Processors? Single, Dual Core, Dual Processor??

Discussion in 'Professional Video Production' started by doc, Jun 14, 2006.

  1. doc

    doc Guest

    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
     
    doc, Jun 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. doc

    Pat Horridge Guest

    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.
     
    Pat Horridge, Jun 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. doc

    doc Guest

    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
     
    doc, Jun 15, 2006
    #3
  4. Hold on a minute. This sounds a lot like the megapixel race.

    If the computer does the job for you now, it will do the job for you in
    18 months as well - regardless of what comes out next. This is similar
    to worrying about how many megapixels the next generation of cameras
    will have. If 6, 8, or 10 are doing the job for you now, then they will
    be just as good 10 years from now.

    The only factor in video worth worrying about is the ability to handle
    HD. So find out which systems can do that, and then get one of those and
    edit. HD won't be replaced for a long time.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Jun 15, 2006
    #4
  5. doc

    Pat Horridge Guest

    True but the speed with which you can do the edit is an important factor if
    you charge for that time.
    A low mega pixel camera takes the pictures at the same rate as a high one.
    A slow old computer will just not process effects and render and export as
    fast as a newer one.
    This is compounded by the fact that some people will have the newest fasted
    kit and when a Client has used their kit they will soon get frustrated when
    moving onto slow kit. They then start to moan and ultimately they vote with
    their feet.
    It is a fine balance of course. It's not always best or most sense money
    wise to get the very fastest. Often one down from fastest is cheaper and
    almost as good. I prefer to stay one step behind the bleeding edge if I can.
     
    Pat Horridge, Jun 15, 2006
    #5
  6. Once you get to real time preview and no rendering required, there is
    nothing more to gain. Maybe a hard drive camcorder.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Jun 16, 2006
    #6
  7. doc

    doc Guest

    i tend to agree with this idea as well. especially when it comes to HD,
    wherein i will wait at least one year (maybe two) to allow the dust to
    settle on format, config, best applications, etc. before running out and
    investing even the slightest of money into it :eek:)

    drd
     
    doc, Jun 16, 2006
    #7
  8. doc

    doc Guest

    is there such a thing as real time, no render anywhere in NLE's?

    drd
     
    doc, Jun 16, 2006
    #8
  9. Only with hardware support.....

    cheers

    -martin-
     
    Martin Heffels, Jun 16, 2006
    #9
  10. Matrox RTX-100 and RT-X2.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Jun 17, 2006
    #10
  11. doc

    doc Guest

    whoa! is this thing it's own NLE or is it an interface that works with
    NLE's?

    drd
     
    doc, Jun 17, 2006
    #11
  12. doc

    Mr. Tapeguy Guest


    A lot of it has to do with how the OS and NLE software allocates the
    data processing. I know of people who actually take the time to
    measure this although admittedly I haven't.

    Benchmark tests often tell the story. I know you don't use Macs but
    just as an example, I did take the time tor read about whether or not
    the new Macbook pros or minis lived up to the claims of "up to x %
    faster" and they certainly did in some applications but not all.

    Overall the concensus seems to be that dual core or dual processors are
    giving you exactly what they are intended to with the limitations being
    from how much the OS and applications have been adapted to use them.
    Over time, that will improve. If you're buying ANY editing system I
    would go with as much beef as you can afford.

    Craig

    http://www.pro-tape.com

    Adobe - Apple - Avid - Canon - Digidesign - M Audio - Panasonic - Sony
     
    Mr. Tapeguy, Jun 17, 2006
    #12
  13. doc

    Mr. Tapeguy Guest

    Hmmm Doc, I thought you'd reasearched all this when you got your Avids.
    "Real time" is now more common than not and a highly-touted feature in
    most NLEs. Some do more than others but we have definitely moved way
    past having to render everything.

    Craig

    http://www.pro-tape.com

    Adobe - Apple - Avid - Denon - Digidesign - JVC - M Audio - Open Labs -
    Panasonic - Sony
     
    Mr. Tapeguy, Jun 17, 2006
    #13
  14. The only thing NLE's can do in real-time, is draw money from your pocket to
    buy it. For the rest, you still have to render if you don't have adequate
    hardware-support.

    -m-
     
    Martin Heffels, Jun 17, 2006
    #14
  15. OK guys, here is the truth: My Matrox RTX-100 will not do all effects or
    any number of effects in real time, but for normal editing such as
    transitions, titles, and superimposed tracks (Video 1, 2, 3 etc) I can
    edit a video, view any section without rendering, and output the movie
    (AVI) in real time. It is just as if I were using straight cuts and no
    supers or effects.

    I would imagine the RT-X2 is even more amazing. I am using just the
    Premiere 6.5.

    GAry Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Jun 18, 2006
    #15
  16. Same with my Canopus DV-Storm. It cna do quite a lot real-time. My most
    favoruite of course is multiple overlays, color-correction, titles, and
    old-video on top of it :) It can't do 3D transitions real-time (just a few
    it can). This should all improve as teh software will start using the
    video-GPU's a bit more.

    Fo most of my editing this is fine, because I don't lile to use transitions
    anyway, but real-time colour-correction, viewable on a decent monitor is a
    must for me.
    Me too. I might upgrade to Premiere Pro v1.5 though. Would love PPro 2, but
    I read that Canopus doesn't upgrade their Storm-drivers for it.

    Never mind, maybe the New Matrox is a logical follow-up, and then I'll
    ditch my DV-Storm.

    cheers

    -martin-
     
    Martin Heffels, Jun 18, 2006
    #16
  17. doc

    doc Guest

    Thanks all for the remarkable help. Definately we will buy a Dual Processor
    if at all possible but at the very least another Dual Core with a hotter
    video card beyond the X700 pci express we have in the other, and probably go
    RAID for drives, perhaps external.

    All in all, we should know something in the next few weeks.

    Thanks again.

    DrD
     
    doc, Jun 18, 2006
    #17
  18. I would love to get the Production Studio with all those programs that I
    need, and a supercomputer to handle it. My Matrox is doing fine for now,
    though. I dunno. Maybe a second system for HD editing. But I would
    probably never use the old one again.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Jun 18, 2006
    #18
    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.