Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Would a fast cpu make saving in windows movie maker faster?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 21, 2012 12:53:49 AM

How can i make wmm save faster? I have a 4 ghz processor and i feel like it takes way too long to save my videos. Is there any software out there that would save quicker.
a c 478 à CPUs
May 21, 2012 1:33:56 AM

Save? What exactly do you mean by "save"?

Do you mean encode the video?
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
May 21, 2012 1:36:38 AM

jaguarskx said:
Save? What exactly do you mean by "save"?

Do you mean encode the video?


"Save" is the terminology that WMM uses, but yes, encoding is what he means.

@ OP: You say you have a 4GHz CPU, but WHAT CPU is it?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 146 à CPUs
May 21, 2012 1:50:38 AM

the best thing would be probably upgrading the CPU and maybe the RAM. What CPU do you have now, how much RAM and at what type (DDR, DDR2, DDR3?)
m
0
l
May 21, 2012 4:16:41 AM

Ive heard that movie encoding is highly parallel. Adding some more cores will help if this is the case. How many cores does your processor have? monitor your CPU to see how wmm is utilizing the cores. Also, I wonder if the program itself allows for full utilization of the CPU. Sometimes they only use half the cores to allow for multitasking. there may be a setting to kick up the priority, but you would have a tough time using the comp for other tasks if it uses 100% CPU.
m
0
l
May 21, 2012 7:19:48 PM

Its a 970 phenom ii 3.5 Ghz @ 4.0 Ghz quad core. I have 3gb ddr ram.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 21, 2012 7:24:28 PM

Not by much, it doesn't seam to scale as well as other apps to higher performing systems. Faster drives will help and btw upgrade the ram.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
May 21, 2012 7:26:16 PM

str8todamoney said:
I have 3gb ddr ram.


That's your main problem, i believe. That CPU is plenty fast enough. Sure a Sandy/Ivy Intel would be quicker, but that 970 isn't exactly slow, and definitely not @ 4Ghz.

The problem with WMM is that it doesn't allow any hardware acceleration like CUDA or Quick Sync, so you're stuck with pure CPU horsepower.
m
0
l
May 21, 2012 7:34:42 PM

So another program would encode faster?
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
May 21, 2012 7:41:58 PM

str8todamoney said:
So another program would encode faster?


Not necessarily. Another program will only encode faster with hardware acceleration, and since you can't do Quick Sync, your only choice there would be CUDA with a Nvidia GPU or AMD's version of encode acceleration (not nearly as well supported). The best quality is a pure CPU encode, though (Quick Sync is very good too, but you don't have that option).

But I agree with nforce4max. Add more RAM, if you can. That won't speed it up much, but it should help. I also agree with his point about your HDD (if it's slow). A slow HDD can't be written to quickly, causing a bottle neck.
m
0
l
May 21, 2012 7:44:23 PM

I have an ssd drive. But thanks though. I will upgrade the ram to probably 8gb ram. I need all the speed i can because i will have to be doing a lot of video editing regularly for my church like 3 times a month. Thanks to everyody who took their time to answer i really appreciate it.
m
0
l
!