Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Information > Big Time Upgrade

Reply
Thread Tools

Big Time Upgrade

 
 
slats1
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-15-2009
Hello and Thanks for looking,,,

I have an older computer with Windows 2000 that
I'd like to beef up to handle Video Editing with Premier 6. I can
only take the Ram up to 2 GB. The processor is a Pentium 2 I think. I
plan on getting an external hard drive around 750GB's.
Will I have enough memory, power etc. to handle a steady
flow of video. I need to edit
the church videos about an hour long.
Any help most appreciated. Thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Steve
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2009
slats1 wrote:
> Hello and Thanks for looking,,,
>
> I have an older computer with Windows 2000 that
> I'd like to beef up to handle Video Editing with Premier 6. I can
> only take the Ram up to 2 GB. The processor is a Pentium 2 I think. I
> plan on getting an external hard drive around 750GB's.
> Will I have enough memory, power etc. to handle a steady
> flow of video. I need to edit
> the church videos about an hour long.
> Any help most appreciated. Thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Steve
> (E-Mail Removed)
>


Slow down a bit first.

If the computer can take 2GB of RAM, the processor is probably
more modern than a Pentium 2. It could be a Pentium 4 for
example.

Video editing is pretty demanding, especially when the final
file is rendered. No matter what processor you have, it is
going to take a while. It might have to run all night, and
part way into the next day, for example.

If you have Win2K as your OS, it should be upgraded
to Service Pack 4 (SP4). That will aid in supporting
the large hard drive. The hard drive could be formatted
with NTFS (from Disk Management), as NTFS supports large
files such as your video files. A video file could be
larger than 4GB, for example, and FAT32 would be a poor
choice in that case, because it doesn't support files
larger than that.

The requirements for Premiere 6.5 are listed here. They're
claiming you could edit with a PIII 500MHz, and real time preview
with PIII 800MHz. They don't seem to be specifying a lot of
RAM, so you might even try the program using the RAM you
have currently. I'd probably want 512MB as a comfortable
minimum starting point - sure, the OSes can probably
be run with less, but I wouldn't want to use a system
that way.

http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-25500410...534&s=software

To get some data about your computer, try this program.
It'll tell you about the processor and the RAM. Download
the program, then run cpuz.exe . There is nothing to install,
and running cpuz.exe will show the results.

http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php

In this screenshot, the processor name is "AMD Sempron 2600+"
and the actual clock speed is 1608.5MHz (~ 1.6GHz). The 2600+
part, would tell you the processor is roughly as fast
as a 2.6GHz Celeron from Intel. So CPUZ can give you some idea
what hardware is inside the computer.

http://news.softpedia.com/images/rev...-Z_01large.png

Good luck,
Paul
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
sandy58
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2009
On Feb 15, 11:18*pm, slats1 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Hello and Thanks for looking,,,
>
> * * * * * * * * * * *I have an older computer with Windows 2000 that
> I'd like to beef up to handle Video Editing with Premier 6. * I can
> only take the Ram up to 2 GB. The processor is a Pentium 2 I think. I
> plan on getting an external hard drive around 750GB's.
> * * * * * * * Will I have enough memory, power etc. to handle a steady
> flow of video. *I need to edit
> the church videos about an hour long.
> * * * *Any help most appreciated. * Thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Steve
> (E-Mail Removed)


alt.video.dvd.authoring & Ping "Ken Maltby".
He's your man.
Good luck, slats1
 
Reply With Quote
 
gnu / linux
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2009
On Feb 15, 5:18 pm, slats1 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Hello and Thanks for looking,,,
>
> I have an older computer with Windows 2000 that
> I'd like to beef up to handle Video Editing with Premier 6. I can
> only take the Ram up to 2 GB. The processor is a Pentium 2 I think. I
> plan on getting an external hard drive around 750GB's.
> Will I have enough memory, power etc. to handle a steady
> flow of video. I need to edit
> the church videos about an hour long.
> Any help most appreciated. Thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Steve
> (E-Mail Removed)


wrong tool for the job, Paul has good advice ()
 
Reply With Quote
 
slats1
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2009
On Feb 18, 10:43*pm, "gnu / linux" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 5:18 pm, slats1 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Hello and Thanks for looking,,,



>
> > * * * * * * * * * * *I have an older computer with Windows 2000 that
> > I'd like to beef up to handle Video Editing with Premier 6. > wrong tool for the job, Paul has good advice ()




Thanks to Paul, Dennis, Sandy & Gnu for your feedback. I dug a little
deeper on the old computer. It's a Pentium 4 1.7Ghz, can only take
the Ram to 2GB, has a ASUS motherboard P4B266-C (socket 47 which is
a pretty big board with 7 slots. It has a Firewire board.
But I think I'll need a bigger faster unit. I don't think I'll
be able to get this unit up to what I need according to you guys. I
was just trying to keep myself to 2 computers, and beef this one up a
bit. I have a Dell Dimension 2400 upstairs that I use just for
internet, e-mails, etc. It's too small too.
Thanks for all the help. I'll have to shop around or
maybe build a unit. I've never done it before. The harddrive
formatting is Greek to me....Ha !!! I'd need a windows software too.
I have the Premier & Photoshop software. Later,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Steve

(E-Mail Removed)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2009
slats1 wrote:
> On Feb 18, 10:43 pm, "gnu / linux" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 5:18 pm, slats1 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello and Thanks for looking,,,

>
>
>>> I have an older computer with Windows 2000 that
>>> I'd like to beef up to handle Video Editing with Premier 6. > wrong tool for the job, Paul has good advice ()

>
>
>
> Thanks to Paul, Dennis, Sandy & Gnu for your feedback. I dug a little
> deeper on the old computer. It's a Pentium 4 1.7Ghz, can only take
> the Ram to 2GB, has a ASUS motherboard P4B266-C (socket 47 which is
> a pretty big board with 7 slots. It has a Firewire board.
> But I think I'll need a bigger faster unit. I don't think I'll
> be able to get this unit up to what I need according to you guys. I
> was just trying to keep myself to 2 computers, and beef this one up a
> bit. I have a Dell Dimension 2400 upstairs that I use just for
> internet, e-mails, etc. It's too small too.
> Thanks for all the help. I'll have to shop around or
> maybe build a unit. I've never done it before. The harddrive
> formatting is Greek to me....Ha !!! I'd need a windows software too.
> I have the Premier & Photoshop software. Later,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Steve
>
> (E-Mail Removed)
>
>


Test using the equipment you already have. Then, when you shop for
a new machine, you'll be able to estimate how much faster the
new machine will be.

As an example, let's take a Q9550 for $280.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115041

The processor has four cores running at 2.83GHz. Multiply each
core by somewhere between 1.5x and 1.8x, to equate to a P4. So
each core is worth about 4.24Ghz, then multiply by four since
there are four cores. That gives 16.98GHz. Or roughly ten times
as fast as your 1.7GHz processor.

Now, will it always be ten times as fast. No. For many ordinary
things, it'll be twice as fast. The desktop might not even appear
to be updating faster. The power will be deceptive, and only
evident while you're rendering the video.

Only certain programs use multiple cores at the same time,
to work on the same problem. For example, Microsoft Word or
Powerpoint or Excel, have no reason to be using more than
one core. It is hard to find work that can be parallelized
in those cases.

Multimedia is different. Some multimedia problems can be
solved via "divide and conquer" algorithms. For example,
in Photoshop, I can split a picture, into four "sub-pictures",
then splice the results together. If each core works on
a "sub-picture", I might get close to a 4x speedup
by having four cores. (The Intel Quad Core, sees a
3.5x speedup when using four cores, because the FSB
tends to choke a bit. This is not something to worry
about.)

It is going to be hard to get detailed information on
older versions of Premier & Photoshop. Photoshop is known
to divide its filters into two groups. One half of the filters
only run on a single core. The other half run on more cores.
Some versions of Photoshop, might only use two of the four
cores. These are the unknowns, of getting the benefits of
the modern processors.

But before spending any money, you should determine whether
the existing platform can do the job. Do a test run, and
see how dreadful the whole process is. If the rendering
stage can run overnight, and you don't have to look at the
screen, that isn't so bad. Even with a new quad core processor,
there is still going to be a wait during rendering. You'll be
walking away from the new computer too, when rendering runs.
But the number of hours will be reduced significantly.

So whether the old computer is really not useful, depends
on whether the render is still running the next day when
you wake up. If it always completes the job overnight for
you, then I'd say you don't really need any more hardware.

In this Photoshop chart, you'll notice that a dual core
processor is beating some more powerful quad core processors.
This is an example of a hidden gotcha - perhaps if Tomshardware
found a patch for CS3, the quad core processors would do better.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...-CS-3,826.html

In this benchmark, the nominally more powerful processors, are winning.
You can see the Q9550 is now doing pretty good, for the money.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...1.5.1,832.html

I'm not crazy about the Tomshardware charts - you'd be better off
looking for an article that gives details about the test results,
like whether all the cores were working on the problem, or any
issues the testers had with the software. A chart alone, is
a poor substitute for useful information.

Paul
 
Reply With Quote
 
slats1
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2009
On Feb 19, 2:43*pm, Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> slats1 wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 10:43 pm, "gnu / linux" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> On Feb 15, 5:18 pm, slats1 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >>> Hello and Thanks for looking,,,

>
> >>> * * * * * * * * * * *I have an older computer with Windows 2000 that
> >>> I'd like to beef up to handle Video Editing with Premier 6. > wrong tool for the job, Paul has good advice ()

>
> > Thanks to Paul, Dennis, Sandy & Gnu for your feedback. *I dug a little
> > deeper on the old computer. *It's a Pentium 4 1.7Ghz, can only take
> > the Ram to 2GB, has a ASUS motherboard P4B266-C (socket 47 which is
> > a pretty big board with 7 slots. It has a Firewire board.
> > * * * *But I think I'll need a bigger faster unit. *I don't think I'll
> > be able to get this unit up to what I need according to you guys. *I
> > was just trying to keep myself to 2 computers, and beef this one up a
> > bit. *I have a Dell Dimension 2400 upstairs that I use just for
> > internet, e-mails, etc. It's too small too.
> > * * * * * * Thanks for all the help. *I'll have to shop around or
> > maybe build a unit. *I've never done it before. *The harddrive
> > formatting is Greek to me....Ha !!! *I'd need a windows software too.
> > I have the Premier & Photoshop software. * *Later,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> > Steve

>
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (E-Mail Removed)

>
> Test using the equipment you already have. Then, when you shop for
> a new machine, you'll be able to estimate how much faster the
> new machine will be.
>
> As an example, let's take a Q9550 for $280.
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115041
>
> The processor has four cores running at 2.83GHz. Multiply each
> core by somewhere between 1.5x and 1.8x, to equate to a P4. So
> each core is worth about 4.24Ghz, then multiply by four since
> there are four cores. That gives 16.98GHz. Or roughly ten times
> as fast as your 1.7GHz processor.
>
> Now, will it always be ten times as fast. No. For many ordinary
> things, it'll be twice as fast. The desktop might not even appear
> to be updating faster. The power will be deceptive, and only
> evident while you're rendering the video.
>
> Only certain programs use multiple cores at the same time,
> to work on the same problem. For example, Microsoft Word or
> Powerpoint or Excel, have no reason to be using more than
> one core. It is hard to find work that can be parallelized
> in those cases.
>
> Multimedia is different. Some multimedia problems can be
> solved via "divide and conquer" algorithms. For example,
> in Photoshop, I can split a picture, into four "sub-pictures",
> then splice the results together. If each core works on
> a "sub-picture", I might get close to a 4x speedup
> by having four cores. (The Intel Quad Core, sees a
> 3.5x speedup when using four cores, because the FSB
> tends to choke a bit. This is not something to worry
> about.)
>
> It is going to be hard to get detailed information on
> older versions of Premier & Photoshop. Photoshop is known
> to divide its filters into two groups. One half of the filters
> only run on a single core. The other half run on more cores.
> Some versions of Photoshop, might only use two of the four
> cores. These are the unknowns, of getting the benefits of
> the modern processors.
>
> But before spending any money, you should determine whether
> the existing platform can do the job. Do a test run, and
> see how dreadful the whole process is. If the rendering
> stage can run overnight, and you don't have to look at the
> screen, that isn't so bad. Even with a new quad core processor,
> there is still going to be a wait during rendering. You'll be
> walking away from the new computer too, when rendering runs.
> But the number of hours will be reduced significantly.
>
> So whether the old computer is really not useful, depends
> on whether the render is still running the next day when
> you wake up. If it always completes the job overnight for
> you, then I'd say you don't really need any more hardware.
>
> In this Photoshop chart, you'll notice that a dual core
> processor is beating some more powerful quad core processors.
> This is an example of a hidden gotcha - perhaps if Tomshardware
> found a patch for CS3, the quad core processors would do better.
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...3-2008/Photosh...
>
> In this benchmark, the nominally more powerful processors, are winning.
> You can see the Q9550 is now doing pretty good, for the money.
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...3-2008/Maincon...
>
> I'm not crazy about the Tomshardware charts - you'd be better off
> looking for an article that gives details about the test results,
> like whether all the cores were working on the problem, or any
> issues the testers had with the software. A chart alone, is
> a poor substitute for useful information.
>
> * * Paul- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Paul,,,,,Wow, Thanks again for a speedy reply. I'm not the type of
guy to wait around much. If I can't get a 45 minute video, cut up,
titled and reworked, maybe a few audio changes in 3-4 hours, it ain't
gunna happen. I'm too antsie !! Ha ,,,
I'm trying some video editing training at a local Public Media place
and they have Globecaster equiptment. I hope to get some training on
that. They work up short videos (30-60 minutes) in about 2 hours.
I tried just viewing some video on the set up I have
now. The audio kept lagging behind even after viewing for 1
minute. If I had a copy of the Windows XP Movie Maker I'd try that
down there before getting into that hugh Premiere software. The Movie
MAker has alot of nice features, and that's probably all I need.
However I have Windows 2000 on the older unit. How Can I install
WindowsXP on the older unit that has Windows 2000 ?? MAybe that will
be easier before I try all this rebuilding and configuring .
LMK,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Steve
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2009
slats1 wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:43 pm, Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> slats1 wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 10:43 pm, "gnu / linux" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 15, 5:18 pm, slats1 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> Hello and Thanks for looking,,,
>>>>> I have an older computer with Windows 2000 that
>>>>> I'd like to beef up to handle Video Editing with Premier 6. > wrong tool for the job, Paul has good advice ()
>>> Thanks to Paul, Dennis, Sandy & Gnu for your feedback. I dug a little
>>> deeper on the old computer. It's a Pentium 4 1.7Ghz, can only take
>>> the Ram to 2GB, has a ASUS motherboard P4B266-C (socket 47 which is
>>> a pretty big board with 7 slots. It has a Firewire board.
>>> But I think I'll need a bigger faster unit. I don't think I'll
>>> be able to get this unit up to what I need according to you guys. I
>>> was just trying to keep myself to 2 computers, and beef this one up a
>>> bit. I have a Dell Dimension 2400 upstairs that I use just for
>>> internet, e-mails, etc. It's too small too.
>>> Thanks for all the help. I'll have to shop around or
>>> maybe build a unit. I've never done it before. The harddrive
>>> formatting is Greek to me....Ha !!! I'd need a windows software too.
>>> I have the Premier & Photoshop software. Later,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>>> Steve
>>> (E-Mail Removed)

>> Test using the equipment you already have. Then, when you shop for
>> a new machine, you'll be able to estimate how much faster the
>> new machine will be.
>>
>> As an example, let's take a Q9550 for $280.
>>
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115041
>>
>> The processor has four cores running at 2.83GHz. Multiply each
>> core by somewhere between 1.5x and 1.8x, to equate to a P4. So
>> each core is worth about 4.24Ghz, then multiply by four since
>> there are four cores. That gives 16.98GHz. Or roughly ten times
>> as fast as your 1.7GHz processor.
>>
>> Now, will it always be ten times as fast. No. For many ordinary
>> things, it'll be twice as fast. The desktop might not even appear
>> to be updating faster. The power will be deceptive, and only
>> evident while you're rendering the video.
>>
>> Only certain programs use multiple cores at the same time,
>> to work on the same problem. For example, Microsoft Word or
>> Powerpoint or Excel, have no reason to be using more than
>> one core. It is hard to find work that can be parallelized
>> in those cases.
>>
>> Multimedia is different. Some multimedia problems can be
>> solved via "divide and conquer" algorithms. For example,
>> in Photoshop, I can split a picture, into four "sub-pictures",
>> then splice the results together. If each core works on
>> a "sub-picture", I might get close to a 4x speedup
>> by having four cores. (The Intel Quad Core, sees a
>> 3.5x speedup when using four cores, because the FSB
>> tends to choke a bit. This is not something to worry
>> about.)
>>
>> It is going to be hard to get detailed information on
>> older versions of Premier & Photoshop. Photoshop is known
>> to divide its filters into two groups. One half of the filters
>> only run on a single core. The other half run on more cores.
>> Some versions of Photoshop, might only use two of the four
>> cores. These are the unknowns, of getting the benefits of
>> the modern processors.
>>
>> But before spending any money, you should determine whether
>> the existing platform can do the job. Do a test run, and
>> see how dreadful the whole process is. If the rendering
>> stage can run overnight, and you don't have to look at the
>> screen, that isn't so bad. Even with a new quad core processor,
>> there is still going to be a wait during rendering. You'll be
>> walking away from the new computer too, when rendering runs.
>> But the number of hours will be reduced significantly.
>>
>> So whether the old computer is really not useful, depends
>> on whether the render is still running the next day when
>> you wake up. If it always completes the job overnight for
>> you, then I'd say you don't really need any more hardware.
>>
>> In this Photoshop chart, you'll notice that a dual core
>> processor is beating some more powerful quad core processors.
>> This is an example of a hidden gotcha - perhaps if Tomshardware
>> found a patch for CS3, the quad core processors would do better.
>>
>> http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...3-2008/Photosh...
>>
>> In this benchmark, the nominally more powerful processors, are winning.
>> You can see the Q9550 is now doing pretty good, for the money.
>>
>> http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...3-2008/Maincon...
>>
>> I'm not crazy about the Tomshardware charts - you'd be better off
>> looking for an article that gives details about the test results,
>> like whether all the cores were working on the problem, or any
>> issues the testers had with the software. A chart alone, is
>> a poor substitute for useful information.
>>
>> Paul- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

>
> Paul,,,,,Wow, Thanks again for a speedy reply. I'm not the type of
> guy to wait around much. If I can't get a 45 minute video, cut up,
> titled and reworked, maybe a few audio changes in 3-4 hours, it ain't
> gunna happen. I'm too antsie !! Ha ,,,
> I'm trying some video editing training at a local Public Media place
> and they have Globecaster equiptment. I hope to get some training on
> that. They work up short videos (30-60 minutes) in about 2 hours.
> I tried just viewing some video on the set up I have
> now. The audio kept lagging behind even after viewing for 1
> minute. If I had a copy of the Windows XP Movie Maker I'd try that
> down there before getting into that hugh Premiere software. The Movie
> MAker has alot of nice features, and that's probably all I need.
> However I have Windows 2000 on the older unit. How Can I install
> WindowsXP on the older unit that has Windows 2000 ?? MAybe that will
> be easier before I try all this rebuilding and configuring .
> LMK,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Steve


Some people multiboot (have more than one OS on the same drive).
There may be a menu that shows up early in the boot process, that
allows selecting an OS. (I used to use Boot Magic, which is a
third party boot manager, but have stopped using that approach.)

I now use a simple scheme, and rely on the BIOS to select the boot
drive. I have a function key, that when pressed early in the BIOS
POST sequence, pops up a list of drives to boot from. I can
select a drive there.

When I install an OS, only the target drive is connected to the
computer. All other drives, except the CD, are disconnected. This
prevents certain "surprises" from happening. When I installed WinXP,
I did that too.

Currently, I have two drives installed. One drive has Win2K. The
second has WinXP Pro SP3. The WinXP Pro comes with Windows Movie Maker.
All I've managed to do with it, is assemble clips with zero special
effects between clips. I haven't managed to figure out, how to
change the duration of an effect, like increase the fade-in/fade-out
time.

When the movie is originally read in (so segments can be detected),
that occurs with one core of my dual core processor. When WMM
is rendering the final output, it runs both cores, at a load of
about 90% or so. So it seems to make good use of my dual core.

Would I use WMM for serious work. Um, no.

If you want, some of the video editors offer a free trial period.
For example, you may be able to try one of the versions of
Sony Vegas for a limited period of time. (You'd download it, and
by some means, they provide a license key which works for a limited
time.) Which will give you some idea, what features it has and
how well it works.

Paul
 
Reply With Quote
 
slats1
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2009
On Feb 19, 4:48*pm, Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> slats1 wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 2:43 pm, Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> slats1 wrote:
> >>> On Feb 18, 10:43 pm, "gnu / linux" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 15, 5:18 pm, slats1 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>>> Hello and Thanks for looking,,,
> >>>>> * * * * * * * * * * *I have an older computer with Windows 2000 that
> >>>>> I'd like to beef up to handle Video Editing with Premier 6. > wrong tool for the job, Paul has good advice ()
> >>> Thanks to Paul, Dennis, Sandy & Gnu for your feedback. *I dug a little
> >>> deeper on the old computer. *It's a Pentium 4 1.7Ghz, can only take
> >>> the Ram to 2GB, has a ASUS motherboard P4B266-C (socket 47 which is
> >>> a pretty big board with 7 slots. It has a Firewire board.
> >>> * * * *But I think I'll need a bigger faster unit. *I don't think I'll
> >>> be able to get this unit up to what I need according to you guys. *I
> >>> was just trying to keep myself to 2 computers, and beef this one up a
> >>> bit. *I have a Dell Dimension 2400 upstairs that I use just for
> >>> internet, e-mails, etc. It's too small too.
> >>> * * * * * * Thanks for all the help. *I'll have to shop around or
> >>> maybe build a unit. *I've never done it before. *The harddrive
> >>> formatting is Greek to me....Ha !!! *I'd need a windows software too.
> >>> I have the Premier & Photoshop software. * *Later,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> >>> Steve
> >>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (E-Mail Removed)
> >> Test using the equipment you already have. Then, when you shop for
> >> a new machine, you'll be able to estimate how much faster the
> >> new machine will be.

>
> >> As an example, let's take a Q9550 for $280.

>
> >>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115041

>
> >> The processor has four cores running at 2.83GHz. Multiply each
> >> core by somewhere between 1.5x and 1.8x, to equate to a P4. So
> >> each core is worth about 4.24Ghz, then multiply by four since
> >> there are four cores. That gives 16.98GHz. Or roughly ten times
> >> as fast as your 1.7GHz processor.

>
> >> Now, will it always be ten times as fast. No. For many ordinary
> >> things, it'll be twice as fast. The desktop might not even appear
> >> to be updating faster. The power will be deceptive, and only
> >> evident while you're rendering the video.

>
> >> Only certain programs use multiple cores at the same time,
> >> to work on the same problem. For example, Microsoft Word or
> >> Powerpoint or Excel, have no reason to be using more than
> >> one core. It is hard to find work that can be parallelized
> >> in those cases.

>
> >> Multimedia is different. Some multimedia problems can be
> >> solved via "divide and conquer" algorithms. For example,
> >> in Photoshop, I can split a picture, into four "sub-pictures",
> >> then splice the results together. If each core works on
> >> a "sub-picture", I might get close to a 4x speedup
> >> by having four cores. (The Intel Quad Core, sees a
> >> 3.5x speedup when using four cores, because the FSB
> >> tends to choke a bit. This is not something to worry
> >> about.)

>
> >> It is going to be hard to get detailed information on
> >> older versions of Premier & Photoshop. Photoshop is known
> >> to divide its filters into two groups. One half of the filters
> >> only run on a single core. The other half run on more cores.
> >> Some versions of Photoshop, might only use two of the four
> >> cores. These are the unknowns, of getting the benefits of
> >> the modern processors.

>
> >> But before spending any money, you should determine whether
> >> the existing platform can do the job. Do a test run, and
> >> see how dreadful the whole process is. If the rendering
> >> stage can run overnight, and you don't have to look at the
> >> screen, that isn't so bad. Even with a new quad core processor,
> >> there is still going to be a wait during rendering. You'll be
> >> walking away from the new computer too, when rendering runs.
> >> But the number of hours will be reduced significantly.

>
> >> So whether the old computer is really not useful, depends
> >> on whether the render is still running the next day when
> >> you wake up. If it always completes the job overnight for
> >> you, then I'd say you don't really need any more hardware.

>
> >> In this Photoshop chart, you'll notice that a dual core
> >> processor is beating some more powerful quad core processors.
> >> This is an example of a hidden gotcha - perhaps if Tomshardware
> >> found a patch for CS3, the quad core processors would do better.

>
> >>http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...3-2008/Photosh....

>
> >> In this benchmark, the nominally more powerful processors, are winning..
> >> You can see the Q9550 is now doing pretty good, for the money.

>
> >>http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...3-2008/Maincon....

>
> >> I'm not crazy about the Tomshardware charts - you'd be better off
> >> looking for an article that gives details about the test results,
> >> like whether all the cores were working on the problem, or any
> >> issues the testers had with the software. A chart alone, is
> >> a poor substitute for useful information.

>
> >> * * Paul- Hide quoted text -

>
> >> - Show quoted text -

>
> > Paul,,,,,Wow, * Thanks again for a speedy reply. * I'm not the type of
> > guy to wait around much. If I can't get a 45 minute video, cut up,
> > titled and reworked, maybe a few audio changes in 3-4 hours, it ain't
> > gunna happen. *I'm too antsie !! Ha ,,,
> > I'm trying some video editing training at a local Public Media place
> > and they have Globecaster equiptment. *I hope to get some training on
> > that. *They work up short videos (30-60 minutes) in about 2 hours.
> > * * * * * * * I tried just viewing some video on the set up I have
> > now. *The audio kept lagging behind even after viewing for 1
> > minute. * *If I had a copy of the Windows XP Movie Maker I'd try that
> > down there before getting into that hugh Premiere software. *The Movie
> > MAker has alot of nice features, and that's probably all I need.
> > However I have Windows 2000 on the older unit. How Can I install
> > WindowsXP on the older unit that has Windows 2000 ?? * MAybe that will
> > be easier before I try all this rebuilding and configuring .
> > LMK,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, *Thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Steve

>
> Some people multiboot (have more than one OS on the same drive).
> There may be a menu that shows up early in the boot process, that
> allows selecting an OS. (I used to use Boot Magic, which is a
> third party boot manager, but have stopped using that approach.)
>
> I now use a simple scheme, and rely on the BIOS to select the boot
> drive. I have a function key, that when pressed early in the BIOS
> POST sequence, pops up a list of drives to boot from. I can
> select a drive there.
>
> When I install an OS, only the target drive is connected to the
> computer. All other drives, except the CD, are disconnected. This
> prevents certain "surprises" from happening. When I installed WinXP,
> I did that too.
>
> Currently, I have two drives installed. One drive has Win2K. The
> second has WinXP Pro SP3. The WinXP Pro comes with Windows Movie Maker.
> All I've managed to do with it, is assemble clips with zero special
> effects between clips. I haven't managed to figure out, how to
> change the duration of an effect, like increase the fade-in/fade-out
> time.
>
> When the movie is originally read in (so segments can be detected),
> that occurs with one core of my dual core processor. When WMM
> is rendering the final output, it runs both cores, at a load of
> about 90% or so. So it seems to make good use of my dual core.
>
> Would I use WMM for serious work. Um, no.
>
> If you want, some of the video editors offer a free trial period.
> For example, you may be able to try one of the versions of
> Sony Vegas for a limited period of time. (You'd download it, and
> by some means, they provide a license key which works for a limited
> time.) Which will give you some idea, what features it has and
> how well it works.
>
> * * Paul- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Paul,
You speed demon you. Thanks again,,,,I've read through
all your post and I'll figure out an angle of attack,,,HA !!!
A friend of mine showed me alot of the features on the Movie Maker,,,I
was impressed. Transitions, film speed, sound tracts, titles, stills,
photos, overlays,,,,,,,Pretty cool.
Thanks again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Steve
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RE: windows 7 upgrade premium, bugs and it lags big time. Carlos Windows 64bit 0 11-11-2009 01:16 PM
GIDS 2009 .Net:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf ASP .Net 0 12-26-2008 09:29 AM
GIDS 2009 .Net:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf ASP .Net Web Controls 0 12-26-2008 06:11 AM
GIDS 2009 Java:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf Python 0 12-24-2008 07:35 AM
GIDS 2009 Java:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf Ruby 0 12-24-2008 05:07 AM



Advertisments