|
|
Posted by doc on 06/14/06 23:33
nice review. i do understand completely. thanks for the input. sometimes
it helps to hear someone else say it, "know what i mean?" i tell myself
don't even think about it, go for all the gutz ya can afford and then some,
that is . . stretch to the hilt, but then i forget why. you said it in a
nutshell, "6 mos" that's about the size of it too. then, there'll be
something new coming along that in 18 months will be unusable by anything on
the market, huh?
drd
"Pat Horridge" <pat@remove-spam.vet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e6pd3c$n2d$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "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]
|