Thoughts on Speeding up Rendering and overall Editing at DVinfo.net

Brent Marks · November 21st, 2007, 12:45 AM

Hi guys...

I have a Dual Xeon 3.2 machine running 2gigs of RAM and tons of External Hard-Drive storage...
The system is running windowsXP pro and I am not doing much on it while running Vegas.

I just got a project converting alot HDV tapes to a few wmvHD formats...

I am using Vegas 7 (and soon Vegas 8) to drop a watermark on the video, edit a few small parts out and then render out to wmvHD formats.

In your pro opinions... Will my Overall editing/rendering time be lowered if I double my RAM to 4 gigs?

Is there anything I can do to speed up my overall project time?

thanks guys!

Harm Millaard · November 22nd, 2007, 04:57 PM

Upgrading from 2 to 4 GB will help somewhat, but....

why invest in additional memory now when you are using relatively old CPU's? You may need to upgrade to newer CPU's (quad core Harpertown's) in the near future to get any sizable performance gain and chances are you cannot use your current memory sticks.

Just something to consider.

Glenn Chan · November 22nd, 2007, 10:58 PM

XP Pro will only let you use 3GB.

2- I doubt Vegas will benefit from the RAM increase... chances are your money is best spent upgrading the processor (though usually this entails getting a new computer and seeing which of your old parts you can cannibalize).

3- Running multiple instances of Vegas, networking rendering might also be other options to look into. (Network rendering has its own gotchas though.)

Brent Marks · November 23rd, 2007, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harm Millaard

Upgrading from 2 to 4 GB will help somewhat, but....

why invest in additional memory now when you are using relatively old CPU's? You may need to upgrade to newer CPU's (quad core Harpertown's) in the near future to get any sizable performance gain and chances are you cannot use your current memory sticks.

Just something to consider.

This is a very good point... You are right.

Thanks.

John Hewat · November 23rd, 2007, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn Chan

XP Pro will only let you use 3GB.

Really? I thought it understood and used up to 4GB.

Glenn Chan · November 23rd, 2007, 02:20 PM

I can't remember the exact reason but Windows XP SP2 might only let you use 3GB. I'm sure the exact details can be found on Google.

Mike McCarthy · November 26th, 2007, 12:41 AM

Windows XP 32 can address up to 4GB, (2^32) but the PCI slots are addressed with the same system, so the more PCI buses you have, the more RAM that is unaddressable. Usually 2.75-3.5GB is visible to Windows.
OF THAT, only 2GB total is alloted to applications, the rest is for the OS, unless the /3G boot switch is used, which can increase the application memory to 3GB, but doesn't work well with certain programs.

I am told Vista32 is even worse in this regard, but a 64bit OS (XP or Vista), will not have this limitation. But and 32 bit app in 64bit OS can only address 4GB (2^32) of Ram. For example, if I have a station with 16GB, using PPro and AE: in 64 bit each gets a separate (up to) 4GB chunk of memory, but with 32bit they SHARE 2GB (or 3GB) total. A 64bit app in a 64bit OS, gets as much memory as is available if it needs it.

Brian Seguin · December 13th, 2007, 11:39 PM

I have a dell P-4 2.8Ghz machine. I installed 4 gigs of RAM. The system never recognizes more than 3 gigs. Wasted money on RAM not used. When I have the $$ I will upgrade to a 64 bit dual or quad machine.

Jarrod Whaley · December 14th, 2007, 12:20 AM

Render times with Vegas are largely dictated by processor speed / architecture. RAM has little or no effect on them; what it helps with is real-time preview.

Mike McCarthy · December 14th, 2007, 02:59 AM

I have an almost identical system (dual 3.2Ghz, 2GB, XP32) and finally ordered a replacement this week. The Core2 architecture that Intel released last year was a major advance, besides the fact that it doubled or quadrupled the core count. I have the systems at work and have made the tests and comparisons. I only made the jump to Woodcrest for now because I found a great deal, but it should still at least double my performance, and allow me to upgrade the CPUs to Clovertown quad cores in the future if I find it necessary. The newest Harpertown systems will be even faster, but honestly, on a budget, a consumer Core2Quad system will beat our old dual Xeon systems 9 times out of 10.

Oh, and my earlier post missed an important detail: upgrading above 2GB of RAM isn't going to do jack for your WM9 render times, even with the /3G switch.

Don Blish · December 20th, 2007, 02:05 PM

Bye the Bye: A quick way to see if you are bound by CPU cycles vs. some IO bottleneck is to start the task manager before starting a render, and move to the "performance" tab. If the CPU utilization is above 90% when the render is underway, nothing in the IO path, including insufficient RAM is amiss.

Task manager is started by simultaneous Control/Alt/Delete. For those of you who knew old MS-DOS, no the machine will not instantly shut down!

John Miller · December 20th, 2007, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Hewat

Really? I thought it understood and used up to 4GB.

Depends what you are talking about.

XP will use all the RAM up to 4GB but only half is available to applications, the rest is used by the OS for drivers etc.

3GB is available if you run Windows with the /3GB boot option *and* applications are written to take advantage of the extra 1GB *and* you don't have any drivers that will crash.

Basically, an extra 1GB will help but not much.

Little unknown fact: by default, 64-bit applications on 64-bit Vista will still only be able to use 2GB - unless they are written especially to use more (up to 128GB in the case of Vista Ultimate). So, let's say Sony or Adobe just blindly recompile their software for 64-bit and don't add any extra code, it will still have all the same limitations as the 32-bit. Like I say, little known fact.

November 21st, 2007, 12:45 AM	#1
Brent Marks Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Houston TX and New Orleans LA Posts: 300	Thoughts on Speeding up Rendering and overall Editing Hi guys... I have a Dual Xeon 3.2 machine running 2gigs of RAM and tons of External Hard-Drive storage... The system is running windowsXP pro and I am not doing much on it while running Vegas. I just got a project converting alot HDV tapes to a few wmvHD formats... I am using Vegas 7 (and soon Vegas 8) to drop a watermark on the video, edit a few small parts out and then render out to wmvHD formats. In your pro opinions... Will my Overall editing/rendering time be lowered if I double my RAM to 4 gigs? Is there anything I can do to speed up my overall project time? thanks guys! __________________ I produce High Quality content with My Certain Style... I cover South Padre, TX to Tampa Bay, FL FYI: That includes... Corpus Christi, Galveston, Houston, Beaumont/ Lake Charles, Lafayette, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Biloxi, Mobile, Penscola, Ft. Walton, Panama City... Any every little city and town in between. If you need anything, Let's talk...

November 26th, 2007, 12:41 AM	#7
Mike McCarthy Major Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Northern California Posts: 517	Windows XP 32 can address up to 4GB, (2^32) but the PCI slots are addressed with the same system, so the more PCI buses you have, the more RAM that is unaddressable. Usually 2.75-3.5GB is visible to Windows. OF THAT, only 2GB total is alloted to applications, the rest is for the OS, unless the /3G boot switch is used, which can increase the application memory to 3GB, but doesn't work well with certain programs. I am told Vista32 is even worse in this regard, but a 64bit OS (XP or Vista), will not have this limitation. But and 32 bit app in 64bit OS can only address 4GB (2^32) of Ram. For example, if I have a station with 16GB, using PPro and AE: in 64 bit each gets a separate (up to) 4GB chunk of memory, but with 32bit they SHARE 2GB (or 3GB) total. A 64bit app in a 64bit OS, gets as much memory as is available if it needs it. __________________ For more information on these topics, check out my tech website at www.hd4pc.com

December 13th, 2007, 11:39 PM	#8
Brian Seguin New Boot Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Miami Florida Posts: 7	RAM Limitations I have a dell P-4 2.8Ghz machine. I installed 4 gigs of RAM. The system never recognizes more than 3 gigs. Wasted money on RAM not used. When I have the $$ I will upgrade to a 64 bit dual or quad machine.

December 14th, 2007, 12:20 AM	#9
Jarrod Whaley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: chattanooga, tn Posts: 721	Render times with Vegas are largely dictated by processor speed / architecture. RAM has little or no effect on them; what it helps with is real-time preview. __________________ -->jarrod whaley. www.oakstreetfilms.com

December 14th, 2007, 02:59 AM	#10
Mike McCarthy Major Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Northern California Posts: 517	I have an almost identical system (dual 3.2Ghz, 2GB, XP32) and finally ordered a replacement this week. The Core2 architecture that Intel released last year was a major advance, besides the fact that it doubled or quadrupled the core count. I have the systems at work and have made the tests and comparisons. I only made the jump to Woodcrest for now because I found a great deal, but it should still at least double my performance, and allow me to upgrade the CPUs to Clovertown quad cores in the future if I find it necessary. The newest Harpertown systems will be even faster, but honestly, on a budget, a consumer Core2Quad system will beat our old dual Xeon systems 9 times out of 10. Oh, and my earlier post missed an important detail: upgrading above 2GB of RAM isn't going to do jack for your WM9 render times, even with the /3G switch. __________________ For more information on these topics, check out my tech website at www.hd4pc.com

November 22nd, 2007, 04:57 PM	#2
Harm Millaard Trustee Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands Posts: 1,832	Upgrading from 2 to 4 GB will help somewhat, but.... why invest in additional memory now when you are using relatively old CPU's? You may need to upgrade to newer CPU's (quad core Harpertown's) in the near future to get any sizable performance gain and chances are you cannot use your current memory sticks. Just something to consider.

November 22nd, 2007, 10:58 PM	#3
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	XP Pro will only let you use 3GB. 2- I doubt Vegas will benefit from the RAM increase... chances are your money is best spent upgrading the processor (though usually this entails getting a new computer and seeing which of your old parts you can cannibalize). 3- Running multiple instances of Vegas, networking rendering might also be other options to look into. (Network rendering has its own gotchas though.)

November 23rd, 2007, 02:20 PM	#6
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	I can't remember the exact reason but Windows XP SP2 might only let you use 3GB. I'm sure the exact details can be found on Google.

December 20th, 2007, 02:05 PM	#11
Don Blish Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Portland OR Posts: 227	Bye the Bye: A quick way to see if you are bound by CPU cycles vs. some IO bottleneck is to start the task manager before starting a render, and move to the "performance" tab. If the CPU utilization is above 90% when the render is underway, nothing in the IO path, including insufficient RAM is amiss. Task manager is started by simultaneous Control/Alt/Delete. For those of you who knew old MS-DOS, no the machine will not instantly shut down!