computer rebuild for editing

Discussion in 'Professional Video Production' started by Bob Ford, Dec 15, 2007.

  1. Bob Ford

    Bob Ford Guest

    I am about to have my computer re-built (hopefully for the last time)
    and would like opinions on how much RAM is best for editing with
    Premiere Pro or Elements.

    Is there a significant enough performance difference between 4 gigs of
    RAM vs 8 gigs to justify the cost difference?

    This is a PC and I plan to go with the newest AMD quad core processor.
    Bob Ford
    Images In Motion
    www.imagesinmotion.com
     
    Bob Ford, Dec 15, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bob Ford

    Smarty Guest

    Bob,

    I think 8 GB is overkill. Any machine I have used with Windows XP won't
    see/use more than 4 GB of physical RAM. Vista may not have this limit but
    not entirely sure.

    For what ever it is worth, 4 GB did not appear to work very differently from
    2 GB when using other editing programs like Vegas 8, Ulead, etc. I have not
    used Premiere Pro but the prior version of Premiere was not significantly
    improved with 4 versus 2 GB.

    Smarty
     
    Smarty, Dec 15, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bob Ford

    Smarty Guest

    Bob,

    I should have mentioned that a 32 bit operating system like XP inherently
    can address 4 GB of memory, although techniques do exist to extend this.
    Also 64 bit Windows is another OS approach assuming the application can use
    it (not sure about Premiere).

    Smarty
     
    Smarty, Dec 15, 2007
    #3
  4. Bob Ford

    Frank Guest


    I think that for the best performance you'll want Intel chips,
    preferably Xeons, not AMD chips.

    As for memory, unless you're running a 64-bit operating system (which
    I do not recommend), you're completely wasting your money on
    installing any more than 4 GB.
     
    Frank, Dec 15, 2007
    #4
  5. Bob Ford

    TheFlaggman Guest

    4 GB RAM is probably OK unless you plan on upgrading later. I use
    Premiere Elements, Photoshop Elements, Ulead and Pinnacle 10.6. I use
    2 X 250 GB and 1 X 320 GB HD's and these just barely make it. I use
    IEEE 1394, USB 1 and USB 2 in a dual monitor config and only have 512
    MB of RAM at this point. Premiere renders in 3 hours, Ulead in
    1.5-2 hours. Pinnacle takes upwards of 8 hours and won't always
    render properly. These times are for a 1 hour DVD.

    I have found when they were first installed and configured they all
    played together rather nicely, but once Redmond came out with a few of
    their famous updates a lot have features have gone South at times. It
    appears a lot of memory resources are being used by resident
    applications for which there is little available specific information.
    The same applies to the updates. Many descriptions are very sketchy at
    best. In one case SP2 killed the display on a laptop. MS said it was
    mfrs fault, Mfr said it was MS's fault and together the combined
    message was that customer service was a figment of the customer's
    imagination of late. I had to take a DB connector and build a dummy
    ext monitor to fool the case into allowing the keyboard toggle to
    initialize the display in order to keep SP2 installed. Further, I had
    codecs and drivers for media sub-applications affected by updates as
    well in the same way and had to uninstall and reinstall a number of
    the complete NLE suites to get rid of the problems. In one case, the
    access to and from the IEEE port to a camera was killed. This occurred
    with Leitch's dpS Velocity in addition to these other apps. Once
    cleared and back to normal, I now manually update and select what is
    to be done on patch Tuesdays. I generally avoid any updates that
    affect hardware or software for displays , codecs, or other media
    items unless the description in specific as to what it will affect.

    They have done tests up to 80 Core CPU's successfully, but indicate
    that 8 or 16 core is the maximum practical advances that will be
    available for general use. My intent is to upgrade as well, but I
    intend on waiting for the 8 or 16 cores to come out; until then if I
    am forced to update I think I will opt for a MAC and FCP to do until
    the higher capacity processors come out. I have seen little favorable
    comments on Vista and even less favorable on the constant stream of
    updates and patches and the fact that it always gets blamed on the
    mfrs not conforming to MS's way of doing things.

    It is too bad they can't all play nice together: reminds one of a
    bunch of MBA's in short pants around a sandbox point fingers at each
    other and telling the consumer to pound the sand in the box.

    Good luck with your decision.
     
    TheFlaggman, Dec 15, 2007
    #5
  6. Bob Ford

    Spex Guest

    Unless that operating system is Leopard! :)

    Even 4 GB is probably overkill unless Bob is doing some very serious
    multilayered HD composites.

    8GB is certainly overkill so I'd save the money on the RAM and plough it
    into the processor or video card or better/bigger HDDs.
     
    Spex, Dec 15, 2007
    #6
  7. Bob Ford

    Spex Guest

    The biggest limitation is the bottleneck of accessing whatever RAM you
    have installed.

    It makes me wonder if the old idea of the transputer will resurface
    again but packaged in 21 century sized electronics.
     
    Spex, Dec 15, 2007
    #7
  8. Bob Ford

    Bob Ford Guest

    I think I asked the wrong question. There was a discussion on this
    subject quite awhile ago and now that I think about it, it had to do
    with the performance difference between 2 GB and 4 GB, not 8 vs 4.
    Sorry.
    Bob Ford
    Images In Motion
    www.imagesinmotion.com
     
    Bob Ford, Dec 15, 2007
    #8
  9. Bob Ford

    Tony Guest

    Although I have Quad Core\4GB ram on my XP Pro machine, 2GB is all it needs max for editing. I went
    overboard, but I guess it's better to have more than less. I'm sure the next generation will find a
    way to use more memory and I'll have it. So, go with 2GB.
     
    Tony, Dec 15, 2007
    #9
  10. Bob Ford

    Joe Guest

    Just curious, but if you have more RAM than your video editor needs- and
    you're in the middle of working that editor, if you then multitask- say
    writing a letter while a spreadsheet is calculating and downloading a large
    file, will it jam up the working of the editor? That is- with 4 gigs.....

    It's often recommended that when burning a DVD - to avoid doing anything
    else with the computer, regardless of how much RAM you have.

    Joe
     
    Joe, Dec 15, 2007
    #10
  11. "Joe" wrote ...
    But that is likely more of an inssue of interfering with the
    critical I/O required to burn high-density discs vs. what the
    RAM is used for.
     
    Richard Crowley, Dec 15, 2007
    #11
  12. Bob Ford

    Bob Ford Guest

    I multi task with my computer all the time while burning DVDs with no
    problems in doing so.
    Bob Ford
    Images In Motion
    www.imagesinmotion.com
     
    Bob Ford, Dec 15, 2007
    #12
  13. Bob Ford

    Jim Guest

    Same here. Quite heavily
    However, I burn everything at 4x, and always run verify after.
    No exceptions.
    Makes it easier on the system (and my piece of mind) and creates a better
    burn.
     
    Jim, Dec 16, 2007
    #13
  14. Bob Ford

    MG Guest

    I run Elements 3.0 on a laptop with a Sempron processor (1.56 mhz) and 1 gb
    of RAM, of which 128 mb goes to video. It runs ok, but I absolutely do not
    multitask while editing, and I disable wireless, antivirus, etc. I am not
    doing HD, of course. I tried to upgrade to PE 4.0 and it just would not
    run. What you propose should work fine for Elements. Pro might be another
    story.

    mg
     
    MG, Dec 16, 2007
    #14
  15. Bob Ford

    Jim Guest

    Good point.
    Multi-tasking is 100% system dependant,

    I work with dual Xeons and pull off of fast scsi and sata raids.
    I also put my DVD drive on a separate ide bus than my system hard drive.
     
    Jim, Dec 16, 2007
    #15
  16. Bob Ford

    Arny Krueger Guest

    No 32 bit operating system can address more than 4 GB of RAM.

    The 32 bit versions of XP and Vista provide reliable support for 2 GB of
    RAM, and selective support for 3 GB. 1 GB of the 4 GB address space that 32
    bit addressing supports is reserved by XP.

    There are 64 bit versions of XP and Vista that can address more than 64 bits
    of RAM, but you may not be able to find stable 64 bit drivers for all of
    the I/O devices that you have.
     
    Arny Krueger, Dec 16, 2007
    #16
  17. Bob Ford

    nappy Guest

    Unless you are in a 64bit OS you will only get to use 3G of that. With 1G
    always going to the system, swap etc..
    And in order to even see that much you have to implement the "3G" switch in
    your boot.ini file.
     
    nappy, Dec 16, 2007
    #17
  18. Bob Ford

    Arny Krueger Guest

    The application also has to be specially-written to exploit the memory
    between 2 GB and 3 GB.
     
    Arny Krueger, Dec 16, 2007
    #18
  19. Bob Ford

    nappy Guest

    This is the first time I had heard that. As a long time Windows developer I
    am not sure where any of that specific coding would be done. I would assume
    that woudl be somewhat flat across the 2G barrier.

    Can you elaborate on that?
     
    nappy, Dec 16, 2007
    #19
  20. That's true if you want any single application to be able to use more
    than 2 GB of memory. On the other hand, if you have many applications
    running at once, all of which use less than 2 GB, it can still be very
    useful to have 4 GB total so all the applications can remain in real
    memory instead of paging.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Dec 17, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.