Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I really need a quicker CPU

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 12, 2002 3:57:33 PM

For anyone that asks the question "why could anyone need all these billions of calculations per second CPU's", thinking that all anyone needs is to write Word letters and emails, think again.
I upgraded not so long ago from a P3 733 to a P4 1.6 running at 2.2Ghz.
And yet I am very very frustrated with STILL how bloody long it takes to render a few seconds of video when i add a few transitions in Premiere - averaging around 3 frames per second, even for only a few seconds of footage takes me a couple of minutes to sit, twiddle thumbs, to see what i've done, only to realise i've forgotten something, so to adjust something then sit again.
There is absolutely no doubt, that whether the next best chips come from Intel, AMD, VIA or my mum, i want a 50 Ghz beast!

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=18108" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=18108&lt;/A>

More about : quicker cpu

May 12, 2002 4:26:36 PM

what kind of changes to how large of videos are we talking about here?

how do you shoot the devil in the back? what happens if you miss? -verbal
Related resources
May 12, 2002 9:59:25 PM

alright then, that just does seem a little long though, sounds more like a slow hard drive? you have the project and temp files on separate hard drives right?

how do you shoot the devil in the back? what happens if you miss? -verbal
May 12, 2002 10:11:22 PM

I am moving from the 1.6a soon too. I will be moving to a Northwood B. Several of the 2.4B have been clocking beyond 3.2Ghz.

You are limited to what your mind can perceive.
May 12, 2002 11:51:01 PM

are you sure its your processor? the hard drive and the amount ram also affect system performace...

Jesus may save, but <i>I</i> invest.
May 13, 2002 12:08:23 AM

if the stuff your dealing with is large, then you cannot go past adding some extra ram, or possibly another dedicated harddrive.

Today on Toms: Trisexual hamsters, anal applications of peanut butter and Marrige councilling!
May 13, 2002 12:41:43 AM

hdd isn't going to mean that much as far as rendering goes. ram and cpu power is where it's at for rendering. now if he was getting slow/jittery/skipping on playbacks and capture, then i would assume the hdd, unless of course you're getting overflow to your hdd, but then again that's not really the hdds fault. the cpu should be fine, depending on what size files you're working with, i might look at ram and depending how much ram you have. though, fx/transitions are not realtime, unless you have the hardware (eg. dvStorm, RaptorRT, RT2500, PROone). editing suites are starting to become slightly more RT depending on software and the speed of cpu/amount of ram you have. i do believe vegas video 3.0 does this. and FCP(mac only). i'd expect something like this in the next release of premiere.

[insert philosophical statement here]
May 13, 2002 2:26:49 AM

How much RAM do you have? You can never have enough RAM when video editing.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 13, 2002 4:29:22 AM

According to your "mysystemrig" page, you've got 256MB RAM... Double it - at least: 512MB or even 1GB if you do a lot of editing.

Other than than, a speedy SCSI HDD will help a bit, as it frees your CPU a bit, letting it number crunch instead of dealing with I/O. 15K SCSI HDD aren't cheap though... (sticking with IDE, it would be worth running a 7200rpm secondary drive if you use that drive for video work)

It might be worth firing up the Win2K performance logging and/or even just the task manager to see where things (ram, cpu, hdd) are maxing out.

<i>I used to have a girl, but then I got my CS degree...</i>
May 13, 2002 5:10:59 AM

doh, didn't see the link for his computer. yep, i'd say theres the problem. 256 is barely cutting it for editing anything worthwhile. i'd snag another 256 and you should definitely see an improvement.
also i forgot to mention. i know i'm like this as well as others that do a good bit of editing. w2k is good, but it isn't "tits" right out of the box. even with 1.5gb ram for me, i still go through and make sure unnecessary programs/processes aren't running. making sure prem/ae/ps have all they want. see what services aren't a necessity and turn them to manual. for eg. if you don't have any faxing capabilities or a need for it, turn the fax service off. things like that. i can shave about 12mb-14mb from disabling unused services alone. this alone won't dramatically speed things up, but combined with other basic tweaks, it will. here is a link that might be useful, <A HREF="http://www.videoguys.com/Win2K.html" target="_new">videoguys</A>

[insert philosophical statement here]<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by mbetea on 05/13/02 01:18 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 13, 2002 5:56:01 AM

No one suggested going with a RAID set up, Might be more cost effective then a 15Krpm SCSI.

Cya


<font color=green>1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4? 4.Nxe5?? Qg5 5.Nxf7 Qxg2 6.Rf1 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Nf3#</font color=green>
May 13, 2002 7:47:27 PM

Thanks for the help guys, i guess an extra stick of RAM would help, but i was kind of holding out a few months to buy a single stick of 512 Meg DDR 333, and to get rid of the 256 DDR 266 i currently have. Or then again buy 512 Meg DDR 266 but CAS 2, as currently is CAS 2.5. When i bought the setup, i couldnt afford quicker RAM.

That said, i am dealing with file sizes typically around 2 Gigabytes or higher, and most of the day to day stuff runs quickly enough, it's mostly just down to rendering, which i know will never go quickly enough for me, as modern technology simply isnt as good as i want it to be!
Give me more!
Faster!!
BETTER!

---- QUICKER ----- !!!!!!!!

AAARRRGHHH!

(Sorry about the little breakdown there)

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=18108" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=18108&lt;/A>
May 13, 2002 8:34:19 PM

Hey hey hey , u dont need a faster CPU to get realtime, yes, realtime rendering !

All your setup is just fine, u only need a realtime rendering card, the best ones coming from Matrox and Pinnacle. There was also a semi realtime rendering card reviewed here at THG not so long ago.

<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/video/02q2/020412/" target="_new">there you go.</A>

I've actually seen my friend work on an uncompressed movie in Premiere using a Matrox R2000, what can i say ? Its REALTIME!

Hope this helps !

Any mystery devised by mortal mind can be solved therewith
May 13, 2002 9:38:21 PM

Flinkster is absolutely right. This guys problem isnt his rig, its his video card.

If your gonna edit a lot you NEED a real time rendering card. Like Cannopus DV or something similar. They are very pricey but well worth it. You get native transitions (read: real time) plus a lot of other goodies.
Matrox makes some good rendering cards but they have SERIOUS issues with compatibility and drivers. If you dont believe me go to the Matrox support forums for their rendering cards (like the RT2000).Therefore I would definitely go for Cannopus.



Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
!