Vist vs XP & Graphics Card RAM

[oka]

Just curious from user's experiences, what OS would you rather use, XP or Vista? If Vista, is Vista Home edition okay for Video Studio 11?

For graphics card, is 128MB too small? Are users using 128MB of video RAM confortably?

My issue is I am planning on purchasing a dedicated PC, very sinple configuration, cheap, just for VideoStudio.

[Clevo]

VS 11 & x2 worked fine in my Vista 64 bit. Though VSx2 feels snappier and has the extra flexibility

I think your choices will be dictated more if you are planing on moving up to HD video.

In which case I would go with a dual or quad core CPU and go with VSx2 so it can ustilise all cores.

[Ken Berry]

I found VS11+/11.5+ worked equally well on both my older XP Pro set-up and on my newer Vista Ultimate computer. The XP computer is a P4 3.0 Ghz with HT, 2 GB RAM and an NVidia 8600 graphics card with 512 MB of its own RAM. My current system details are under my System button below...

I have only ever used X2 on my current Quad 6600 and like Clevo, I find it a bit faster than VS11.5+ on the same system. Moreover, it seems to be using all four of the Quad processors, though to varying degrees. You will note that my current ATI graphics card has only 128 MB of its own RAM, though my system RAM is now 4 GB. But both 11.5+ and X2 work extremely well, so with that sort of set-up I am not sure that having more graphics RAM is going to make all that much difference.

I would agree with Clevo that the real choice will depend on whether you are going to be editing high definition video. But I would go one step further and distinguish between HDV and AVCHD high def video. The former is pretty easy to edit and relatively undemanding of computer resources. My old P4 could handle it with ease. But that computer, while it could edit AVCHD slowwwwwly, could just not play it back smoothly. AVCHD is incredibly demanding of system resources, and even a Quad such as mine will be stretched in dealing with AVCHD...

[mitcs0ke]

I have both XP and Vista machines here and the Vista Quad Core is a lot
better choice with X2.
If you could afford a little more, the new Intel I7 processor running
Vista Ultimate looks to be a great VS X2 Video machine.

[oka]

I have VS11. I checked the differnces between 11 & X2 and what I saw was the HD capabilities. I know know if I need that. The VS11 is just fine for what I am doing, unless I am convinced otherwise. (Wondering when upgrades would stop for me, for a while). Am not yet ready for a "super" computer yet.

My original question, if someone could please answer, is, if Vista Home edition would work fine with VS11. Also, about a system with 128MB RAM for graphics gard.

Thanks

[Ken Berry]

If it's simple you want, then yes, Vista Home Premium is fine with VS11. I have it on a Vista Home Premium laptop -- though I upgraded the original 1 GB of system RAM to 2 GB. The 128 MB of graphics RAM is also fine, but having 2 GB of system RAM (or more if your can afford it) will ensure that there is some left over in case the graphics card needs to 'borrow' more. It will also improve performance of Vista, which is a real resource hog...

[oka]

That's the answers I was looking for. I really appreciate that.

On another note, am I right by saying that the difference between 11 & X2 is mainly the HD part of it. Is it much of a big deal? I don't have any High Definition component, just all digital - camcorder (Flash Card), captured video in AVI from the television (non HD). I don't know if I will be changing to any HD product soon.

I appreciate your time. Thanks.

[Ken Berry]

Essentially, yes, that is the main difference -- though there are some really useful bells and whistles in X2 Pro (not necessarily the vanilla X2) which apply to all video, not just high def -- like integrated Paint and some wonderful New Blue video filters... But if you are happy with VS11, and it will meet your needs for the foreseeable future, there is no particular need to upgrade. Just do so when your needs change, and who knows what might be available then...!!

[oka]

Thanks Ken!

[babdi]

Since we are in HD era having a quad core ( Intel i7 latest ) with omps of RAM,(Intel i7 can take 32 GB of onboard RAM) would keep VS12 chugging happily.

The use of faster graphics card with more RAM will help if VS12 utilizes CUDA technology where processing speed of GPU is utilized to speed up rendering.

The difference will be noticed while rendering HD videos and with effects thrown in good measures on the video clips.

It better to be a bit futureproof when investing in computers.

After all we dont change it every six months do we ?

[2Dogs]

The use of faster graphics card with more RAM will help if VS12 utilizes CUDA technology where processing speed of GPU is utilized to speed up rendering.

Happy New Year babdi!

I think CUDA is just a stop-gap development. Now that the Open CL standard has been announced, we may yet see video encoding done by the GPU - but it will be at least a couple of years off. There has been a lot of anguish on the Cyberlink forum, where CUDA support in Power Director only results in faster encoding for just those parts of a project involving specific effects. The potential is huge - but the reality is that we won't see full GPU encoding for a few years, and so your pc purchasing should be guided by other factors.

Still, it would be nice to see a VS patch to enable whatever CUDA support may be possible.

[babdi]

Happy new year to you too 2Dogs and to all
If VS supports CUDA, those who work with HD will smile happily with quicker rendering time.

Will be of a great help if CUDA helps in crash free editing of AVCHD files