|
|
Posted by Pat Horridge on 06/14/06 16:22
"doc" <doc@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:ycWjg.3115$2R.1590@trndny02...
> This is the question. Many have said that this processor or that
> processor is better including apple box or windows box, but this is
> perhaps a different way of asking the question as we consider getting a
> second NLE, that would be a windows platform with avid software:
>
> QUESTION: what will one gain when going from a single hot processor to a
> dual core? and when going on to a dual processor?
>
> that is, i hear lots of hype that one has to have the fastest and bestest
> but then i see folks with single processor doing a fine job and even on
> laptops with slow drives while i hear anything less than 7.2K drive speed
> is disasterous. so, i've laid out the question, and i'd like to hear a
> lot of comments as we consider getting another puter and want to know if i
> should spend the bucks for a dual processor in the xeon or pentium line or
> athlon's or if another dual core will be fine or even a single processor
> now that the terra byte processors are out with terra byte rams.
>
> thanks in advance for your kind comments all.
>
> drd
> --
> :o)
>
> "Dave my mind is going. I can feel it"
> HAL9000 2001 A Space Odyssey 1968
>
It all depends on what you want and need to do.
Fast processors allow you to do more manipulation faster without dedicated
hardware which is the trend nowadays.
In the old days most video processing work was done with add in hardware
cards so a fast processor wasn't an issue.
But these hardware cards are expensive to produce at low volumes and
difficult to upgrade or change once designed and built.
So as most systems now do most work using either the Processor or the
processor on the graphics card this is where you want your horse power if
you need performance.
Generally twin processors give you better performance that twin core
processors but at a higher cost.
Twin dual core processors are the way to go if you want the most
performance.
You say others work fine even on laptops but are they doing what you need to
do?
How long are the sequences they work on? how much source material do they
need available at one time? How much time do they have to render effects or
export out to other software packages?
If time isn't an issue then you can afford a slow set up and just find
something else to do while it number crunches.
If you charge hundreds of pounds per hour for the use of you gear, your
clients will not be best pleased at having to wait while the processor wades
it's way through its work.
Re: Drive speeds this is a bit easier.
The speed of your drives determines how many streams of video your system
can playback in real time.
So if you have a background video with 2 picture in pictures of moving
pictures plus a keyed person talking all at once then your media drives will
have to playback 4 streams of video plus whatever audio all in real-time
(probably faster than real-time to work well)
So if you work at DV quality that could be 100Mbps which is achievable with
many drives but not all. Creating a RAID with the drives can help
performance.
If you work with Uncompressed STD Def material then the data demands go up
even higher. work with HD uncompressed and your talking serious drive arrays
and lots of space. approx 7GB per min at true HD.
Generally if video editing is a serious requirement for you then it's worth
spending the money on the latest fasted whatever it is you need. In 6 months
you'll be glad you didn't buy the slower one in 12 months you'll be
wondering when you should sell it while it's still worth something. In 18
months you'll be kicking yourself for not having sold it 6th months ago.
If you edit out of a bedroom in your spare time you'll be laughing all the
way to the bank as you buy up cheap working slow systems and then happily
spend all night waiting for them to do their magic.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|