What should I look for in Core 2 Duo for significant speed jump over 2.4 gig P4?
muzician21
rendering speed for video editing, how much processor do I need in the
Core 2 Duo realm to realize a healthy jump in speed? Not too proud to
go used, can't afford the latest greatest, but would like to see a
"significant" jump in speed.
What kind of numbers should I be looking for, and any suggestions on
pieces to look for or avoid?
Thanks for all input.
Arny Krueger
news:cc2d17c5-29a5-48f5...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com
Forget about just 2 cores. If you're doing video you want quad core
processors. However, all the cores in the world won't help a lot of video
production and presentation software because it is still internally single
threaded.
David Ruether
Go quad-core at a speed that is below max (but close enough,
such as 2.83 GHz), since the price is not that much higher, and
the speed will likely more than double again. With XP (a good
choice) and 2 (or three - more does not help with XP) gigs of
RAM, the cost is not high to upgrade, especially if you buy a good
motherboard, CPU, and heat-sink/fan combo already assembled
so you can exchange it in your current case. Make sure the slot
type will fit your video card - but excellent video cards can be had
cheaply that fit newer slot types. Also make sure that there are
board connectors for your drive types. Buy only best-quality RAM
of the correct type - RAM is amazingly cheap. This is the cheapest
way to go, but desktop quad-core "store-boughten" computers are
fairly cheap these days with Windows 7 installed (swap out the
monitor that comes in a "package" for a 24" 1920x*1200*, NOT
1920x1080, LCD - you will be glad you did). You did not say
what format you want to edit, though. With a dual-core, SD would
be easy but HD HDV would be only OK and HD AVCHD would
be a royal PITA to work with. With a quad-core, SD would be
about twice as fast, HDV becomes easy, and AVCHD 17 Mbps
is still a PITA, but doable (but 24 MBPS AVCHD remains difficult,
so look to an i7 for that...). BTW, if you are editing HDV, I think
the best choice is the cheap Sony Vegas Platinum 9 software, and
I would avoid Premiere for this format...
--DR
Smarty
With a quad-core, SD would be
> about twice as fast, HDV becomes easy, and AVCHD 17 Mbps
> is still a PITA, but doable (but 24 MBPS AVCHD remains difficult,
> so look to an i7 for that...)..
> --DR
Absolutely NOT true!
With a quadcore, AVCHD 17 Mbps edits smoothly, is not in any way a
PITA, and has been very "doable" for the last two years, even before i7
and Windows 7 speed improvements took place, to say nothing of the
dramatic further CUDA speedup offered for nVidia video card owners.
24Mbps AVCHD does NOT "remain difficult" except for those curmudgeons
who "remain difficult".....
muzician21
> You did not say
> what format you want to edit, though. With a dual-core, SD would
> be easy but HD HDV would be only OK and HD AVCHD would
> be a royal PITA to work with.
At the moment only anticipating doing some editing on SD - all DV AVI.
Maybe at some point would explore the HD realm but it's not in the
immediate plans. I've got a big pile of Digital8 theme park video I'm
trying to plow through - probably a TB or more. The bulk of the work
is doing de-shaking and other tweaking with VirtualDub and then
editing and rendering the whole mess to many DVD's. Right now I'm
using Pinnacle Studio 9 for the DVD rendering. I would consider
switching apps if PS9 doesn't take advantage of dual core technology.
My 2.4 gig P4 gets the job done, but I'd like to cut down the amount
of time the whole thing is going to take with the two machines chewing
away at it.
David Ruether
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Ah, this is useful information. If you have been disappointed in the past
with doubling CPU speed only to find that the rendering speed is only
minimally improved, going to a dual core CPU (with software that can
use it) will about halve the render times, and going to a quad-core will
halve the times again(!). A quad-core also gets you ready for HD
HDV editing with suitable software (I highly recommend the $75 Sony
Platinum 9 for use with either SD DV-AVI or HD HDV...), and it is not
that much more expensive (and it can handle 4 threads) than a dual-core.
--DR
Martin Heffels
wrote:
>With XP (a good choice)
You need XP Professional though for decent multi-core support.
-m-
J. Clarke
Nope. XP Home supports multi-core processors just fine. What it doesn't
support is multiple processors implemented as separate socketed chips.
Martin Heffels
wrote:
>Nope. XP Home supports multi-core processors just fine. What it doesn't
>support is multiple processors implemented as separate socketed chips.
I knew that. But I thought it was further restricted, but apparently not :-)
-m-
muzician21
> monitor that comes in a "package" for a 24" 1920x*1200*, NOT
> 1920x1080, LCD - you will be glad you did).
Why is 1920x1200 better?
Martin Heffels
wrote:
Because of the extra space you have on your screen, to put all your (floating)
windows.
-m-
David Ruether
Why is 1920x1200 better?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EVERY bit of vertical "real estate" is valuable while editing so you can
have a half-sized HD preview window open at the same time as 3
video+audio tracks. If you don't get this and often work with multiple
tracks (if not now, you will...) plus title tracks plus maybe extra audio
tracks, you will soon regret not going this way since you will be forced
to scroll to see all tracks or to use a tiny preview window. BTW, three
popular editors are laid out on a 1920x1200 monitor (24") here --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/video-editor-screens.htm. With a
sharp LCD, the often-tiny details in the program can be easily seen on
this size monitor (some of these are getting smaller and harder to "catch"
with a mouse).
--DR
Mark
<muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 21, 10:44�am, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:
>> You did not say
>> what format you want to edit, though. With a dual-core, SD would
>> be easy but HD HDV would be only OK and HD AVCHD would
>> be a royal PITA to work with.
>
>
>At the moment only anticipating doing some editing on SD - all DV AVI.
>Maybe at some point would explore the HD realm but it's not in the
>immediate plans. I've got a big pile of Digital8 theme park video I'm
>trying to plow through - probably a TB or more. The bulk of the work
>is doing de-shaking and other tweaking with VirtualDub and then
>editing and rendering the whole mess to many DVD's. Right now I'm
>using Pinnacle Studio 9 for the DVD rendering. I would consider
>switching apps if PS9 doesn't take advantage of dual core technology.
FWIW I found the MPEG2 encoding (DVD format) of an earlier version of
Pinnacle Studio quite poor. I've no experience with v9. I'd strongly
recommend you compare the results with other encoders before
rendering.
I use Sony Vegas Platinum nowadays and I am very please with it.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]
David Ruether
"Mark" <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message
news:rfb6k5lph3dnhhtog...@4ax.com...
>>At the moment only anticipating doing some editing on SD - all DV AVI.
>>Maybe at some point would explore the HD realm but it's not in the
>>immediate plans. I've got a big pile of Digital8 theme park video I'm
>>trying to plow through - probably a TB or more. The bulk of the work
>>is doing de-shaking and other tweaking with VirtualDub and then
>>editing and rendering the whole mess to many DVD's. Right now I'm
>>using Pinnacle Studio 9 for the DVD rendering. I would consider
>>switching apps if PS9 doesn't take advantage of dual core technology.
> FWIW I found the MPEG2 encoding (DVD format) of an earlier version of
> Pinnacle Studio quite poor. I've no experience with v9. I'd strongly
> recommend you compare the results with other encoders before
> rendering.
>
> I use Sony Vegas Platinum nowadays and I am very please with it.
> --
> (\__/) M.
I would second that. If you get the Platinum *9* version, you are ready
to "roll" with anything up to HDV with a dual-core, and this software
appears to do a superior job of transcoding file types (HDV to DVD
MPEG-2 and HDV to AVCHD compared with Ulead's software).
Not bad for a VERY versatile editing program that is under $75
post-paid from Amazon... BTW, I have an editing guide for it here --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/Sony-editing.htm, and a
comparison of some editing programs, here --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/hdv-editing.htm.
--DR
David Ruether
"David Ruether" <d_ru...@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hhvrsm$qb3$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
Also BTW, I'm just now uploading an extensive revision of --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/hdv-editing.htm...
--DR