Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1055T fast should of got a 2001 Laptop...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 3, 2011 1:43:39 AM

Okay slight over exageration maybe but I have had the 1055t for around 3 months and it's not pulling it's weight very well while rendering in Sony Vegas. So I have the 1055t Partnered with 1333Mhz RAM (4GB) is this the reason for slow render times - For example a 6 Min Video rendering at 4.00Mbps takes around 21 Min.

1055t Six Core
Noctua D14
ASUS M4N75TD
GTX 460 Super Clocked
4GB DDR3 1333MHz
750w Corsair PSU

Why does it take so long to render? RAM the issue?

More about : 1055t fast 2001 laptop

August 3, 2011 2:31:52 AM

Is the source and destination drive the same? That will kill rendering time. Better have 2 separate drive, better are RAID 0 array and even better are SSD.

Maybe Vegas is not fully using the 6 cores at its best.
a c 139 à CPUs
August 3, 2011 2:35:06 AM

Sony vegas rendering USe CPU ... if you want to quickly buy Ram 1600CL7 and overclock the CPU to 3.8GHz with Vcore 1.44 V the same as the default maximum specified by AMD, you already have a Noctua you can get it.
from my experience in , Every day I'm rendering with Magix movie edit pro 15 fell fast, but it is known at the latest very slow slow when use Magix :D  ... but if using Power Director wow ... such as jet
Related resources
August 3, 2011 3:31:04 PM

I have a second HDD pretty old uses the really thick wire I can't remember the name thin and long (Pretty sure there is a joke in there somewhere) Can I use this HDD but it has windows Vista on there and I'm sure if I put it in there it will BSOD pretty quickly. Should I just buy a 60GB HDD or SSD and see what happens how do I connect it in RAID 0 never needed to do it?
a c 139 à CPUs
August 3, 2011 4:34:17 PM

Just raid 5 don't use raid 0 , SSD much better than hdd velociraptor 10000rpm for system, but price wow .. SSD 60GB very expensive : 2TB velociraptor/ WDC black 2TB, this is dilema ... If you buy SSD still need more than 1TB for data saving.
August 3, 2011 5:57:03 PM

Don't use that old 60 gigs HDD. If it is IDE, then newer drive are well faster. I would suggest getting 2 500 GB HDD and RAID 0 them. They are cheap now and can be bought for about 35$. You can use a third one to store files and backup.

RAID 0 use 2 (or more) HDD, merge them together and the system sees them as one drive only. RAID 0 is faster because the controlle split the chunk of data in 2 (for 2 drive config) and send each part to each drive at the same time. Theorically, a RAID should be twice as fast as a single drive, but it is a bit less than that. On mine, I would say 80% of twice the speed. Since data is split and stored on each drive, if one drive fail, you loose the everything. For your information, I've been running on RAID for about 10 years now, upgrading HDD about every 2-3 years to better suit my needs and I didn't have any failure with RAID, and the HDD that were removed are still in uses except the older 40GB I lost track since then. I use an application called Puresync to keep a backup of my important file that are on my array on a separate drive in my computer. This application if free and what it does is to create a mirrored folder of every one of my important folder on an other drive. So, if the array fails, the other drive still has the important folder intact. If the backup drive fails, the array still has it and I can simply create a mirror on an other drive if needed. I've been dealing with HDD for more than 15 years and only got 3 trhat fails on me. The last one in 2002. People call often for RAID 1 (mirroring) or RAID 5 (with parity drive) but in the case of RAID 1, a whole drive is used as a backup drive. IMHO, it is a lot of wasted space for only a few gigs of important stuff. In fact, RAID 1 is usefull only if your computer is used in mission critical environnement stuff and cannot be shut down for maintenance as a failed HDD can be replaced (depend of the controller) without stopping the computer (hot swap).

A RAID 0 array is only as fast as the fastest drive of the array or twice as big as the smallest drive of the array. That means that getting a 60 GB SSD to match your old 60GB will be a waste as the fast SSD will have to wait for the old drive anyway..

The RAID is created at the BIOS level, and then used with the OS with special drivers. I suggest you read a bit about RAID with google to know more about the array, and read you motherboard manual to know how to create an array.
August 3, 2011 7:18:47 PM

pat said:
Don't use that old 60 gigs HDD. If it is IDE, then newer drive are well faster. I would suggest getting 2 500 GB HDD and RAID 0 them. They are cheap now and can be bought for about 35$. You can use a third one to store files and backup.

RAID 0 use 2 (or more) HDD, merge them together and the system sees them as one drive only. RAID 0 is faster because the controlle split the chunk of data in 2 (for 2 drive config) and send each part to each drive at the same time. Theorically, a RAID should be twice as fast as a single drive, but it is a bit less than that. On mine, I would say 80% of twice the speed. Since data is split and stored on each drive, if one drive fail, you loose the everything. For your information, I've been running on RAID for about 10 years now, upgrading HDD about every 2-3 years to better suit my needs and I didn't have any failure with RAID, and the HDD that were removed are still in uses except the older 40GB I lost track since then. I use an application called Puresync to keep a backup of my important file that are on my array on a separate drive in my computer. This application if free and what it does is to create a mirrored folder of every one of my important folder on an other drive. So, if the array fails, the other drive still has the important folder intact. If the backup drive fails, the array still has it and I can simply create a mirror on an other drive if needed. I've been dealing with HDD for more than 15 years and only got 3 trhat fails on me. The last one in 2002. People call often for RAID 1 (mirroring) or RAID 5 (with parity drive) but in the case of RAID 1, a whole drive is used as a backup drive. IMHO, it is a lot of wasted space for only a few gigs of important stuff. In fact, RAID 1 is usefull only if your computer is used in mission critical environnement stuff and cannot be shut down for maintenance as a failed HDD can be replaced (depend of the controller) without stopping the computer (hot swap).

A RAID 0 array is only as fast as the fastest drive of the array or twice as big as the smallest drive of the array. That means that getting a 60 GB SSD to match your old 60GB will be a waste as the fast SSD will have to wait for the old drive anyway..

The RAID is created at the BIOS level, and then used with the OS with special drivers. I suggest you read a bit about RAID with google to know more about the array, and read you motherboard manual to know how to create an array.


That was a lot of information but difficult to understand well for me not being as computer literate than you clearly. I built this PC with rendering in Mind so I will take your advice and purchase a SSD when I get the money together. Would an upgrade to 12GB 1600MHz help rendering times>?
August 3, 2011 8:31:33 PM

More RAM will be better because the OS won't have to use the swap file on the HDD. I have 8 in my system and it works good. Right now, simply getting another HDD to split the input/outout from the rendering will help. Don't need to be a SSD, simply a simple 500 GB SATA will help until you get the money. So, the program will read from one drive and get the output on the other drive, so one drive wont have to do the reading and writing at the same time. That put the hdd at hard work and slow down the whole thing. Having it to do the swap file at the same time does not help too..

The hardest thing to do now with CPU that have lot of core is to keep them busy. Feeding them with the data they need must be as fast as possible to avoid bottlenecking it and now, HDD subsystem is the slowest part of the computer.
!