loose these gfx cards on renders, but I just cant' see Sony changing the course of Vegas that drastically.

Jason, I was also skeptical of Vegas making the switch, that is until CS5. I think Vegas pretty much has to take the plunge now.

I did say "generally", you also have to remember not everyone is a tweaker or overclocker. There is always a better option in some way, if you are willing to go far enough to get it. Since James did not specify if he was building it from parts he was buying individually or having it built for him and was given a couple of options, I find it best to not assume too much.

Fair enough there. But I stated that there are better options than that Intel-branded board because it is simply too expensive for the features and quality it offers.

Did CS5 enable GPU based render support in Premier? Even if it did, I still find it hard that Sony would abandon the flexibility and "runs everywhere" mind set. I'd love to see it though, and 3rd party plugins may beat Sony to the punch (heck, I coudl see Sony providing support to third parties to do just that so they don't have to).

Did CS5 enable GPU based render support in Premier?

Yup. Through the Adobe Mercury playback engine. (http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/performance/)

How would having support for GPU rendering prevent it from working on any current platforms? Is there any reason it could/would not be optional, or only turn itself on if compatible hardware and drivers were found? As it is, there *is* a video render plugin for Vegas both for AMD and NVidia GPUs, why not just integrate it? I might add that Vegas is far form a *Run on anything* program. If by *anything* you mean Microsoft XP 32bit, Vista 32/64 bit and Windows 7 32 and 64 bit sure. But no Mac, no Linux/BSD/Unix/etc. I have never heard them make such a claim and I've never thought of it that way. To me it's simply the best, and most intuitive NLE I've run across.

Show me a viable professional video editor for the entry professional market on Linux/Unix and I'll show you the deed to the Golden Gate bridge with my name on it. :-)
Edit: I should point out that I HAVE invested a significant amount of time discussing the lack of OSS NLE options with several people for whom an OSS solution is a high priority. Unfortunately aside from some real ugly hacks, some unintuitive apps, frame-serving, and use of several programs in tandum, the options are not good.

Yes by every platform I was speaking of Windows and I should have specified that I mean hardware.

The addition of Native GPU support is indeed interesting. I always prefer native support over 3rd party plugins because I know there is buy-in from the company that owns the program.

I have yet to see a Mac user that was interested in anything but Mac solutions / apps for professional products. People use a Mac because of the apps that run on it, so missing Vegas for Mac is like missing a 3rd arm..... very few were interested in that extra arm any way.

I just spoke with a premier user this weekend and even GPU support is not likely to raise the likability of Premier for certain classes of users (mostly the laptop based gfx / designer crowd which completely lacks GPU's with any horsepower).

But I am glad to see the GPU support added to CS5's lineup. May be that will put some more pressure on Sony for native support in Vegas. We see from history that thanks to great work by VASST/Excalibur, Sony eventually provided multi-cam functions to their product, so hopefully the 3rd party plugin you reference will sufficiently spur Sony on to implement that functionality.

back to the MB question: I just got my ASRock X58 Extreme 3 working and I'm satisfied. It's a good, cheap motherboard that overclocks quite well with my i7 940 (for which I paid only $225 on Amazon.com with free shipping). Today I set it up for 3.975 gHz and got a render time of 2:42 on the new RENDERTEST-2010 (Sony Creative Software - Forums - Vegas Pro - Video Messages (http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=722194&Replies=35)). According to Tomshardware, it's one of the more stable MB's for overclocking.

Highest core temp occasionally reached 73 degrees C, which Intel says is OK for extended periods. However, by cutting speed back just a notch, I got 2:43 seconds, with highest core temp of 70 degrees C - a prudent temperature indeed (with ambient temperature of 71 degrees F).

I used a Tuniq Tower 120 Extreme heatsink with Arctic Silver 5 paste (the TX-3 that Tuniq supplied gave me terrible results). I found it on ebay for a few dollars less than at NewEgg.

Total cost for this build, including 12 GB memory, an OCZ ModXStream Pro OCZ600MXSP 600W 80%+ power supply, and a GT240 graphics card, was about $850 (purchasing items that were on sale at NewEgg). If you don't have a spare case, add maybe $50 to that figure.

Total time to reinstall programs (more than 100 of them): just minutes. I made an image of my old boot disk, put it on another hard drive, popped it into the new computer, then ran the Win7-64bit Microsoft installation disk in Upgrade option to install all the drivers for the new hardware. It took the machine a few hours to do all that, but not my time, and all seems to work pretty well except for a minor glitch with my VMWare Player virtual machine, which I use for browsing the web with a Linux appliance. Maybe if I update some of the drivers I'll get that to work properly too - or maybe I'll just need to re-install it.

I can't activate the Win7-64bit upgrade over the internet. But, hopefully, I'll be able to do it when offices open again on Monday and I can talk to a person at Microsoft. If not, I'm out another $150 if I pay M$ directly, or at least $65 if I buy (again) from Buy Cheap Software - Best Prices on Software Anywhere. Cheap Antivirus, Internet security, MS Office, Windows 7, Windows Server, DVD Burning, Windows XP, SQL, Exchange, Word, Excel, OEM Licensing, Retail Software (http://www.buycheapsoftware.com) and get another upgrade disk with a new serial number. We'll see . . .

If you want a nice motherboard with SATA6 (and a total of 6 SATA connections, plus one eSATA), and USB 3, you might want to look at this ASRock.

That's the one i'm gunning for next. I have everything but the Mobo sitting in the office.

I can't activate the Win7-64bit upgrade over the internet. But, hopefully, I'll be able to do it when offices open again on Monday and I can talk to a person at Microsoft.

Actually, you can activate Win7 64-bit upgrade by phone even on weekends and late nights. This is because the phone activation does not go to a live person unless your activation attempt through the automated phone activation system fails for some reason. If your online activation fails you should have gotten a random code which you submit to Microsoft's automated activation system for phone activation. When the automated activation system asks you how many computers you have the copy of Windows installed on, you should ALWAYS answer "1" ("One"); any other number would trigger the weekday-only live technical support because the automated phone activation procedure would then fail after you entered the multi-number code. The live technical support person may advise you to purchase an additional Windows license, which would cost the same price as the full list price for a retail upgrade copy of the same edition of Windows (since all currently available retail copies of Windows are licensed for use on only one PC at a time). At present, those prices for the additional licenses are $120 for Home Premium, $200 for Professional and $220 for Ultimate (the same as the full retail prices for the upgrade copies).

Also, did you install the upgrade on an empty hard drive? If so, you have installed only a trial version, and you will need to run the upgrade setup again on top of that trial install (perform this setup in Windows).

it worked! thanks much for the tips.

I also got VMWare Player working by uninstalling and re-installing. All is well with the world.