Best computer for HD & Vegas? at DVinfo.net

David Delaney · July 31st, 2006, 07:20 AM

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

Edward Troxel · July 31st, 2006, 08:20 AM

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)

Kevin Richard · July 31st, 2006, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Delaney

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.

Guy Bruner · July 31st, 2006, 05:05 PM

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.

Kevin Richard · July 31st, 2006, 05:19 PM

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.

Guy Bruner · July 31st, 2006, 05:44 PM

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.

Kevin Richard · July 31st, 2006, 05:46 PM

Agreed

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

David Delaney · August 1st, 2006, 06:48 AM

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?

Mike Kujbida · August 1st, 2006, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Delaney

...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.

Bogdan Vaglarov · August 1st, 2006, 08:10 AM

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?

Jon Fairhurst · August 1st, 2006, 11:33 AM

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

Guy Bruner · August 1st, 2006, 02:56 PM

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

David Delaney · August 1st, 2006, 07:48 PM

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.

Brian Luce · August 1st, 2006, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy Bruner

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....

Steven Davis · August 2nd, 2006, 06:03 AM

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.

July 31st, 2006, 07:20 AM	#1
David Delaney Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Niagara Ontario Canada Posts: 1,121	Best computer for HD & Vegas? What are some minimal specs for this as far as processor and memory go?

July 31st, 2006, 08:20 AM	#2
Edward Troxel Sponsor: JET DV Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern Illinois Posts: 7,953	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) __________________ Edward Troxel [SCVU] JETDV Scripts/Scripting Tutorials/Excalibur/Montage Magic/Newsletters

August 1st, 2006, 11:33 AM	#11
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	If you go with 720p @ 24fps, it's only about 2.5 times heavier than DV. 1080p @ 60 Hz is another story altogether. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

August 2nd, 2006, 06:03 AM	#15
Steven Davis Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Richmond, VA Posts: 3,065	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. __________________ What happens if I push the 'Red' button?

July 31st, 2006, 05:05 PM	#4
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	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.

July 31st, 2006, 05:19 PM	#5
Kevin Richard Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Lafayette, LA Posts: 270	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.

July 31st, 2006, 05:44 PM	#6
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	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.

July 31st, 2006, 05:46 PM	#7
Kevin Richard Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Lafayette, LA Posts: 270	Agreed There should be a list of pc's and mother boards to avoid ;)

August 1st, 2006, 06:48 AM	#8
David Delaney Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Niagara Ontario Canada Posts: 1,121	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?

August 1st, 2006, 08:10 AM	#10
Bogdan Vaglarov Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 366	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?

August 1st, 2006, 02:56 PM	#12
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Video cards don't normally add much to the editing experience. Except the new ATI cards with Avivo can be used to accelerate rendering.

August 1st, 2006, 07:48 PM	#13
David Delaney Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Niagara Ontario Canada Posts: 1,121	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.