OT: Processor Upgrade

Maverick wrote on 5/1/2008, 2:57 PM

I'm thinking perhaps my processor could do with being upgraded.

I have a Gigabyte M61P-S3 Motherboard with 2GB RAM and the AMD Sempron 3400. Also have just over 1TB of HDD between PATA & SATA drives.

Am I liable to get much of a noticable speed increase (especially with video encoding) if I upgraded to an Athlon 64 2x 5200 Dual Core AM2 2.7GHZ 1MB Cache processor?

Also, if I were to upgrade would I need to re-install XP?

Thanks for any advice.

Cheers

Comments

johnmeyer wrote on 5/1/2008, 4:19 PM

1. Make sure the processor you are considering is truly compatible with your motherboard (but you probably already knew that).

2. Most operations (such as timeline playback) probably won't improve much. However, rendering should improve pretty much in proportion to the number of cores and the clock speed. In other words, twice the clock speed, half the rendering time; and with twice the number of cores, the rendering time would be cut in half as well. This isn't exact, but close.

Some people who have actually done such an upgrade may have some other things to add, or may disagree and say that the improvement isn't linear. If so, take their advice, not mine. However, I think what I say is correct.

Also, you didn't say at what processor speed your current Sempron 3400 operates. That would help in determining how much improvement you will see.

As for re-installing XP, I have never understood exactly how the hardware sensing algorithm works. Microsoft's licensing scheme and the code built into XP to enforce it are not easily understood. However, if you change more than one hardware item at one time during an upgrade, you may get an alert telling you that you have an invalid license. I am not sure exactly what your options are at that point. Someone else who has worked through this will have to chime in. I think you have to call Microsoft and get some sort of approval or variance.

LongTallTexan wrote on 5/1/2008, 4:34 PM

I upgraded my dual core to a quad 6600 with no issues. I just swaped out the processor and evrything was fine. No reinstall of windows needed. I have noticed much faster render times but as stated above not much improvement on playback on the timeline. I was expecting to edit with my preview in best or at least good but that was not the case. I am happy with the increase in render speed though.

L.T.

Coursedesign wrote on 5/1/2008, 5:04 PM

The CPU crunching for playback on the timeline can't be split up, so it's all dependent on core speed rather than overall multi-core CPU performance.

Rendering splits up nicely, so performance is a combination of core speed, number of cores, and disk subsystem performance.

craftech wrote on 5/1/2008, 5:06 PM

I would suggest an AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ and DDR2 800

John

TheHappyFriar wrote on 5/1/2008, 7:10 PM

reinstall XP. I had nothing but trouble when I went from single to duel core until I reinstalled XP. It installs extra drivers for the multi-core.

You will also get MUCH better timeline playback performance. The X2's are lightyears better then then sempron's (which are already good CPU's). When I went from a 64 3000 to X2 4200 I could do HD with FX in real time when preview was set to "preview auto".

Maverick wrote on 5/1/2008, 11:49 PM

Thanks for the advice everyone.

My current Sempron Speed is 1.81GHz.

I see the 5600 is around £13 more than the 5200 so that is a possibility. My motherboard mnufacturer's site states my MB fully supports 64 x2 Dual Core processors.

I also have a spare GB of Ram. I haven't added it as putting 3GB in my old MB caused no end of problems. Something to do with needing matching pairs. So the 2GB I have are 2 matching 1GB. Not sure if this is still an issue on the M61P-S3 MB. Am trying to check on Gigabyte's site now.

Cheers

Soreill wrote on 5/6/2008, 10:47 AM

So based on this:

"The CPU crunching for playback on the timeline can't be split up, so it's all dependent on core speed rather than overall multi-core CPU performance."

If I'm more interested in higher frame rate and smoother video in the preview window then I am on render times, would I be better off getting something like a Intel E6850 3 ghz over a Q9300 2.5 ghz? Or would a quad still offer better performance since whatever CPU work that can be split will be split and one core can focus more on the playback?

I know there are a million different scenarios to consider regarding other components, but just generally speaking...

Seth wrote on 5/6/2008, 4:22 PM

I'd say go with the best AM2 processor you can justify buying, like a dual core AM2 Opteron or an Athlon X2. Your motherboard should support nearly any of these processors by this point (if your BIOS is up to date) and you currently need the best single core performance you can get for working with media on the timeline.

As was mentioned before, most NLE's are not yet 'threaded'. This means that they will not take full advantage of more than one core during timeline operations, which means that having 4 cores offers no appreciable advantage over having 2 (or 2 over 1). Most (good) renderers ARE threaded, meaning that your final output is sped up greatly by having 4 cores versus 2 (or 2 vs 1).

That said, Vegas Pro 8.1 will supposedly use multiple cores to decode video formats like HDV and MXF on the timeline, which WILL speed up the editing process.

Maverick wrote on 5/26/2008, 4:36 PM

Hi

Just wanted to share my experience with you.

I purchsed an Athlon x2 6400+ and, boy, does it rock.

Ok, it can't match the quad cores mentioned in other threads but it certainly zips along with the encoding. Thoroughly enjoying my upgrade - made the whole thing more pleasurble again.

Cheers

UlfLaursen wrote on 5/26/2008, 9:08 PM

I just upgraded one PC from core 2 duo to core 2 quad. I did not have to reinstall XP, just a BIOS upgrade before install.

Please check out if your power supply needs upgrade too, and maybe your cabinet fans - if you have big renders it can get hot inside a PC cabinet

/Ulf