What makes an editing PC fast - good video card (gpu) or the processor (cpu)?

hasselblad

hasselblad

Well-known member
I want to upgrade my computer. I am running a 3gen i7 processor a geforce 1050.
I find that lightroom is slow when I scroll through photos in develop mode? Faster rendering in develop mode would make my editing faster...
What should I upgrade? Processor or the video card? I would like to hear opinions from photographers or videographers who have done the upgrade... I already upgraded the hard drive to ssd.
Thanks a bunch!
 
Lightroom benefits from having multiple fast drives like SSDs or NVMes to quickly do calculations back and forth. CPU is always the king for anything media related. So I would start there. Single core speed along with as many other cores as possible is the approach. Upgrade the system, use the 1050 and see how it runs if you want to save some bucks. I would upgrade the CPU, motherboard and add some NVMe drives with the proper amount of bandwidth so they can run at full clip. One for your OS and one for your Lightroom catalogue.

For video, it depends upon which programs you are using. Some depend more on the CPU where others have really coded in the GPU to be a large contributor. A program like After Effects will use every once of RAM you can throw at it where NLEs do not need a ton a RAM. Know your workflow and let that determine where to put your money.
 
Both. Though more so GPU these days as more and more NLE's are leveraging the power of the GPU for heavy real-time playback and rendering. Resolve for example. Multicore CPUs to a degree but many video applications can't or don't really take advantage of much over 8 cores. You need to check what applications you aim to use as to how many cores they can utilise with efficiency. All underutilised cores will be sitting just above idle and chewing up CPU cycles without much benefit. Throughput is a big thing so RAM, SSDs, NVMe all contribute to greater performance. If you are down on throughput it doesn't matter how fast and efficient the rest of the system is when it comes to handling big video files, compressed or otherwise..

Chris Young
 
An M1Pro is a very nice computer. It's not that good for video editing of course. It works, but render times can be pretty slow. For video - a graphics card that takes the load of the computer processor is better than a faster processor and the normal video driver - plus things like premier have a list of approved and tested cards - so while my M1 MacBook is a great computer, I'd not do some projects on it because to get external drives, external screens and external audio working with it costs a lot extra.
 
paulears said:
An M1Pro is a very nice computer. It's not that good for video editing of course. It works, but render times can be pretty slow. For video - a graphics card that takes the load of the computer processor is better than a faster processor and the normal video driver - plus things like premier have a list of approved and tested cards - so while my M1 MacBook is a great computer, I'd not do some projects on it because to get external drives, external screens and external audio working with it costs a lot extra.
Click to expand...

lol?

It's one of the best computers in the world for video editing.

Video editing could only entail straightforward cutting of H.265 from a Canon, which less than 1% of other computers could handle, so that would make it the best in the world for that task.

In general, that's a vague statement; depends on what you do, but the M1 Pro is still at the top of the list for almost anyone.
 
My main editor (a PC, with very good graphics card, and decent processor) is quicker to render complex projects than the M1 MacBook I'm using here at the moment. I did a project a while back that had 40 video tracks, each one shrunk down to fit 5 rows of 8 moving images across the screen. This MacBook really struggled - it became laggy, scrubbing through the 3 minute video meant freezes, and maybe a second or two before it fired up. Moving the files onto the SSD helped a tiny bit compared to playing them in via USB3 from an external SSD. Importing the same project and files to the PC with graphics card with processing on board scrubbed back and forth with no problems and I then added some masks and video processing to each track to balance the images in contrast and brightness. Play worked instantly. This project, with the processing added would not play on the M1.

For just a few video tracks there's of course no issue, but for twin screen, complex audio/video edits, the PC is better. The Mac is not bad - I'm not saying that, but the same applies to DAWs - faffing around with samples on external drives external audio interfaces and extra screens again is better on the PC - my old G5 Mac was better than the PC in capability, but big sample library templates and dangling dongles on this computer means it's a bit of a compromise. I'd be happy with a 16" M1 macbook pro max I think, but three and a half grand makes it too expensive.
 
Last edited:
Which is it, M1 MacBook or one of the new M1 Pros?

Nevertheless...you have to consider that everyone's experience is different.

If you're not using FCP which is optimized for the chip, you cannot have an idea how fast these computers really are. [And by rendering, do you mean rendering out/exporting? Because no one really renders anymore for playback with so many proxy workflows available.]

Your project of 40 video tracks and what not might be a completely different experience when used in that software with a TB4 SSD or even on the internal compared to whatever you are doing now in Premiere.

It all depends on what we do. For some tasks, most PCs would not stand a chance until you get into much more $$$ and components.
 
Yep - rendering out to the final video file. Maybe we're talking cross-purposes - I was comparing the PC with the M1 MacBook Pro. Not the freestanding clever beastie, so probably my fault, but I assumed (wrongly I think) we were comparing to a laptop - so forgive me for that wrong assumption. I suspect the Pro won't be on my list as it's just a bit too expensive for me.
 
Apple's new nomenclature may be kind of confusing.

They have 3 new chips: M1 - M1 Pro - M1 Max

They are all in laptops.

___

The iMacs and Mac minis have only the M1 chip (for now).

___

Any old Intel Mac Pros are pretty much antiquated hardware for most people besides for those with the most dedicated tasks like using two GPUs with 64GB of memory for an additional $10K.

___

Seriously, these laptops are no joke. We're just chatting and I totally understand your personal experience, but writing, "It's not that good for video editing of course" is extremely misleading.

They are very, very, very powerful laptops. Especially the M1 Max using optimized software.

Currently some of the world's best hardware, maybe even the best for the price (like a $649 Mac mini).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top