Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › Technique › Editing › Editing CPU’s
- This topic has 4 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 14 years, 9 months ago by Anonymous.
July 19, 2006 at 11:10 AM #44703AnonymousInactive
All right experts…I know this question is probably going to come down to several varying opinion answers. But that is exactly why I am posting this.
I’m still looking for a computer for video editing and something I’m a little hung-up on is the processor to choose. I think I have narrowed it down to Intel, but persuade me otherwise if necessary.
I’m running the Adobe suite (not working with HD but hopefully in the future) and I don’t know whether running a Pentium D processor with about 3.0 Ghz, or a much higher Pentium 4 3.6 Ghz w/HT would be the better option. Do I need that initial speed or would Adobe be more centered on multitasking and be better suited for the Pentium D processors?
July 19, 2006 at 12:09 PM #187081AnonymousInactive
An obvious answer would be to get the fastest chip you can afford. Also duel core are better than single core chips obviously. However, its not just a fast CPU that will make or break an editing system. The onboard chipset of the motherboard has a MAJOR role as well as other various components.
The link below will take you to a web site that talks about different types of editing computers for video. It talks about various hardware configurations and how it all comes together. Once you read all of them you should be able to answer your own question.
July 19, 2006 at 12:19 PM #187082AnonymousInactive
Anything with a Dual core (or dual processors altogether) is going to run circles around anything with a single core processor. If you’re serious about video editing, dual core is the affordable way to go. If you’re serious about it and you’re willing to drop the extra cash, a full dual (or even -drool- quad) processor system would eat up anything on the consumer market.
Speed is important, but the reason Intel stopped labeling their processors by speed was because speed isn’t the only option to consider. You also have to look at variables such as bus speed, Cache size, and chip configuration in general. A well built 1 Ghz processor can run with a 2Ghz easily – Just look at Macs from pre-Intel days to see what I mean. Their slower processers were still better (or at least as good as) the "faster" Intel processors at the time.
I’ve got the Pentium Dual core D 930 processor in my machine, and honestly, I couldn’t be happier with it. I’m rendering basic video in speeds faster than real time currently, which is pretty amazing.
Dual core or dual processor (if you’re loaded!) is the way to go. That, in combination with at least a gig of Ram (hopefully at least 2 Gigs) and you’re sittin’ pretty.
July 20, 2006 at 3:58 PM #187084AnonymousInactive
I built a Pentium D 2.8GHz dual core with the Intel D975X chipset motherboard and 2Gig of DDR2 667 RAM. I have edited video with as many as 10 video tracks, most of them having some type of filter, keying, or motion added and realtime preview does NOT stutter. Transcoding to MPEG2 is faster than realtime AND I can work on something else (such as Photoshop) while transcoding or exporting from Premiere.
Dual core kicks major a$$. I have the Intel 920 processor, a 550W PSU, and the ATI Radeon X1300pro PCI x16 Graphics.
I agree that the chipset is extremely important. The 975 chipset is Intels most powerful, at least when I bought mine.
July 20, 2006 at 6:37 PM #187083videolabParticipant
If you can wait a bit longer then I would. Intel anounced today that they would be shipping Quad core procs this year as apposed to next. If nothing else this will drive down the prices even more on current models. Which right now it is already a buyers market. The competition between Intel and AMD has driven down the prices very well. So if you cant wait buy the fastest dual core you can afford and you will not be dissapointed they are all fast.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.