VideoStudio Pro X2 and Quad Core CPUs

Trickster · Post by **Trickster** » Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:07 pm

Hi All,

Once of Corel's selling points/new features is that VideoStudio Pro X2 users will "Enjoy enhanced performance with support for Intel® quad-core technology". Well, unfortunately I do not have an Intel quad processor but I do have an AMD quad CPU and I'm sure that a few of you guys do as well. To those who have an AMD quad core, I have two questions:

1) I was wondering if VS Pro X2's enhanced performance will also be evident to those that own AMD quad CPUs as well?
2) In general, where have you noticed the improved performance with a quad core -- if any at all?

I'm seriously thinking of upgrading from VS 11.5 to VS Pro X2 (only $49!) and these answers will either clinch the decision for me or not.

Thanks in advance and all responses are appreciated.

Rich

Post by **Ken Berry** » Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:00 pm

Personally, I think it is nothing more than marketing hype. In fact, there have been complaints by some users with Quad computers (and indeed some from Core 2 Duo users!) that the program did not seem to make use of all their available cores.

I have a Quad 6600 and rectified my 'problem' with the third party program (see http://forum.corel.com/EN/viewtopic.php?p=183570#183570) But merely upgrading to X2 alone will not give you any noticeable 'enhanced performance -- unless the AMD behaves quite differently from the Intels in this regard...

That being said, $49 is a good price, and there are extra bells and whistles in X2 which many of us here would regard as justifying the outlay.

Trickster · Post by **Trickster** » Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:57 pm

Marketing hype... I thought as much! But you never know when it concerns Corel. I had it in my mind's eye that Corel had written code specific to Intel's Quad core architecture. What was i thinking?!?!?!? Must have been before I had my cup of coffee in the morning!

I'm going to pull the trigger on the $49 upgrade. Might as well. The new features and added functionality seem worth it.

Thanks,
Rich

Post by **Ken Berry** » Sat Sep 05, 2009 11:12 pm

You might want to check out that program I mentioned in the other thread. It certainly works on my Quad with some impressive results, though varying, it seems, according to which format you are processing in VS... And there is a 30 day free trial so you can ditch it if it does not work so well on an AMD quad...

Trickster · Post by **Trickster** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:18 am

Ken Berry wrote:You might want to check out that program I mentioned in the other thread. It certainly works on my Quad with some impressive results, though varying, it seems, according to which format you are processing in VS... And there is a 30 day free trial so you can ditch it if it does not work so well on an AMD quad...

Ken,

I most certainly will give it a once over and try the 30 day trial version. I appreciate your response and the information offered.

Thanks much,
Rich

Accolades · Post by **Accolades** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:49 am

CPU Use on my system

6 Video Tracks (Same Video) Rendering to file

Fast but only 14 - 20% cpu usage

Can only image what it would be like usin 100% on 64bit !!!

Maybe their is a better way to strees VS out?

Open to suggestions.

Accolades · Post by **Accolades** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 3:14 am

Another version using AVI FIles.

The one above used mpg files so no conversion required.

Same video file AVI and generaating mpg file...

Using all 4 cores but....

Generating what seems like realtime.

Trickster · Post by **Trickster** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:50 am

Accolades wrote:CPU Use on my system

6 Video Tracks (Same Video) Rendering to file

Fast but only 14 - 20% cpu usage

Can only image what it would be like usin 100% on 64bit !!!

Maybe their is a better way to strees VS out?

Open to suggestions.

And you have an i7! So it's really a crapshoot as to whether VS will utilize the cores effectively - maybe or maybe not. I would have thought that Corel would have written code for multi-core processors to take advantage of the cores during specific processes. Video editing was definitely made for multi-core processors. Oh well...

Thanks for replying,
Rich

Trickster · Post by **Trickster** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:56 am

Accolades wrote:Another version using AVI FIles.

The one above used mpg files so no conversion required.

Same video file AVI and generaating mpg file...

Using all 4 cores but....

Generating what seems like realtime.

You system should be screaming fast for this type of stuff - what with the CPU, RAM, HD you have. I know that when I was rendering some files recently, the 3rd core on my system was at 80% while the other 3 cores were barely being used. At least I was able to do other things while VS did it's stuff.

I wonder how Adobe software utilizes multi-core CPUs?

Thanks,
Rich

Trickster · Post by **Trickster** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:59 am

Accolades,

A quick question for you on your video card, the GTX 295: Does it speed up your work in VideoStudio at all?

Rich

Accolades · Post by **Accolades** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:01 am

Trickster wrote:Accolades,

A quick question for you on your video card, the GTX 295: Does it speed up your work in VideoStudio at all?

Rich

Assume so... pretty fast all over that is why I built this system

No problems editing video moving back and forth to edit all pretty smooth....

Just need 64bit version or use Sony Vegas?

Had a play with the Corel 2010 suite pics and detils in another forum.

Trickster · Post by **Trickster** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:03 pm

Assume so... pretty fast all over that is why I built this system

No problems editing video moving back and forth to edit all pretty smooth....

Just need 64bit version or use Sony Vegas?

Had a play with the Corel 2010 suite pics and detils in another forum.

Yes, you do have a sweet system there! Mighty expensive but sweet indeed.

Rich

Bill Meck · Post by **Bill Meck** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:56 pm

Accolades, you may have alluded to this with your 64 bit remark but it looks to me that you not using more that 2.8 gigs of memory. If so this is probably because the current version of X2 is only a 32 bit app and therefore can't address more than 3 gigs of memory regardless of whether the OS is 64 bit.

So VS X2 doesn't use multiple cores very well and can't access memory beyond 3 gigs. (Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm no expert.)

This is why I'm holding off buying a new computer. Hopefully, Corel will come out with a 64 bit app and also fix that "blips at transitions" problem.