I am new to video so I hope this is not too general of question. My current computer is totally overwhelmed by any video processing so I am beginning to begin the search for a new machine. I have downloaded the trial version of Vegas Platinum 9 and find that I like the layout. My question is how much computer do I need. I currently have a machine with a 2.4 ghz processor and 1 gig of ram. All hard drives are IDE. When I attempt to play any video in Vegas it only shows about every 15-20th frame. The processor immediately maxes out and stays at 100%. The video I was attempting to edit was shot on the lowest quality setting on a Canon HF100. Being new to video, I have no idea of how much processor power I am going to need. Any thoughts about what would work well for this and what are the minimum specs I should be looking at. Are there other factors besides the processor speed, ram and hard drive speeds I need to look at?
Minimum Computer Specs
- Thread starter 10range
- Start date
your shooting hd on a computer that really cant handle hd. my guess is your on a 32bit OS.
is your processor core duo? core 2 duo? dual core? processor makes a big difference. along with RAM. since your editing hd, my rule is no less than 2gb's. those dropouts are because the video file is too large at the moment for your computer to handle. hard drive speeds don't make much of a difference. especially when you edit, unless you capture directly to say an external or things of that sort. internal drives, you dont notice really fast or slow, but with externals, mine is only usb and it gets frustrating at how long i have to wait for it to go from idle back to running just to transfer a clip.
is your processor core duo? core 2 duo? dual core? processor makes a big difference. along with RAM. since your editing hd, my rule is no less than 2gb's. those dropouts are because the video file is too large at the moment for your computer to handle. hard drive speeds don't make much of a difference. especially when you edit, unless you capture directly to say an external or things of that sort. internal drives, you dont notice really fast or slow, but with externals, mine is only usb and it gets frustrating at how long i have to wait for it to go from idle back to running just to transfer a clip.
It is an older single core machine. OS is 32bit XP. When I purchased the camera I made the assumption that this machine would not be enough to watch and edit HD video. I guess my real concern is how much more processor do I need? On Sony's site they are saying that 2.8 GHz with 512 ram is what they are recomending. They do not state if the 2.8 GHz is a single core or some other configuration. To me it sounds like this would not be near enough processor unless they are saying a dual core.
Jeffrey Rice
Active member
Yes, you will need to dual-core it. Intel Core 2 Duo 2.33 Ghz on a Dell Vostro 1310 laptop has worked fine for me in Vegas but I am not doing HD with it. I also have 2GB ram, I would say that is a minimum for HD, works fine in standard def.
Really, get the most powerful machine you can afford. If you can go quad-core Xeon, do it, you will be future-proof (and can run Maya !)
Cheers :beer: Jeff
Really, get the most powerful machine you can afford. If you can go quad-core Xeon, do it, you will be future-proof (and can run Maya !)
Cheers :beer: Jeff
I would love to have a Xeon quad core like you mentioned but I am guessing that my better half may not react to the price of that system too well. I may have the opportunity to obtain a machine that is currently set up with a single 3.2 GHz Xeon processor that has space on the mother board for a second processor. I am wondering if this would be adequate to process video?
For batch processing the number of cores can speed the render along quite nicely. For playback while editing you need speed so you want the 3.2 or faster. Naturally a 3.8 quad would be great but reality is what it is.