|
|
Posted by Ambra on 11/27/05 18:43
well, thanks a lot man, I will try to get some more usefull information...
However, according to your experience, are dual-processors usefull for video
editing? Let's presume that Premiere pro 1.5 is compiled for
dual-processors? Is it really double-speed that I would actually get?
The problem that I am experiencing (I am from Bosnia&Herzegovina) is that
company that sell no-name configurations put in computer cheapest components
that htey can find. In that way (probably due to incompatibility of some
components) I have a computer with Pentium4 on 2.0GHz running aproximately 2
times slower than my older "brand name" IBM configuartion with Pentium4 on
1.4GHz....
that's why I don't dare purchasing anything here but I have to go through
e-bay....
OK, I'll consider your advice, and I hope it won't be problem for you to
rate me something if I come upon something affordable?
thank again
peace.....ned
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> je napisao u poruci interesnoj
grupi:11ojo22s6mtga0d@corp.supernews.com...
> "Ambra" wrote ...
> > Premiere 6.5 is not benefiting from multiple processors? I had no idea
> > about
> > that, thank a lot, you saved me a lot of bucks (EUROs' in my case
> > ;) ).
>
> The software must be written (compiled) to take advantage
> of multiple processors. Older software (like P6.5) was
> released in an era where few people had multiple processors.
>
> > Now, my system is taking aroun 70 minutes to render 3 minutes of
> > video.
> > Truth to be told, those 3 minutes are stuffed with effects :).
>
> Something else must be happening here. I've never seen it
> take that long to do such a short timeline. Are you also
> forcing it to transcode (because of wierd input formats,
> etc.?)
>
> > I really appreciate your advice, could you tell me what's the optimal
> > system
> > for me? Which processor (can you suggest me what Intel is best for me
> > now)?
> > Which hard-disks (ATA,SATA,SCSI....)
>
> I don't think any new hard drives are availble today that are
> too slow for DV. Talking about desktop 3.5inch drives, NOT
> laptop drives!
>
> SCSI is an older technology that is being eclipsed by SATA,
> etc. It is also much more expensive which makes it not a
> reasonable alternative, IMHO.
>
>
> > The thing is that my MB is old and it supports only 512MB of RAM,
> > therefore
> > I hsve to purchase a new computer!So, any suggestions are more than
> > welcome...
>
> I'd get the fastest single-core CPU I could afford and a new
> MB to support it. At least 1GB of RAM, and consider 2GB.
> I would use a ~small (40-60-80GB) drive for boot/system/
> program/swapfile, and a couple of larger (120-250GB)
> drives for the video files. (Not RAID array!) I have not found
> a lot of difference between IDE and SATA speeds when it
> comes down to doing real-world tasks (like rendering video).
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|