What type of problem is this?

[sanmakk1001]

My name is ahsan
I am facing a problem. I have enno 3d 9800 GT 1 GB graphics card. All 1080p videos work fine and games also work fines. But when I try to work with any kind of video editing software like power director 9 and when I try to add an intro video which is made by adobe after effect. The intro video slow down and don’t work proper in the editing software like the video become laggy. The size of video is just 10 MB. I am wondering what kind of problem is this. The video work fine wiht any kind of player but when I try to open with any kind of editing software it becomes laggy. I try many editing software’s.
Specification:-
Processor: - AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual core processor 3800+, MMX, 3D now (2 CPUs) 2.00 GHZ.
RAM: - 2 GB
Graphics: - 1 GB
Windows: - XP service pack 3

 

[master_chen]

You obviously don't have enough memory on board.
If you can, upgrade your memory from 2GB to at least 3GB, it will help significantly. Since you're on a XP Service Pack 3, you can't use more than 3 GB of memory (3.33, to be exact. 3GB and 330 MB. Even if you plug 4GB of memory in your motherboard (for example, four planks 1 GB each, or two planks 2GB each), your Operating System would still only recognize 3.33GB MAXIMUM). I highly recommend that you change your OS to AT LEAST Windows 7 "Home Premium" 64 Bit, that way you would be able to use more than 4 GB of memory (up to 16GB) and everything would work just fine. I highly suggest that you stay away from "Windows XP 64 Bit", though: it's very buggy, incompatible with the most 32 bit software and not worth it at all (even though you can use more memory with it).

Also, your CPU is quite old and slow (but it doesn't matter as much as the memory capacity).

 

[drums101]

when you open videos in that kind of software it is not rendered yet...just like premeire pro your video will be choppy and unsmooth until you do the final rendering of the video (for lack of a better word atm)

 

[sanmakk1001]

You obviously don't have enough memory on board.
If you can, upgrade your memory from 2GB to at least 3GB, it will help significantly. Since you're on a XP Service Pack 3, you can't use more than 3 GB of memory (3.33, to be exact. 3GB and 330 MB. Even if you plug 4GB of memory in your motherboard (for example, four planks 1 GB each, or two planks 2GB each), your Operating System would still only recognize 3.33GB MAXIMUM). I highly recommend that you change your OS to AT LEAST Windows 7 "Home Premium" 64 Bit, that way you would be able to use more than 4 GB of memory (up to 16GB) and everything would work just fine. I highly suggest that you stay away from "Windows XP 64 Bit", though: it's very buggy, incompatible with the most 32 bit software and not worth it at all (even though you can use more memory with it).

Also, your CPU is quite old and slow (but it doesn't matter as much as the memory capacity).

Yeah you are right the problem is RAM not VGA? And another thing i want to ask that which kind of computer Suitable for me I am a gamer and video editor computer price under 500$ and which is best AMD or Intel?

 

[master_chen]

Hmmmm...

Are you sure the problem is in Memory capacity and not GPU?

Yes, I'm almost entirely sure. Because 1GB video card should be more than enough for video editing (as long as there is enough Memory). Most of the video and image editing software (for example: "Sony Vegas", Photoshop, "Power Director", Adobe Premiere, "Camtasia Studio" and etc) heavily depend on your Memory's capacity and it's timings (rather than on your video card's power and memory, or your CPU's frequency and number of cores, even though it's always better to have AT LEAST two cores in your CPU).
It is better to have much Memory with low timings, than to have much Memory with higher frequency, but high timings ("DDR3 1333MHz, 8GB, timings 9-10-9-28, 1.5V" memory will work quite better than "DDR 1600MHz, 8GB, timings 11-11-11-33, 1.5V" memory).

Which is better - AMD or Intel?

AMD's CPUs are much cheaper and they have much higher OverClocking threshold (meaning you can OverClock them higher), but (100% IMHO) their CPU cores are absolute crap and their CPU sockets suck major balls. Also, most of their processors are quite a lot of steps behind Intel (new technologies-wise). Even thought (since they change their sockets VERY rarely) their backwards compatibility is FANTASTIC and their Processor Integrated Graphics (APU) are a lot better than Intel's, I'd give them that.
Also, AMD has no "Hyper Threading" whatsoever, AT ALL...and this sucks quite a lot, because "Hyper Threading" rules.
AMD does have "Multithreading" in their multi-core CPUs, but that's aren't the same thing as "Hyper Threading" technology, "Hyper Threading" is much MUCH better.

Intel has all the newest and best technologies, owns "Hyper Threading", their processors are a lot more effective than AMD's CPUs, even if OverClocked lower than AMD's CPUs (this is called the "Corn GHz Effect", it measures in that AMD's CPUs can be OverClocked much higher than Intel's CPUs, but even despite this fact, they still lose to Intel's CPUs in overall performance and quality even while being at much higher frequencies, because even the most fresh AMD CPUs has cores that are waaaaay too crappy and old compared to Intel CPU cores, even if comparing to the most cheapest Intel's CPU models. Simply putting: "Corn GHz Effect" is when Intel's 4-core "Sandy Bridge" i5 2500K EASILY beats AMD's 8-core "Bulldozer" FX-8120, if they are at the same OverClock frequency, here is the clear proof), but they cost MUCH more (but remember, that, even though you pay a lot more for Intel's CPU than for AMD's CPU, you get a MUCH better processor, thus, even the high price are kind of reasonable - you pay more for a much better product), there is almost no backwards compatibility for Intel processors (almost all of Intel's lines of processors work on the different sockets, even though "Sandy Bridge" and "Ivy Bridge" are backwards compatible because they're both on the same 1155 socket), and their Processor Integrated Graphics (Intel HD) are still quite weak (MUCH weaker than AMD's "APU")...

Personally, I'd recommended getting Intel's Processor, but if you can't afford it/don't want to spend that much money on a CPU, then I actually suggest getting AMD's "Phenom II" processor, it's VERY good. Bulldozer is absolute fail and crap, and should be avoided at all costs.

I am a gamer and video editor, price under 500$.

Hmmm...I think this combo would be quite good for you, and it's still quite affordable too (just a little bit higher than the cost you've estimated).
You can exclude the PSU from that list (don't exclude the case or anything else, you'll need it) and it would be pretty much at your estimation.
Everything else (except for OS, but that's for you to decide) you will be (pretty much) using from your last build (like video card, monitor, HDD and etc), so I didn't include that. Remember that you ain't building an absolutely new configuration from the scratch, you are just upgrading some parts in your existing build, so a new PSU aren't really a big necessity (but are highly advisable, for stability and to be safe).

 

[paddys09]

Are the files taken from after effects uncompressed?

If so you'll find them hard to playback without some serious hardware...

 

[drums101]

^^ this guy is right that what I was getting at....uncompressed raw video files will be laggy on pretty much any pc

 

[master_chen]

OP clearly stated that his video slows down during video editing itself and that the video are only 10 MB in size. Even if it is an uncompressed stream, there is no way that it would've lagged being that small of a size, meaning that the problem ain't in the video, but rather because he doesn't have enough Memory on board for his video editing software to work properly. It's quite of a typical situation, actually.

He has only 2GB of Memory and uses "XP Service Pack 3" (which already takes 128 MB for itself, to work properly), software like "Power Director 9" needs at least 512 MB to work with the most minimal settings and at least 3GB to work properly on a 32 bit OS, while software like "Adobe After Effects" needs AT LEAST 2GB of Memory to just barely work properly.
Sum it all up, and it's pretty clear that he doesn't have enough Memory.

It doesn't matter how short his video is, if it's uncompressed or not (in the case if it's very small and short, it really doesn't matter), or how many (if any at all) effects are used in it:
as long as there is not enough Memory for his software to work properly, he will always get heavy slowdowns and/or throttling.

 

[paddys09]

Ah, skimmed over the bit about 10mb file size.

Just jumped to conclusions as most people just take the uncompressed files from AE.

Wasn't disagreeing with anything else, 2Gb definitely isnt enough. I would say 8Gb minimum for editing and a much better processor and obviously 64bit OS.

CS5/6 AE are 64 bit applications anyway..... Think anything up to and including cs4 can run 32 bit.

 

[master_chen]

I would say 8GB minimum, for video/image/sound editing.

Starting from the "4GB~" point, only the length and quality would really matter (the longer the video, and the higher it's resolution, the more Memory it would consume during editing, processing and finalizing): as long as it's the "~30 minutes/~1 hour"-long 720p (1280x720) video, it won't consume more than 4~5GB of Memory, no matter how much special effects would be used during it's editing. More than 5GB of Memory really starts being utilized when video gets very long (2+ hours) and has higher resolution than 720p (1920x1080 and higher). 4GB would be quite enough for anything that has less than 1 hour length and 720p resolution, using more Memory at that point would be just like applying a safety pillow, lol.

 

[sanmakk1001]

Starting from the "4GB~" point, only the length and quality would really matter (the longer the video, and the higher it's resolution, the more Memory it would consume during editing, processing and finalizing): as long as it's the "~30 minutes/~1 hour"-long 720p (1280x720) video, it won't consume more than 4~5GB of Memory, no matter how much special effects would be used during it's editing. More than 5GB of Memory really starts being utilized when video gets very long (2+ hours) and has higher resolution than 720p (1920x1080 and higher). 4GB would be quite enough for anything that has less than 1 hour length and 720p resolution, using more Memory at that point would be just like applying a safety pillow, lol.

Thanks man you help me alot!!

Now tell me one thing. My mother board has 4 RAM slots. 2 GB is installed by combining two 1 GB RAM. Now tell me that which RAM I purchase 2 GB separately or buy two 1 GB RAMs which will be better.

 

[sanmakk1001]

Best answer selected by sanmakk1001.

 

[master_chen]

Which Memory combination I should use: one additional 2 GB plank, or buy two additional 1 GB planks and fill all slots?

If you need 3GB of Memory on your current system (you can't use more on a 32 bit Windows anyway, as I said before), just buy one more 1GB plank, so that you will have three planks 1GB each (but all of them should be identical, meaning that the third plank should be the exact same model as the other two).

Otherwise, you should really make an upgrade that I've suggest to you in a previous post. There is really nothing more that can be done to help you.
I really suggest that you upgrade your hardware, rather than just use 3GB of memory on a such of an old system.

 

[sanmakk1001]

You are correct but I am not ready to buy new hardware just i want to increase my RAM to 4 GB not 3 GB master Chen.Thanks


Not means that I not like your suggestions? They are helpful to me. I will buy new Hardwares after 3 months due to some reasons Dude!!.

 

[Mousemonkey]

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey