Is Upgrading CPU Rght Answer

FrankLP* wrote on 4/25/2006, 11:27 AM
Hey guys I’ve been doing quite a bit of reading on this and still am a bit perplexed. I would like to improve my systems ability to view effects, edits etc in real time without having to do pre-renders. I currently am running an AMD Athlon 3200 XP Barton Core and am considering an upgrade to an AMD 64 CPU (possibly the X2 4400). Obviously I’ll also need to upgrade the MOBO being that the sockets are different between these CPUs. Is this the right way to go? Will this type of upgrade yield the result I’m looking for? Any help/insight is appreciated. Thanks all!

Comments

craftech wrote on 4/25/2006, 11:33 AM
Using the computer as a dedicated video editing computer with little else that isn't directly necessary to producing the videos is often the answer.

A second computer for everything else is a better choice and also streamlining resource hungry Windows XP (do a Google search for tweaking XP).

John
FrankLP* wrote on 4/25/2006, 11:40 AM
Thanks John. My system is dedicated to Video/Audio Production. I have indeed done all the tweaks that I have come across, and think that my system is about as lean as it can be. It's also liquid cooled and free and clear of most none-production apps (still have to use Office Suite products on occasion).

I'd just like to be able to see (and show clients) complex effects, transitions and edits in real time. Hope this clarifies a bit.
JJKizak wrote on 4/25/2006, 11:56 AM
Maybe you had better wait till the quads come out with Vista.
I have an AMD 4600+ and it is far away from realtime.

JJK
FrankLP* wrote on 4/25/2006, 12:14 PM
Wow...that's interestinig to hear JJK. My assumption (and yes...I know what happens when one assumes :)) was that the AMD 64 X2 could get it done (deliver complex preview in real time verses pre-rendering). But that wasn't necessarily coming from someone that had video editing experience with one of these CPUs ...hence my call out to the experts on this board.

Just curious...how IS your 4600 at handling complex video in real time preview? What really starts bogging it down the most?
MH_Stevens wrote on 4/25/2006, 2:00 PM
Yes, it is ALWAYS a good thing to upgrade your processing power just as it is always better to wait to do it until it's cheaper


JJKizak wrote on 4/25/2006, 2:30 PM
Real time is very good on plain old digital, but there are relativity type things to address---a small project always is fast, an hour and a half project really starts to choke after about 8 hours of editing with gigunda fades, text, zooms, keyframes, color corrections, cookie cutters, blurs, noise corrections, maybe seven takes per clip, maybe seven sound takes per clip, 4 to 6 video tracks, 4 to 10 soundtracks, (one main track with many sparsely populated tracks) a boatload of stills, just like my current project. After 6 hours I have to reboot to reset the paging file. I am using 4 gig of ram also. Amount of ram doesn't affect real time that much but it sure made a difference at the end of the day and rendering a project like this. The render speed is blisteringly fast. When I do HDV though real time preview is really not possible but it is good enough. It reminds me of 24p film with a bad projector gate with that rattling grinding noise of film being destroyed. ( I had to throw that in). Anyway some of the forum folks were talking about the invidia software to help utilize the playback of m2t files with the video card. I use full best preview all the time.Now remember an ordinary dv track will playback at 27.970 no problem. Load up the project and you will be in the 15 range real quick. HDV stuff will be around 7 to 25 and sometimes worse. If you have the super latest equipment I don't know. I always end up using the default option settings for video and my stills are set to 10 seconds which doesn't help any.

JJK
FrankLP* wrote on 4/25/2006, 2:46 PM
Thanks JJK. Although my project is only 25 minutes, the content sounds a lot like what you described. I am indeed working in POD (plain old digital :)) so I think project size and content are just gettin' the best of my good ole XP 3200...I've got 2.5G of RAM without much room to expand due to my current mobo, so maybe an upgrade aint such a bad plan anyway...even if it won't get me exactly what I hoped for.
seanfl wrote on 4/25/2006, 3:35 PM
I've been looking for a good way to get real time playback of HDV timelines and have concluded I'd probably have to go quad processor opteron setup or wait for four of the new intel's to arrive in a couple months (wonder if I'll need a separate air conditioner for them!?) Hopefully next year I can edit HDV just as easy as DV. I would guess we're talking about the same processing power for real time preview of not too complex projects.

Sean
------------------------------
broadcast voiceovers
FrankLP* wrote on 4/25/2006, 4:17 PM
Yeah Sean...I"ve been reading about the quad stuff coming down the pike...looks to be the processing bomb! I'm still trying to work my way into HDV let alone think about the hardware I'll need to support it. Right now in my market there's not too muchh call for it ...yet. So I'm wanting to get processing power for mid to long term.

Hey, just checked out your site...nice site/work.
rs170a wrote on 4/25/2006, 5:50 PM
I"ve been reading about the quad stuff coming down the pike.

There's always the Boxx Apexx 8, shown at NAB on Monday.
It's got a mere eight dual-core Opteron 880 processors on board.
Fully loaded means 128GB of RAM and 7 terabytes of storage.
Price? Better dig really deep...according to the article, around $80K maxed out :-)

Mike
FrankLP* wrote on 4/25/2006, 8:22 PM
Yeah I did see some news on that. That's quite the system! And at $80K....several thousand price points beyond my modest budget! :)

But one can certainly dream...the Apexx would probably be just as fast (and just as much fun to "drive") as the '06 Z06 out in the driveway! :) Heck they're priced about the same too.