What are some minimal specs for this as far as processor and memory go?

Straight from the ReadMe file for Vegas 6.0d:


System Requirements:

The following lists the minimum system requirements for using Sony Media Software Vegas software:

Microsoft® Windows® 2000, XP Home, or XP Professional (Windows XP SP2 required for HDV)
800 MHz processor (2.8 GHz recommended for HDV)
200 MB hard-disk space for program installation
600 MB hard-disk space for optional Sony Sound Series Loops & Samples reference library installation
256 MB RAM (512 MB RAM recommended for HDV)
OHCI-compatible i.LINK® connector*/IEEE-1394DV card (for DV capture and print-to-tape)
Windows-compatible sound card
CD-ROM drive (for installation from a CD only)
Supported CD-Recordable drive (for CD burning only)
Microsoft DirectX® 9 or later (included on CD-ROM)
Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 SP1
Internet Explorer 5.1 or later (included on CD-ROM)

What are some minimal specs for this as far as processor and memory go?

The better question (because as you see your answers were staring you in the face) would have been what is the best chipset or something similar... I am quite curious as to what is the better chipsets myself.

I would say that the Sony specs are minimum for editing/rendering HDV. I exceed those specs and it is a struggle to play 1920x1080 files at full speed, much less edit them easily. I would not suggest anything less than a 64 bit dual core CPU at this point whenever high definition anything is mentioned. Yes, it is possible to accelerate editing a little if you use an intermediate codec, but rendering is still gonna take a long time with a single core. I don't think the chipset matters much any more, at least on the new boards. I'm in the process of updating my overclocked 2.8 GHz AMD XP Barton to a Core 2 Duo setup as soon as the new CPUs are available.

I could be wrong but I think everything is in the chipset... otherwise a 400 emachine would be just as good as a similar spec'd custom built that cost 3 times as much. To me it all comes down to motherboard.

Don't get me wrong. Motherboards are important. But, there are Intel, Nvidia, ATI, SIS and Via chipsets that all perform pretty close to one another depending on the motherboard manufacturer. The latest chipsets are the ones that complement the latest CPUs. HOW the motherboard manufacturer incorporates the chipset is more important than the chipset alone. I tend to select the CPU first, then the best performing motherboard with the features I want (like Firewire ports, etc.) to complement it.

Agreed

There should be a list of pc's and mother boards to avoid ;)

My computer is already a Celeron 2.0, with 768 memory and it is slow to edit and shunky, but still plays. I am going to upgrade this week - but more importantly, how about the video card? Is it going to play any part in making this work?

...how about the video card? Is it going to play any part in making this work?

It's only role is in feeding whatever monitor(s) you have.
Other than that, a more expensive video card gains you nothing unless you're also a gamer who needs things like 3D features.

In my opinion any upgrade now should be based on the requirements for Vista (nomatter if you think to use it or stick with WinXP)!
For that reason speaking of graphics card you should get no less than 256MB fited one.
I never tried HD playback not to speak editing but roughly speaking you need 5 times faster proccesing power than the older P4 3 GHz CPU based system to get same ease of editing experience. I havent heard of anything equal (no matter how many cores) of 15GHz so we have to wait longer for easy HD editing I guess.

P.S. Ohh, and feeding a monitor with HD might urge VGA card makers to implement some hardware acceleration in their chips... Remeber that days when even DVD playback was only CPU related task?

If you go with 720p @ 24fps, it's only about 2.5 times heavier than DV. 1080p @ 60 Hz is another story altogether.

Video cards don't normally add much to the editing experience. Except the new ATI cards with Avivo can be used to accelerate rendering.

I am going to upgrade to this :

Intel 4 - dual core 800fbs - 3.0ghz
1 gig memory ddr400
Asus motherboard that will let me use DDR400 ram

Hopefully this will be enough to get me through this project!

Again, amazingly, I can edit the HD footage with my celeron 2.0 ghz - slow slow slow. I can't scrub, but I can render it out and it doesn't take that long. Just playback of the video looks choppy and chugs.

Video cards don't normally add much to the editing experience. Except the new ATI cards with Avivo can be used to accelerate rendering.

do most video cards support dual monitors these days? I really don't know. If not, that's certainly a nice thing to have....

So what would be the best MAC option in a laptop. Would the MacBook Pro just as it comes enough? I'm looking at a MAC instead of a pc for my laptop.

I am hoping my upgrade does the trick. Right now I use dual monitors with VV and have no problems even editing HD

Jon,

I emailed you privated through your website about what you said for Vegas, I hope that is ok.

So what would be the best MAC option in a laptop. Would the MacBook Pro just as it comes enough? I'm looking at a MAC instead of a pc for my laptop.

For Vegas that mac won't be enough ;)

For Vegas that mac won't be enough ;)

Below are the standard packages from Apple, so none of these are 'enough?'


15.4-inch widescreen display

1440x900 resolution

2.0GHz Intel Core Duo(1)

512MB (single SODIMM) 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM

80GB 5400-rpm Serial ATA hard drive

4x SuperDrive

ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 with 128MB GDDR3 memory

One FireWire 400 and two USB 2.0 ports

---------------------------------------------

15.4-inch widescreen display

1440x900 resolution

2.16GHz Intel Core Duo(1)

1GB (single SO-DIMM) 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM

100GB 5400-rpm Serial ATA hard drive

4x SuperDrive

ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 with 256MB GDDR3 memory

One FireWire 400 and two USB 2.0 ports

-------------------------------------------

17-inch widescreen display

1680 x 1050 resolution

2.16GHz Intel Core Duo(1)

1GB (single SODIMM) 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM

120GB 5400-rpm Serial ATA hard drive

8x double-layer SuperDrive

ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 with 256MB GDDR3 memory

One FireWire 400, one FireWire 800, and three USB 2.0 ports

I think what Kevin was hinting at is Vegas runs under Windows XP. Now, you could use Bootcamp and install Windows XP on the MacBook...but it then wouldn't be a Mac, would it? My Acer dual core runs Vegas just fine. And, I believe Acer builds the Mac notebooks. It is essentially (with a few more features) the same as your second listing.

I think what Kevin was hinting at is Vegas runs under Windows XP. Now, you could use Bootcamp and install Windows XP on the MacBook...but it then wouldn't be a Mac, would it? My Acer dual core runs Vegas just fine. And, I believe Acer builds the Mac notebooks. It is essentially (with a few more features) the same as your second listing.


Thanks Guy,

I'm very ignorant when it comes to Mac, I've never had one, don't own one and never had used one much more than the school library.

But given thier reputation for hardware stability, and the intruiging option to have two OS's just in case, is a nifty thought to me for a mobile office. Obviously I would want to do video workage.

So I was looking for some who maybe rutinely use Vegas on a mac.

Totally not trying to spark a mac vs pc debate but it's really a misconception. I would imagine that a "mac" running xp would be just as unstable as any other reputable hardware combonation running xp.

I work on both and I have my problems with some of the work flow on macs but they aren't bad machines. (easy if there is only a very small set of hardware you have to program for ;) ) I also don't really have problems on pc's that most people have... I am also an IT guy so I'm not dummy when it comes to making it work.

Our editor tried to explain to me his love for mac's by saying "in the past year I've had 7 virus's on my mac and 110 on my pc... that has to tell you something"... I said "it does, because in that same time frame I have had ZERO virus's on my pc and I don't run any virus protection/firewall/spyware removal tools... OPERATOR has a lot to do with it." Granted there are less virus's designed for macs than pc's... but if the tables were turned and mac's dominated the market and then more virsus would be wrote for mac's would that make pc's better? (touchet) ;)

Please no debates as I'm not opposed to either... I'm just opposed to 10 year old marketing where you think you need a mac to do any serious audio/video work.

So I was looking for some who maybe rutinely use Vegas on a mac.

I guess this is what it boils down to. Any Vegas user is probably - most likely - not using a bootcamp Mac to run Vegas on since having a Mac means you're adding an unnecessary step with Vegas when FCP is the defacto standard NLE for the Mac and one of the only reasons I even want a Mac. If you're tied to Vegas, love it, etc then why even bother with a Mac? Pickup a nice core duo laptop and be done with it. I guess my point is why on earth would you buy a Mac to run a PC application? I love the Mac. I just don't see the value in paying the premium for what you describe.

If FCP were available for the PC I'd be all over it because I love how it works.

It's only role is in feeding whatever monitor(s) you have.
Other than that, a more expensive video card gains you nothing unless you're also a gamer who needs things like 3D features.


S little bit of an investment in a "better than onboard graphics" will go miles towards a happy editign experience. When you have those two 19" LCDs it sure would be handy to have dual output. Even better is dual DVI so you can push two 1680x1050 displays. That much desktop real estate goes a long way towards a well organized desktop work space.

jason

I guess this is what it boils down to. Any Vegas user is probably - most likely - not using a bootcamp Mac to run Vegas on since having a Mac means you're adding an unnecessary step with Vegas when FCP is the defacto standard NLE for the Mac and one of the only reasons I even want a Mac. If you're tied to Vegas, love it, etc then why even bother with a Mac? Pickup a nice core duo laptop and be done with it. I guess my point is why on earth would you buy a Mac to run a PC application? I love the Mac. I just don't see the value in paying the premium for what you describe.

If FCP were available for the PC I'd be all over it because I love how it works.


Hey Greg, My brain thinking was that with a mac I could have the over all stability and another OS as well as the aps that come with it. But my main purpose in having it would be to edit away from the office. That's what I was thinking. And yes, I love Vegas.

What are some minimal specs for this as far as processor and memory go?

The minimums listed for any software / OS are pathetically low compared to what is necessary to achieve a comfortable user experience let alone a satisfying experience.

For Vegas, with its dynamic on the fly preview of all layers and effects, you need a chipset that has a fast RAM access path. The faster the FSB connection the better Vegas will be able to function with a few video tracks layered on with efects, color corrections, etc. Try Opterons with their dedicated RAM controller built into the CPU and a dedicated bus for each ram chip directly to the CPU.

Having 2.5GB of RAM on my system is overkill. WinXP reserves 1/2 of all physical RAM for itself and the kernel the rest is shared between all running user apps. I have run two instances of Vegas, one rendering and one editing, and still have 800MB of unused physical RAM.

jason

Don't most (I say most because I really don't know) 64bit AMD chips have ram controllers on the cpu? I thought that is what made them so nice even with a 32bit OS? I could be wrong as I've never read those specs this is just what I've heard.

Don't most (I say most because I really don't know) 64bit AMD chips have ram controllers on the cpu? I thought that is what made them so nice even with a 32bit OS? I could be wrong as I've never read those specs this is just what I've heard.

I just suggested Opteron because those chips pack in the power and with Dual Opterons, your system will have lots of staying power and not be extinct as fast. I have a dual AMD Athlon MP and that system was made 4 years ago. It uses Athlon MP 1800+ chips with 512MB of RAM and a RAID 0 disc system and IT STILL only renders 3% slower than a 1yr old Alienware P4HT 3GHz with 2.5GB DDR2 RAM.

jason

Just for the record I purchased a 15" 2.16ghz Core Duo Mac Book Pro and promptly installed XP via BootCamp then Vegas+DVD. I ran the Vegas rendertest on it and to my suprise it cranked out the best numbers I've ever gotten personally. It bested my VAIO 3.0 Pentium D desktop!

The Mac laptops are smokin' fast and most definitly NOT made my "Acer". lol

Beware though- once you get a Mac Book Pro you'll be tempted to try FCP Studio and then possibly entertain the thought of making the switch from Vegas to FCP. I'm doing so right now. ;) It took me all of about a week to delete my XP partition and relinquish it back to my main OS X drive.

Beware though- once you get a Mac Book Pro you'll be tempted to try FCP Studio and then possibly entertain the thought of making the switch from Vegas to FCP. I'm doing so right now. ;)

You'll never get me to come over completely to the dark side of the force...........[Insert Darth Sound] :}

You'll never get me to come over completely to the dark side of the force...........[Insert Darth Sound] :}

That's what I said. lol

I use both and I can't see any thing significantly better in one or the other except sound... Vegas owns FCP when it comes to processing sound... all my vst and directx tools are right there... I actually pull all my audio into my pc to process it if I'm doing a project on FCP.

Well I was reading I think where DSE and some others were saying they get a pc/laptop off the shelf to edit with, this may save me some $$$.

I imagine that I would edit off a external drive because weddings are typically 90gig plus, so hard drive space might not be that much of deal, I don't know. Why don't they just make one laptop and shove it down our throats!

I use both and I can't see any thing significantly better in one or the other except sound... Vegas owns FCP when it comes to processing sound... all my vst and directx tools are right there... I actually pull all my audio into my pc to process it if I'm doing a project on FCP.

I use both and see HUGE advantages and disadvantages. Some where Vegas prevails and others where FCP does. Overall I feel the workflow in FCP is cleaner and more organized.

Vegas's audio processing ability smokes FCP but that's what soundtrack is for. I've used both Soundforge and Sountrack and I like Soundtrack considerably more.

One of the largest strengths it has is it's power as a suite. FCP, DVDSP (which smokes DVDA btw), Motion, Soundtrack, and LiveType make a very powerful toolset which integrate very well with "round-tripping" between apps.

People can argue till they are blue in the face however the fact remains that the both of them are simply "tools". Tools enabling us to work creatively. At this time I just feel that FCP Studio has considerably more tools to offer than Vegas+DVD.

You are right, I forgot about LiveType... i would kill to have LiveType in Vegas... Maybe I'm just really used to SF, WaveLab, Cubase, Sonar... ok any windows audio app you put infront of me I'll have down in a few seconds... not true with a mac one... they just don't jive with me... Plus I don't have to go into SF that often as Vegas can usually get the job done right there on the timeline... FCP would struggle to accomplish what Vegas can do so easily as it's the same tools and layout as SF/Acid.

Oh, I didn't mean one didn't shine in some places than others... just meant overall it's a draw... to me the workflow is more logical in Vegas than FCP... I look in the manual a lot in FCP, not so much in Vegas.

Guess, different strokes for different folks.

Well I was reading I think where DSE and some others were saying they get a pc/laptop off the shelf to edit with, this may save me some $$$.

I imagine that I would edit off a external drive because weddings are typically 90gig plus, so hard drive space might not be that much of deal, I don't know. Why don't they just make one laptop and shove it down our throats!

Video editing is not beyond a "laptop" assuming you are willing to accept a masive laptop (aka mobile desktop). My Alienware MJ11-7700 has 150GB of space, just enough for a single project at a time as well as all my renders from previous projects (to show clients) and my music library.

jason

Just today, Spot got a new VAIO FE960PB laptop. It's a screamer, and I'm editing HDV on it already, using an external drive, plus the 160GB internal.
So far, loving it. I love my MacBookPro too, but I'll be traveling with the VAIO extensively over the next 5 months.
And if TSA drops it or anything else happens to it, I can just run to a CrapUSA and buy another one, swap out the drive, and I'm good to go.

Spot,

Is this it? The FE690PB? $1700. Dual core 1.83Ghz, Did you upgrade to 2gb ram?

http://www.learningcenter.sony.us/assets/itpd/notebooks/fe_series/article/specs.html

Bump.

For Spot

That's the one...
Sorry, I stopped subscribing to the thread, it turned into a Mac/PC thread and those got old a few years ago. ;-)

At least we kept it civil and informative... got to give us that much :p

Thanks Douglas for the reply, I'm researching a mobile machine. Thanks for the info.

IS dual core the way to go?

IS dual core the way to go?

Dual core is essential. It's the area of greatest impact for HDV editing. I just went from an Athlon 64 3400+ to an X2 3800 running at 2.2Ghz (OC'd) and I'm seeing a significant improvement in render times. 30-50% faster depending on project settings.

Dual core is essential. It's the area of greatest impact for HDV editing. I just went from an Athlon 64 3400+ to an X2 3800 running at 2.2Ghz (OC'd) and I'm seeing a significant improvement in render times. 30-50% faster depending on project settings.

Dual core is essential because compressing video is almost entirely CPU to RAM limited. The bottle neck is how fast your CPU can getthe data from RAM and then run the millions of calculations needed to compress the video, combine pictures for fades, etc.

HD might also require a bit faster hard disk (for example, not the internal 4200RPM drives) like any 7200RPM or even a scsi 10K for some real fun.

jason

Well, Dell has some refurbished/outlet laptops with scsi's in them. I was looking at that possibly.

I can just run to a CrapUSA and buy another one, swap out the drive, and I'm good to go.


Did you mean CompUSA, because I don't see it on thier site.