Best computer spec for AVCHD editing?

philRmonic wrote on 10/27/2008, 7:14 AM

Like others in this forum, I've found editing AVCHD puts a strain on my computer. I've optimised VMS as best I can and it's "workable" but still stutters in preview! I was wondering what upgrade would make the biggest dfference? I can change the CPU easily (and not have to re-install the OS!) but I think that would only give me a marginal improvement. Is version 9 of VMS better (with the same hardware)? Should I just upgrade motherboard, CPU and all; if so, what specification is the critical factor (e.g. CPU speed, number of cores, etc....)?

Thanks!

CPU: P4 D 805 (2.66GHz, Dual Core, 2 years old)
Motherboard: ASUS P5DL2
RAM: 3GB
Graphics: GeForce 6500 128MB
VMS: Version 8d
OS: XP sp3

Comments

Markk655 wrote on 10/27/2008, 7:38 AM

Are you editing 1440x1080 or 1920x1080? That will make a difference.

Also, "even" a core 2 duo would give you a very significant increase in processing during editing.

The video card likely won't add that much. Neither will the RAM. AVCHD is just very cpu intensive to decode and encode.

philRmonic wrote on 10/27/2008, 9:59 AM

Thanks for the info. I'm editing in the native resolution of the Handycam (HDR-SR10) which claims to be 1920x1080i and which I recorded in "HQ" (9M) quality. So basically it's down to the most powerful CPU? Is there likely to be a significant improvement between a dual and quad core, i.e. does VMS take full advantage of the extra cores?

Markk655 wrote on 10/27/2008, 11:00 AM

Not sure I can comment. I do my 1440x1080 editing on a C2D 2.66 GHz.. Compared to other NLEs, VMS does a great job with the footage for editing. If you can afford it, I would always suggest going tor the best with AVCHD.

Happy to hear what other folks think.

Eugenia wrote on 10/27/2008, 2:48 PM

The faster the better. That's what's best for AVCHD. There's no way around it.

philRmonic wrote on 10/31/2008, 3:43 AM

I've been pouring over hardware reviews and specs for the past few days (sad!) and I reckon I've identified most of the components for a good build. However the current batch of CPUs has really confused me! I'm down to a choice of two - the older Q6600 quad core (2.4GHz) and the newer E8500 dual core (3.16 GHz). General benchmarks seem virtually the same, so, specifically for VMS 9, would there be any significant difference between the slower clocked quad-core and the faster clocked dual-core?

Thanks!

Ivan Lietaert wrote on 10/31/2008, 5:44 AM

I have the Q6600. When rendering, all for core run at 90 to 95 per cent, which makes slightly under 4x2.4=9.6Mhz, compared with a dual core 2x3.6=7.2Mhz.
So quad core is better.

philRmonic wrote on 10/31/2008, 5:54 AM

Thanks, just what I wanted to know!

Osotosail wrote on 11/1/2008, 1:50 PM

The benefits of multi-core and multi-CPU are very much application specific. Fortunately for us, Sony Vegas is properly engineered to take very good advantage of multi cpu PCs. Go for a Quad Core no doubt. Not sure if the faster one would make significant difference for you. If you are buying from a retail store, you may be able to try it out first, download the demo from Sony, and try it with your own content. Make sure the store won't charge you for returning it. But if you buy the faster machine from the same store, they likely won't mind too much.

You could try a specific post with each processor to see what other users think at the same resolution?

Is there a standard benchmark which measures AVCHD performance? Perhaps those systems already have comparable numbers to look at.