ANOTHER PROCESSOR QUESTION

[Syfo-Dyas]

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

 

[JR Weiss]

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?

 

[Grinder]

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.

 

[Syfo-Dyas]

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,

 

[David Ruether]

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

 

[JR Weiss]

Nothing specific.

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.

 

[Syfo-Dyas]

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!

 

[JR Weiss]

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...

 

[Syfo-Dyas]

...

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.

 

[Mike Kujbida]

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

Mike

 

[Smarty]

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.

This "crowley kid" is an extremely well informed employee of Intel who
probably has the broadest and deepest knowledge of processor-related topics
of anyone on this newsgroup. I would advice those seeking processor advice
to learn to listen and respect his opinions, since he brings an unusual
blend of clarity and product knowledge in an area filled with misconceptions
and bad "answers".

Smarty

 

[geoff]

In theory, if you had a multi-core OS and all your software was
written/compiled for a multi-core processor, then yes, a quad core would
probably be pretty fast, if you were running a high-end video game, watching
tv, rendering a graphics image, etc. at the same time.

I think the OS can do some load balancing but most software is written for a
single core, except for some games, and you are probably not going to do all
those things at the same time.

In most cases, a single or dual core would be faster.

Intel moved to multi cores because they ran into a heat problem with single
cores. They kept cranking up the speed of the processor until it was no
longer practical (because of heat).

Their skunkworks in Israel had the idea of multi-cores, so, they moved to
that. Until some new technology comes along, the only direction they can go
in is add more cores.

--g

 

[Martin Heffels]

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.

Well he tried to be helpful bu dragging more information out of the
OP. Since the question was so vague, I can't be bothered to answer and
I won't really try and find out some more information, just because of
reactions like your's Syfo-Dyas.

cheers

-martin-

 

[Martin Heffels]

You might also consider the odds when; Crowley, Smarty, and
Maltby actually agree on something in this area.

That's the day I will buy a bunch of lottery tickets!!

-m-

 

[David Ruether]

"Bob Fry" wrote ...

In more ways than you think.

Maybe, but probably not. Syfo-Dyas steadfastly refuses to divulge
any details of his question, so we don't know whether he is editing
any codec that makes significant demands on the disc I/O resources.

Yes. I got caught by that one in the very early days of editing
Mini-DV when the common wisdom was that I needed SCSI
drives. Two very expensive and low capacity hot-running drives
later, I found that the standard cheap cool-running hard drives
of the time would have been just fine, with no RAID needed.
Same with editing HDV or AVCHD HD material, which have
the same (or lower) data rate as Mini-DV. Ordinary drives are
fine (although it can be useful to distribute the operating system
and editing software, video source material, and video output
files onto three physically distinct drives).
--DR

 

[geoff]

This "crowley kid" is an extremely well informed employee of Intel who

probably has the broadest and deepest knowledge of processor-related
topics of anyone on this newsgroup.

ie another college kid as you probably are. In fact, the same thing was
said of rod speed.

This group seems to be a magnet for college idiots trying to show how great
and vast their knowledge is.

--g

 

[Martin Heffels]

Same with editing HDV or AVCHD HD material, which have
the same (or lower) data rate as Mini-DV. Ordinary drives are
fine (although it can be useful to distribute the operating system
and editing software, video source material, and video output
files onto three physically distinct drives).

David, this completely depends on how you actually want to edit the
material. If you are satisfied with (sometimes) sluggish movement,
then a single drive will be fine. But if you're doing multi-layered
editing and use a decent intermediate codec, the need for a fast RAID
system will arise soon.
Granted, for the majority of the people who are doing this as a hobby
and merely cut their holiday-videos, your recommendation holds true.

cheers

-martin-

 

[Martin Heffels]

This group seems to be a magnet for college idiots trying to show how great
and vast their knowledge is.

Geoff, Richard Crowley has been around here for a long time, and
always given great advice, with a few others. He is knowledgable, but
because of his work, has a slight knack for Intel. There is nothing
wrong with that, because a lot of people who are not working for
Intel, are also sticking to one camp or the other.
You're remark of "college kids" holds no grounds, and I will consider
this as a mistake for now, before killfiling you.

cheers

-martin-

 

[Richard Crowley]

"Martin Heffels" wrote ...

Geoff, Richard Crowley has been around here for a long time, and
always given great advice, with a few others. He is knowledgable, but
because of his work, has a slight knack for Intel. There is nothing
wrong with that, because a lot of people who are not working for
Intel, are also sticking to one camp or the other.
You're remark of "college kids" holds no grounds, and I will consider
this as a mistake for now, before killfiling you.

I suspect we are peeking into that cross-posted newsgroup (a.c.h.pc-h)
I tend to ignore personal remarks, whatever direction they are pointed.
And especially from people I've never heard of.

I graduated before this crop of "college idiots" were even born. "College
idiots" today couldn't even pass the *high-school* finals from 100 years
ago, so "geoff"s characterization seems particularly apt.

 

[Martin Heffels]

I graduated before this crop of "college idiots" were even born. "College
idiots" today couldn't even pass the *high-school* finals from 100 years
ago, so "geoff"s characterization seems particularly apt.

Very true