64-bit already?

Viewing 11 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #36635
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      Got this brand new Athlon64 machine the other day and I’m really puzzled: this 64-bit processor seems to work slower than some 32-bits in some “normal” low-level applications and tasks… I was told this is normal, as it only emulates 32-bit.
      Now of course, since I do viditing, the gain in speed is dramatic compared to my old Athlon XP but besides that, A64 is not such a great processor in daily tasks.
      Do you have similar experiences or is everyone here using Intel platforms?

    • #162872
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      You won’t see a dramatic improvement until Operating Systems and Programs are 64 bit. They already have Windows XP x64 edition, which is 64 bit, and I believe the only 64 bit editing program is Vegas 6 (?). Next year, Microsoft will release the Longhorn operating system which has 100% 64 bit support.

      Btw, I use a single Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz, no hyper-threading, and it’s fast enough. I don’t plan on going 64 bit in the near future. Instead, I’m planning my next system around dual Intel Xeon 3.06 GHz processors. I believe that two Xeons are much faster than any single 64 bit processor. But that’s just my opinion πŸ˜€

      Good luck with your new system!!

    • #162873
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      To render and burn an hour’s worth of video? I use Matrox’s Real Time Export to Disk, so it takes exactly an hour to render. Adobe Media Encoder is only 1 or 2 minutes faster than real time, plus I find it very unreliable: it has crashed my system numerous times. Then to burn, my burner is a couple years old, and it only burns up to 4x, however I burn at 2x just to be safe. Since I start the burning and walk away, I don’t really know the time it takes to burn an hour’s worth of video at 2x (maybe 15-30 minutes as a guess). But add that to the hour it takes for rendering and that’s how long it takes me.

      I’m just wondering, how long does it take you to render to DVD an hour’s worth of footage?

    • #162874
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      Well I work mostly with Pinnacle Studio, which you know has an integrated disc authoring function. With the other system (AthlonXP 2200, 512 MB DDRAM) the rendering time sometimes went up to 3:1; never calculated the burning time. With this A64 things go faster (duh!) but I haven’t completed a project yet (I’m working on something right now, hope to have it finished by tomorrow and I’ll see how it goes).

    • #162875
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      Compusolver,

      Sorry the rendering is slowing you. I don’t really shop that much at Videoguys.com, but that price sounds about right. It depends how bad you need it, but you might want to wait for a sale. I got mine from Videomaker Expo West 2005 from Guy Graphics for $899, and they threw in a Shuttle Xpress and a Premiere Pro Total Training DVD!!!!

      With the Matrox card, you can do up to 16 effects and still render 1:1, no matter what your system specs are (well, hopefully over 2 GHz with 512 MB RAM). It used to take me like 6 hours to do that. Wow…. 😯

    • #162876
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      OK, today I burned my first DVD project with the new PC (Athlon64). So it took me 2.5:1 which I think is pretty good.

    • #162877
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      Svhs,

      2.5:1 aint bad at all!

      Compusolver,

      Sure! I’m always happy to help!

      Brand: Medion (www.medionusa.com)
      Model: 7309c
      Motherboard: MSI MD-5000 (made for the Medion computer)
      Processor: single Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz 533FSB
      RAM: 1 GB (2X512MB) PC2700 333Mhz DDR SDRAM
      Storage: 1 120 GB IDE Seagate System/Export Drive – 1 400GB IDE Hitachi DeskStar A/V Drive
      Video Card: nVidia GeForce 4 MX440 (nothing special)
      Audio Card: None (on-board audio)
      Video Capture/Hardware accelerator: Matrox Rt.X100 Suite
      DVD Writer: Sony DRU-510A DVD +-R/RW Internal
      400W Power Supply

      …and that’s pretty much it!

      One thing to ponder while saving for this card, is that Matrox really wants you to build your system around it. I’m not saying scrap everything you have and start fresh. I didn’t have to do that. It’s just that you might have to make some changes. For example, the user’s guide says to “put your system drive and your a/v drive on seperate IDE channels”. It doesn’t make sense, but if you don’t do it, you’ll have serious problems.

      Also, make sure your motherboard’s chipset is compatible with the Rt.X100. You can see the list here:

      http://www.matrox.com/video/support/rtx100xtremepro/rec/home.cfm

      and click on “Rt.X Xtreme-Pro tested chipsets”. You can also find other helpful information on this page.

      Hope this helps!

    • #162878
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      compusolver Wrote:

      could you post a complete breakdown of the components in your machine, including motherboard brand/model, etc.?

      I spared some parts from my old PC and I’m already saving money to improve this one, here it is:
      CPU: AMD Athlon64 3000+ @ 1800 MHz w/ 640 k cache, 1000 MHz FSB, Hyper-Transport technology
      Motherboard: Asus AI Series A8V w/ VIA K8T800 Pro chipset, sk 939
      RAM: 2 x 256 MB DDR400 Dual Channel PQI
      VGA: MSI GeForce4 MX4000 64 MB DDR, AGP 8x (really all I need)
      Capture card: Pinnacle Studio AV/DV 9 (piece de resistance… for a little more than $ 200 I’m more than happy with it)
      Sound cards: Realtek ALC850 8 channel codec (for recording), C-Media CMI8738 6-channel (for play)
      HDD: Western Digital Caviar BB 80 GB w/2 MB cache (system and data drive), Western Digital Caviar JB 80 GB w/8 MB cache (editing drive) – both IDE, not in RAID
      CD-RW: Teac W58E
      DVDRW: LG GSA 4163B 16x DL
      … and Windows XP Home Edition

    • #162879
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      compusolver Wrote:

      It does make sense to put the two drives on different IDEs (IDE 0 for primary drive, IDE 1 for editing drive) and have both as master drives, not slaves, no matter what video cards you’re using. I don’t remember the technical reasons but it has to do with the way the system handles calls to the drive, etc.

      I use a setup that’s recommended by Pinnacle and it’s like this:
      IDE0: Master – System HDD, Slave – Editing HDD;
      IDE1: Master – DVDRW, Slave – CD-RW
      Even some computer technicians told me that it makes no sense, but I can’t argue with Pinnacle now, right?

    • #162880
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      Hmmmm…thinking about it now I guess it does make sense. I also noticed that Matrox isn’t as picky when it comes to SATA RAID because the transfer rates are high. Well, considering you have a good northbridge chip that’s compatible with Matrox…

    • #162881
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      I know this post is a bit late, but…

      The processing power of the 64bit chip is limited by the OS and software. However, in gaming (I know, off topic) the system does the jump to 64bit processing in the new games (D3, UT2004, HL2, etc…) I’ve noticed the lower settings run slower than cranking everything up as high as it will go. I don’t know the cause of this, but my system runs the games smoother with 1600x1200res, 16xanti-alias, full out texturing and buffering, than it does with 800x600res and medium level settings. I don’t mind, per se.

      3 or 4 of my friends with 64bit systems have noticed similar aberations too.

      Wait for Longhorn… Hardware companies should have caught up with making 64bit drivers by then.

    • #162882
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      Good point, but since you’re gaming, your resolution, anti alias, textures etc. are all coming from your video card, not your processor. So I don’t think your processor would have much to do with your screen resolution…

Viewing 11 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Best Products

homicide-bootstrap