PDA

View Full Version : which PC is fast enough to edit HD video?



matt9b
08-17-2009, 11:16 AM
Hi all,

My computer isn't hacking HD video editing, does anyone know what upgrade should fix it?

My specs:
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 (3.0GHz) 1333FSB 6MB L2 Cache
Graphics card: XFX 9400GT 1GB DDR2
4GB RAM
Windows XP
Sony Vegas

Cheers,

Matt

Cassius
08-17-2009, 11:52 AM
How fast is your RAM? What's your hard drive setup? Hard drives are a bottleneck sometimes. That system isn't all that bad. What kind of video are you trying to edit?

PhilD
08-17-2009, 11:53 AM
Get Vista 64 bits and more RAM

I'm not a techie so I can't say if your motherboard could be a part of the problem

yabyum
08-17-2009, 12:23 PM
It's the CPU limiting you. Definitely. I bet you could edit AVCHD in Premiere Pro though, with its GPU usage. Upgrade to an i7 920 if you want the fastest... but I think you'd have to buy a whole new motherboard too, and RAM.

Andrew McCarrick
08-17-2009, 12:26 PM
Could you overclock the processor a little, that may help. If you don't go to far with it, you can do it without additional cooling equip.

(It might not let you overclock though.)

What brand of comp. is it?

Ben_B
08-17-2009, 01:01 PM
I don't really see the problem there...great setup....

I do ProRes and DVC Pro HD editing on my 2.16ghz Macbook with intel GMA and on my old 2ghz core duo iMac....works fine!

Even my old 800mhz iMac can handle DVC Pro HD editing fine if the film stays under like 5 or so minutes.

Ryan McCarvill
08-18-2009, 01:50 PM
I do AVCHD editing on Sony Vegas 9 with a 1.8 ghz core 2 duo and 3 gigs of ram - no problem at all.

- Ryan

Ian Slessor
08-23-2009, 08:32 PM
So...a quad-core with tons of ram should be OK?

Ryan McCarvill
08-24-2009, 03:36 PM
So...a quad-core with tons of ram should be OK?

Yep have a look at your system, mine is pretty lean, just XP, Vegas, DVD Studio, and Audacity. Nothing else hogging resources.

matt9b
08-25-2009, 05:35 AM
cheers guys.. my system wasn't hacking it so i'm upgrading to i7 920, 6GB DDR3 1600Mhz ram, and 2 x 500GB raid striped 0 HDDs. Graphics card is still the same GeForce9 1GB. Hopefully this will do the trick.

Re: Upgrading to Vista, I've not used Vista much as I find XP is generally more compatible with stuff. I should imagine XP would be faster too.

I might try installing Vista as well as XP this time (is it possible to have 2 partitions on a raid-0 striped setup?), I'll see which is faster, Vista or XP.

thanks

Tameside
08-25-2009, 08:54 AM
What are you making, a feature film? I have a vista laptop, 12" screen, 1.46ghz pentium dual-core wth on-board graphics and 2gb ram, If I convert the clips to wmv 50fps 720p or 1080p 25fps I can play and edit them in real-time, split clips, slo-mo etc etc with windows movie maker, now with plug-ins pip etc etc from pixelan, and ouput using voltaic's special 1080p wmv profile or in-built x-box 720p wmv profiles.

I dont get what you are trying to achieve with such over-spec'd gear, ignore my comments if however you are making a living from video/film, but for home pc users, core avc player, voltaic/xillisoft and basic nle programme like movie maker is all the home pc users need.

Dan Clark
08-25-2009, 09:45 AM
cheers guys.. my system wasn't hacking it so i'm upgrading to i7 920, 6GB DDR3 1600Mhz ram, and 2 x 500GB raid striped 0 HDDs. Graphics card is still the same GeForce9 1GB. Hopefully this will do the trick.

Re: Upgrading to Vista, I've not used Vista much as I find XP is generally more compatible with stuff. I should imagine XP would be faster too.

I might try installing Vista as well as XP this time (is it possible to have 2 partitions on a raid-0 striped setup?), I'll see which is faster, Vista or XP.

thanks

Matt,

Wait for Win7. I believe it's available 10/22. I have Win7 64 RTM running on a workstation at work. It's MUCH faster and more stable than Vista, and seems faster than XP.

Vista should be avoided at all costs, especially if you have multiple monitors and/or are opening lots of windows. In these conditions, Vista has a design problem that causes blue screening. The video subsystem has been completely redesigned for Win7 to be multi-threaded and use much less memory. Problem solved. It would be fair to say that the Beta version of Win7 (released months ago) was much more stable than the production version of Vista.

I loaded Win7 64 RTM (what's going on the install disk) about a week ago. The install went smooth as glass. The included video driver did well even with my old video monitors (one is a five year old Viewsonic LCD that Vista would NOT support). There were some very minor video and audio issues, so I downloaded and installed the latest drivers from the nVidia and Asus websites. 15 minutes end to end. Issues solved.

Also, Win7 handles 64 bit much better then XP. You'll need the 64 bit version to use all 6Gb of memory on your new workstation.

Regards,

Dan.

DonalDuc
08-25-2009, 09:45 AM
@matt9b

Congratulation for your overkilling. Now you can fight Men From Mars ....
And buy some SDXC Class16 cards with 256 GB !

jaycanode
08-25-2009, 08:41 PM
I wouldn't use Vista unless it was 64bit. Quite frankly I wouldn't use it at all. I've been testing Window 7 Ultimate 64 and have been WAY happier with it. Happier than XP, happier than Vista. I would seriously wait until they release Windows 7.

Current system is Core 2 duo 3.0ghz, 4 gig ram, 512 mg nvidia 8400 grfx. Just got through editing a 100 minute documentary with DVCPRO HD P2 and although my system slowed to a crawl when rendering and took forever to load the project file, I was able to complete the project. This was with XP Pro 32 bit and CS3.

You must pare down your system. Google: Optimizing XP for CS3

Good Luck.