I just rendered a 1:07 .m2t file to NTSC DV and 720 x 24.wmv in 32bit, then converted to 64vit and reran the test. Here are my results:

32bit to NTSC DV .avi = 1:47
64 = 1:41

32bit to 720x24 .wmv = 7:47
64 = 8:03


I'm a little underwhelmed at the moment. My system:

AMD 6400 @ 3.2 Dual Core
4GB Ram
Vista 64 Home
8600 GTS graphics
Lots of HDD's and free space (ESata 3)

What are the specs of the machine you're running on? I saw about a 30% increase on my laptop. I have both 8.0c and 8.1 installed side by side because there aren't many 64bit codecs out there right now.

One element that might make a 64bit system faster would be a multi core processor. A single processor utilizing the larger bitstream would see far less improvement compared to a multi core with each core using a larger bitstream getting almost expotential speed increase as each core is now benefiting from the increase.

Sorry I'm not a tech word savvy person and probably shouldn't use the word 'bitstream' but I think my logic would make sense. I will be moving to a 64bit OS soon simply to increase the amount of ram if nothing else. I expect some moderate gains in performance as well running 64bit OS on my AMD quad 2.2ghz.

James is correct, I believe. A quad core would give you significant gains in rendering speeds. Is your Vista tweaked out properly? I don't know if it would help, but it couldn't hurt.

I did notice an increase in speed with 64 bit OS, with 32 bit Vegas. My experience is that Vegas 8.0c is not ready for prime time anyway. I'm sure you are very disappointed with the lack of improvement, I know I was.

yes, by definition, getting more bits to crunch should just make a PC slower.
But getting more bits allows wider path for data, allows more memory, better handling of multiprocessor etc.., so if you take advantage of these feature you can see improvement.

I didn't specify it originally (added detail in first post) but my processor is a dual core running at 3.2 Ghz.

I'm going to try a few more tests, perhaps I need to reboot before the 64 test and I'll make sure I select my best drives and keep everything exactly consistent. If I don't see a significant gain, I'll probably go back to 32 to keep more options open for plug-ins and may even reload XP to see how that runs.

Roger

For what it’s worth, I’m using a dual boot system also. I use XP for all my normal stuff and XP-64 for Vegas.

Recently I went thru some hardware upgrades. CPU & Ram. I used the same video / audio file for testing. I don’t know how to equate the Intel & AMD cpu’s but perhaps you do.
Here’s what I found.

Running XP - 16 min 14 sec.
Running XP(64) - 14 min 17 sec.

Changed out the CPU from Core 2 Dual 2.0Gb to Core 2 Quad at 2.83GB
Changed out the memory from PC-6400 FSB 800 (3GB) to PC-8500 FSB 1066 (4GB)
Running XP - 12min 30 sec.
Running XP(64) - 9 min 07 sec.

XP 16 to 12 = 24 % +/-
XP(64) 14 to 9 = 35% +/-

Well I went back and did some more upgrades and a little tweaking and re-ran the render.
First I added another 4GB memory, so I now have 8GB of Corsair Dominator 1066 memory. Second I over clocked the CPU to 3.02 Ghz – (others have over clocked this cpu to 3.4Ghz) and Third I increased my paging files to maximum setting allowed.

Running XP-32 bit time is now 8min 59sec. Vegas 8.0c
Running XP-64 bit time is now 5min 21sec. Vegas 8.1

From original XP-32 16min 14 sec to 8min 59sec ….. not bad
From original XP-64 14min 17 sec to 5min 41sec …… not bad at all…..

Rendered file size was 298,806 KB +/-

Don,

What type of file were you rendering and to what format (i.e. 1080-60i.m2t rendered to NTSC-DV.avi). If I have a similar sized source file of the same format, I'll run a comparison.

Can you please send me your PC so I can validate your results :)

as opposed to the $64 question,

does the 64bit mean that your preview improves as well as there's less bottlenecks? Does it utilise the cpu better meaning smooth real time preview?

thanks

Adam

Roger
I use a GL-2 and record to a FireStore –FS-4 (original)
The file type is an AVI- type 2. on the FS-4 menu.
The camera is set to standard 4:3 mode, using a 16:9 wide screen adapter from Century Optics. In all other respects it is a standard SD video. Once the video was recorded I simply moved the file to the hard disk and imported it to Vegas. No editing was preformed. Just the settings below were altered from default settings.

At the bottom you will notice a difference in Dynamic Ram and Rendering Threads.
I don’t know Vegas well enough to say what this means as far as performance goes. Perhaps someone else can commit on that.

My source file size is 1,489,498KB.

Windows XP (32 bit)
File, Properties, Project Properties: Video Tab

Template: NTSC DV Wide screen (720x480,29.970 fps)
Width: 720
Height: 480
Field Order : Lower field first
Pixel aspect ratio: 1.2121 (NTSC DV Wide screen)
Pixel format : 32-bit floating point
Composting gamma: 1.000(Linear)
Full-resolution rendering quality: Best
Motion blur type: Gussian
Deinterlace method: Blend fields

Audio Tab:
Master bus mode: Stereo
Number of stereo busses: 0
Sample rate (Hz): 44,1000
Bit depth: 16
Resample and stretch quality: Good

Ruler, Summary, and Audio CD tabs all default.

Options:
Preferences
Video Tab:
Changed Dynamic RAM Preview max (MB): to 1024
Changed Maximum number of rendering threads to :4

All other tabs I left set to default.

Windows XP (64 bit)

I just noticed that on the Options: Preferences: Video Tab: there is a difference
Dynamic RAM Preview max (MB): 350
Maximum number of rendering threads : 16

Ok... there seems to be a big confusion about 64-bit.

The 64-bit application, as with the 64-bit OS, allows you to fully run within a 64-bit environment. This means that logical addresses are 64-bits long (eg, no worries about addressing all the memory in your computer for the next years and, well, forever), and it means you get the x86-64 CPU model. That means some instructions that operate on 64-bit integers in a single cycle (versus 32-bit), and it means you get a better regular CPU and FPU model (more registers).

As far as "bringing things in 64-bit"... not really. Most hardware has been 64-bit since the dark ages (the mid 1990s) as far as the hardware is concerned, and more recently, it's effectively 128-bit... any DDR/DDR2/DDR3 system that works better with paired memory modules is grabbing at least 128-bits at a time. The CPU itself doesn't even really matter that much.

Code gets a bit more efficient in 64-bit mode: there are more CPU registers, more FPU registers, and you don't need the hacks they added for SSE/SSE2, to reuse the FPU registers. But the FPU was 64/80-bits in 32-bit land, it still is in 64-bit land. SSE is 64-bit and 128-bit, it's still that way in 64-bit land. When you read an HDV file into Vegas8.1, you're doing very much the same thing you did in Vegas 8.0c. When you're rendering, still much the same thing. If there are things a compiler can do better using 64-bit integers (unlikely), more CPU registers (definite), more FPU registers (very likely), you'll see a speedup.

But don't expect a huge one... as crappy as the x86 model is, the compilers have had so much effort, they're very good. So the additions to x86-64 compilers improve upon that, but it's more a 5% thing than a 50% thing.

Dave,

You may be right. I hoped 64 would bring a 30 - 50% improvement, but it hasn't. I'm going to go through the system and see if there is anything else I can tweak to make my dual core run faster, but I believe careful configuring of disk drives (using my ESATA's instead of external USB2's) yields more tanbible results that going from 32 to 64 bit.

This is interesting. I have 8.oc and 8.1 loaded on the same machine running Vista Business, and when I render stills into a wmv, I see about a 30 percent difference, and when I render HDV out into one of the intermediate codecs, I'm seeing at least a 50 percent increase. The still to wmv was 1:12 long and the HDV was about an hour long. It was a real time savor. It also seems to handle effects quite a bit quicker.

I just wish Sony would get off their duffs and bring 8.1 up to the same level as 8.0c, then take both of them into the realm of working all the time and no giving me a bug a day or so.

I know the 64 bit Vegas is new, and not all that it could be, but it seems that if the machine is up for it it can make a difference. Whether it justifies the added cost etc. though is another question entirely.

Oh, and I don't know a lot about Vegas or setup, I'm just going by the numbers in a machine that is already put together.

Roger, just to drive home the point about your processor's importance in speed, I just overclocked my Q6600 (quad core 2.4GHZ) to 3.3 and it is flying. What's more I'm using slow memory (DDR 667). Preview performance has improved somewhat, but the rendering has really taken off.

If your MB will accomodate the q6600, they are going for $169 now, which is obviously cheap. Of course if your MB won't accept the Quad core and/or if you don't have $169 to spend, then it won't do you any good of course. Hopefully you will at some point be able to upgrade.

Jeff, if its not too much to ask, could you take a short .m2t clip (1:00 or so; tell me the exact size and time) put it in your timeline and render it to 720x30P wmv and also to NTSC DV and tell me how long it takes for each render.

This will give me a feel of what kind of gain I could expect if I spend the $$$.

Roger, I don't have any .m2t files or I would be happy to do that for you. If you want I'll test a plain avi file render to mpeg2 using the dvda template. let me know and I'll be glad to do that.

Roger, I had to back off on my overclock. But nevertheless I rendered a 105 minute video with 425 clips and plenty of transitions of various types in 17 minutes and 40 seconds while on the net and running several other programs simultaneously. That should give you some kind of benchmark to start. I know that my previous dual core 3.2 rendering time was usually the same as the length of the video. So in this instance I saved 80 minutes from my previous processor.

Your processor isn't bad at all. You wouldn't notice much difference in applications other than Vegas, possibly. But since Vegas uses all four cores, you would enjoy significant improvement in rendering and some improvement in the preview experience, I believe.

Like all of us, you'll live with what you have as long as you can, and when a good deal comes along you'll jump on it! Heck, Intel has some crazy new processors on the way, you might be better off waiting!

Yeah, the new i7 processors from Intel are just absurd in terms of performance goes. The price of the chips is competative, the problem is that they are forcing you to DDR3 and also a new motherboard as these chips are significantly larger. I frankly don't think now is the best time to be buying something if you can live without. Early next year, prices for DDR3 should start to work their way down and I would think for about $600 you could pickup the memory, processor and chip that'll blow away (by about a 25% margin clock-to-clock) than what is available now...

I'm kinda hoping Sony will release a better version of Vegas Pro that will help in the performance area in regards to 64-bit computing + preview performance.

Jon

Thanks Jon. I'm not big on upgrading computers, I have a "rotation" where I buy a really hot machine about every 2 years, rotate the previous hot machine for my kids to use, and the previous not-so-hot machine from 4 years ago to a browser, WP machine. I tend to buy all the memory, processors, drives, and most of the software and keep it as a package so it works together and chunk it in the trash together.

Question for me is, do I go the PC route again, or buy a Mac with CS4 and give that platform a whirl? I like Vegas a lot and would likely continue to use it on my current system and maybe even run "Parallel" on the Mac with a windows system in addition to FC & CS4.

Thanks Jon. I'm not big on upgrading computers, I have a "rotation" where I buy a really hot machine about every 2 years, rotate the previous hot machine for my kids to use, and the previous not-so-hot machine from 4 years ago to a browser, WP machine. I tend to buy all the memory, processors, drives, and most of the software and keep it as a package so it works together and chunk it in the trash together.

Question for me is, do I go the PC route again, or buy a Mac with CS4 and give that platform a whirl? I like Vegas a lot and would likely continue to use it on my current system and maybe even run "Parallel" on the Mac with a windows system in addition to FC & CS4.

Roger, we basically do the exact same thing. I, along with you, don't really spend much time upgrading my existing rig. I buy something semi-state of the art every 2-3 years and hand my unit down to the family computer, and take the family computer and donate it essentially.. Nice to know I'm not the only guy out there doing this! :)

If you jump ship from the PC, I would think you'd be best off going with Final Cut over CS4. I only say this because having seen FC in action, it looks pretty nice and is the obvious standard not only on the MAC but pretty much the industry. If you stay with a PC, then I think things change a little. You'd have to really look into CS4 but if not that, I'm sure Vegas is the next obvious choice and certainly the value choice.

Jon,

I misspoke. I meant to infer I would use FCPro and the Adobe suite.

Vegas works pretty well though, so I may stick with it and the PC if I don't see myself collaborating more with others. I am very curious about the Apple environment though.

I upgrade when it is cost effective. As a full-time editor in a one man shop my system requirements are such that it would be too expensive to get these specifics in an off-the-shelf workstation. If I were a casual user I would just buy something off the shelf.

In my case I just spent $600 to upgrade to a PC that would have easily cost me triple or more.

For example: my PC has 8 internal HDs totalling nearly 7TB in size, built in Raid, and a decent PSU. I also run multiple external large hard drives, broadcast monitor, etc. As a result I need a workstation that is powerful and flexible.

It is nearly impossible to find a workstation with the specs I need for less than $2-4K. In fact, simply finding a workstation that would accomodate 8 HDs and run them without heat issues would be a challenge unto itself. Add in the RAID and large PSU and you're really talking serious money. As a bonus I'm running a Quad core cpu at 3.0, and while it is certainly not the fastest, it is pretty darn fast. In a year or so I'll swap out motherboard, cpu and ram and again for under $1000 I'll have a great workstation.

Jeff,

When you swap out CPU and motherboard, do you have to reload new OS and all that software again, or does it integrate with what's on the old drives?

Also, how is your relationship with Vegas after looking over the fence for a while?

You must reload your OS. It is possible you would have to buy a new key, but not for sure. Because you would have a new mobo, windows would force you to call for activation. I have heard there are different policies for XP and Vista.

The question you ask shows that you are coming from a place of inexperience with these relatively basic issues and your road in rebuilding could be long and unnecessarily difficult. Don't do it unless you are looking for a new hobby OR unless you are one of those bright people who catch on to new concepts quickly and who learns fast.

It can get real complicated and messy. I lived with a bad configuration once for over a year, and it was awful. I am a slow learner (I really am) and getting to where I currently am in this process has taken years and has cost me many thousands of dollars. My original builds were all SCSI systems and in those days I didn't seem to experience anywhere near the compatability issues that seem to exist today with components.

The worst part is you can have your new computer not boot up and the cause could be any one of these things: Bad memory (but then, which stick?) bad motherboard, bad power supply, bad processor. And since you built it yourself you have no one to help you. You can visit forums, etc, but is that how you want to spend your early morning hours? Let me tell you, it can truly be a nightmare and reduce a grown man to tears. I never want to go through the first couple of years of building PCs again.

The most awful feeling in the world is having built your new PC and turning it on for the first time and then it makes a bunch of strange noises and shuts down.

That being said, my new build is superb. The case if fanatstic as it will hold nearly anthing.
The components are matched perfectly. It runs more quietly than any PC I've ever owned and it the most stable now that I've got the first few bugs out. I'm actually happier with this machine than any I've ever owned. I was happy with my Dell for a while, but when I added on things it bogged down and became unstable. People who I argued with on this forum were correct: the power supply was to wimpy. I was wrong and I admit it.

If you decide to DIY just get good guidelines on how to select components, etc and buy as much as possible locally so that if you have to return a component you don't have to wait a month to get it replace while your PC is down.

Regarding Vegas Ron, I am happy with it for now. I went through a period of dissatisfaction because of the amazing things I saw being done on FCP by my friends, particularly with DVD menus. One friend in particular turns out average quality quality weddings, but his 3-d DVD menus just blow away potential customers. The lack of plug-ins for Vegas was also very bothersome, but I now try not to focus on those things.

I am soon going to reinstall PPro and play with it, as the plug-ins available are numerous. But as I remember it was absolutely no fun at all to work with and it was time consuming to do the simplest things.

Vegas is so fast, and I get so behind in my editing as it is, I can't imagine abandoning it anytime soon.

This is a bit off topic but just wanted to let everyone know the new Core i7 from intel is supposed to give a 40% improvement clock for clock in video encoding and 3d applications. It may make better use of 64 bit archetecture and the updated 8.1 version of Vegas.

-Jonathan

I went 64bit a while back and I noticed right away it was faster. No not and day or anything but a nice gain. I have a quad core and so on.

One thing I was doing a video with a crapload of edits on the 32bit vegas and had to play with the video ram to get it to render, no such troubles on the 64bit. I get to use all 6 gigs of ram. Plus the preview window is smoother too, I can watch AVCHD all full frame rate..

Preview window test with AVCHD from an HDR SR11, in my opinion one of the best tests for such a thing... LOL

With Preview set to full - full frame rate 1080 AVCHD
With Good set to full - full frame rate 1080 AVCHD
With Best set to full - looks like it drops a 3rd maybe, not full frame rate.

EDIT: actually if I set the project settings to a 1080 timeline, it will play at nearly full framerate even at Best set to full.

If you're thinking about upgrading for faster Vegas performance, the new i7 chips are now available.

Priced at $599 at 2.93GHz they are a steal.

Of course I just bought my new motherboard which is Socket 775 and cannot accomodate these chips!

The downside to this upgrade is price only. DDR3 memory is still expensive.