Now this one is not specific to Intel, so AMD folks feel free to chime
in. I have absolutely no preference. I am new to this dual core, quad
core and even triple core processors. Dare I ask which one of these is
better for doing video editing??? Is it the more processors the faster
or is it down to the speed of the processor. I just want the basics
because I know to some this may be a loaded question.

Thanks in Advance

"Syfo-Dyas" <Syfo-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote...
> Now this one is not specific to Intel, so AMD folks feel free to chime
> in. I have absolutely no preference. I am new to this dual core, quad
> core and even triple core processors. Dare I ask which one of these is
> better for doing video editing??? Is it the more processors the faster
> or is it down to the speed of the processor. I just want the basics
> because I know to some this may be a loaded question.

What video editing app are you using? Does it support multiple cores? What
else will you have running at the same time?

Syfo-Dyas wrote:
> Now this one is not specific to Intel, so AMD folks feel free to chime
> in. I have absolutely no preference. I am new to this dual core, quad
> core and even triple core processors. Dare I ask which one of these is
> better for doing video editing??? Is it the more processors the faster
> or is it down to the speed of the processor. I just want the basics
> because I know to some this may be a loaded question.

I faced a similar dilemma on a past upgrade: a 2GHz dual-core, or a 3GHz
hyper-threaded single-core? It was nearly a consensus opinion that:

1) Twice the clock speed does not mean twice the performance.

2) Twice the number of cores does not mean twice the performance.

3) Applications have to be specifically written to take advantage of
multiple cores. Many applications do not, or do not do it well.

One advantage of multiple cores over a single core, is that you can
segregate applications on the core to smooth out performance. If you're
running an aggressive video conversion, for instance, you can put it on
one core while your MP3 player is on another core to keep it from
stuttering.

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:02:58 -0800, "JR Weiss"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Syfo-Dyas" <Syfo-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote...
>> Now this one is not specific to Intel, so AMD folks feel free to chime
>> in. I have absolutely no preference. I am new to this dual core, quad
>> core and even triple core processors. Dare I ask which one of these is
>> better for doing video editing??? Is it the more processors the faster
>> or is it down to the speed of the processor. I just want the basics
>> because I know to some this may be a loaded question.
>
>What video editing app are you using?
Nothing specific.

>Does it support multiple cores?
NO!

>hat else will you have running at the same time?
Nothing really just some basic programs,

"Syfo-Dyas" <Syfo-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> Now this one is not specific to Intel, so AMD folks feel free to chime
> in. I have absolutely no preference. I am new to this dual core, quad
> core and even triple core processors. Dare I ask which one of these is
> better for doing video editing??? Is it the more processors the faster
> or is it down to the speed of the processor. I just want the basics
> because I know to some this may be a loaded question.
>
> Thanks in Advance

As others have pointed out, if your software is not designed to
make use of multiple cores, then there is little but clock speed
to work with (usually resulting in only a minor advantage,
depending on the amount of increase). Going from a 1.2 GHz
P-4 to a 2.66 GHz duo-core Intel resulted in a BIG increase in
speed with Sony Vegas Pro 8. Going from that to a quad-core
Intel 2.83 GHz with additional FS bus RAM and a FS bus
speed an even multiple of the RAM speed resulted in a 2.17X
speed increase, VERY unlike the old experiences of maybe
10-15% speed increases with what would seem to be
considerable clock speed increases.
--DR

"Syfo-Dyas" <Syfo-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>What video editing app are you using?
> Nothing specific.
>
>>Does it support multiple cores?
> NO!
>
>>hat else will you have running at the same time?
> Nothing really just some basic programs,

In that case, given all else (MoBo, HD, gfx card) equal, you will likely benefit
more from a dual-core with a higher clock speed, than a tri- or quad-core with a
lower clock speed.

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:12:42 -0800, "JR Weiss"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Syfo-Dyas" <Syfo-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>What video editing app are you using?
>> Nothing specific.
>>
>>>Does it support multiple cores?
>> NO!
>>
>>>hat else will you have running at the same time?
>> Nothing really just some basic programs,
>
>In that case, given all else (MoBo, HD, gfx card) equal, you will likely benefit
>more from a dual-core with a higher clock speed, than a tri- or quad-core with a
>lower clock speed.
>

Thanks so much you have been very helpful!!! That is exactly the
response I have been getting from my other sources. Again thanks!

"Richard Crowley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote...
>
> Your sources are living in the dark ages and have no vision
> of even the next generation of software.

his sources take into account his realistic usage and the software he uses NOW
and in the immediate future...

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 00:00:11 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"JR Weiss" wrote ...
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote...
>>>
>>> Your sources are living in the dark ages and have no vision
>>> of even the next generation of software.
>>
>> his sources take into account his realistic usage and the software he uses
>> NOW and in the immediate future...
>
>Since he never actually revealed what he is using NOW
>you're just guessing. Good luck with that. He could have
>just rolled some dice and got just as accurate an "answer".
>

Again thanks JR, but why does this crowley kid have such a bug up his
ass??? Crowley you are one of those guys that just likes to argue. You
would have done most of us a favor by just remaining silent. No matter
how hard that is for you.

If the OP is after some serious processing power, take a look at the new
Intel core i7.

Mike