Question for our hardware experts...

Are the new quad-core Intel chips likely to be appreciably faster than duo-core for Vegas?

Vegas, as I seem to recall, can only utilize 2Gb of Memory. Can anyone confirm that 4 would not be an improvement?

Is the jump from my 3.0 Dual Core to a new Duo-Core going to be noticeable, with all other factors being equal?

I went from an overclocked E6300 core 2 duo to a Q6600 quad core and halved my render times. Vegas uses all four cores. There is a long thread over at Sony Creative Software Vegas forum on render times vs. different computer configurations that will give you more information.

Based on the render result times posted in this thread (http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?Forum=4&MessageID=526170) on the Sony forum, I'd say to go for the quad core.

On the 2GB vs. 4GB. question, opinions seem to be mixed.
The bottom line is, if you can afford it, go for it.
When Sony comes out with a 64 bit version of Vegas (this fall??), you'll be glad you did :-)

Excactly the info I needed. I love this forum!

What about 8gb of RAM? Would Vegas 7.0e be able to use that? And does Vegas 7.0e utilize a dedicated graphics card much, or should I save the money and get some mediocre card as opposed to say the Nvidia 8800 GTX Ultra/8800 GTX/8800 GTS (640mb)? I don't plan on using SLI.

I don't know about 8GB RAM. XP only works with 3GB. Although 7e sorta works with Vista (according to posts I've read), I can't see the advantage of using Vista vs. the downsides.

Vegas does not use the hardware acceleration available on some video cards. A simple video card works just as good as a gamer card. However, if you are going to shoot HD video, the new video cards from Nvidia and ATI WILL accelerate high def video during playback. That could ease some of the playback sluggishness. The Nvidia 8500 and 8600 cards and the ATI N2000 cards offer a lot of capability.

Well, I plan on upgrading to Vista. What are the downsides of Vegas with Vista? Vista can support more RAM than XP from what I've read.

Well, I plan on upgrading to Vista. What are the downsides of Vegas with Vista? Vista can support more RAM than XP from what I've read.

Don't believe Vista in 32-bit will support any more RAM than XP Professional at this point. Why upgrade? See this thread...
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=95767

Vista 64-bit.

So there's a few bugs in Vista. That's too be expected. I'll go with Vista and as the fixes come out, I'll apply them. Don't think there will be a problem. I see more advantages than disadvantages, but I guess everyone needs to decide that for themselves.

quote:"The people at work don't care if you show up in a Porche or a Ford"

mmmmh.. that is the way it should be, BUT currently it is probably the only thing that counts when you show up at work (and probably the reason why your boss shows up at work with a porsche or other big/expensive car).

AFAIK, max RAM is determined by your OS.

Found that out the hard way...kinda.

Picked up 4 gigs of RAM at t*********t.ca for a sweet price.

I was pumped about going from 1 gig to 4 gigs until I installed.

XP Pro only recognizes 3 gigs. The fourth gets..."lost", I guess.

Cost me $100 to find that out but I'm not complaining too much. When I upgrade I'll swap the RAM over to my quad core purchase in the next 6 months.

Hope that helps.

ian

The following article may help with the question of memory as it relates to XP. It appears XP sp2 can utilize 4 gigs of memory, under the right conditions.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137/en-us