A friend of mine is looking into a new computer for video work. I am
guessing she is making videos of some sort, probably high resolution
stuff, and is seeking something that runs at 2.66 GHz or faster. I
guess that faster is always better for video, but would she truly
require that fast a
While one cannot say more cpu power hurts, a good editor and a cheap
cpu can do the same, it just takes longer to render. As long as it
finishes overnight, I really don't care.
Video is one of the vertical markets Macs enjoy (along with
publishing), but I personally feel the system is very limitin
One thing you may be forgetting is dual-processor computers. Even the
low-end (2.0 GHz) iMac is dual-processor with 1 GB of RAM, 250 GB HDD,
8X DVD (Superdrive) and ATI Radion HD 2400 XT video card (128 MB RAM),
as a starting point. She can certainly try one in an Apple store. She
can probably a
The speed cuts back on the processing time. The faster the processor
the faster it gets done.
Dual core's are usually much faster with a slightly lower speed.
I upgraded this year from an AMD XP2000+ to a dual core Opteron
157(?) which is a 2.01 GHZ with 1 MB cache.
I cut my processing time
This isn't true as written. If it takes you 2 hours to edit a project
now, it will STILL take you 2 hours to edit the project even with that
super-duper new whiz bang computer. Total time saved: ZERO.
You mention a rendering speed increase of 8X. While that may be true
for some people, most won't
If "high resolution stuff" means high definition, then bigger and faster
is a must. The storage requirements for high definition are a lot more
than for standard def, as is the processing power. "Amateur level video
work" doesn't mean that a decent level of processing/storage won't be
needed. H
Increases of processor speed increase processing not mathematically
but algebraically. (I may have the terms wrong but it is not 2+2+2,
it is 2x2x2)
Notice I only upgraded from a 2000+ to a 2.01 but it was a larger
cache and a doubling of the processor.
Any dual core will increase the speed
I just checked prices the processor I bought in February an Opeteron
170 has dropped by $70 since then.
Stewart
At 10:58 AM 9/19/2007, you wrote:
Increases of processor speed increase processing not mathematically
but algebraically. (I may have the terms wrong but it is not 2+2+2,
it is 2x2
Proc speed isn't the only thing you would want for a video editing
machine. 2 to 3 gigs of RAM would be good for one.
And processing speed isn't completely determined by the processor.
The motherboard chipset/ bus is also an important factor. All you need
to know about that is for sales rea
Apple uses the same Intel chips that many PC's use, so the same
economies should apply in that respect.
Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote:
I do not know about Apple Computers, but in the IBM realm the price
decrease on Dual processors has been steep.
**
Good points - amount of RAM, bus speeds and other design factors do play
their roles in determining performance. I would want at least a 7200
RPM HDD too (even faster are the 10K and 15K) connected via SAS or at
the least, SATA.
The issues described would also apply to a Mac Pro workstation (desk
Any new iMac, Mini or MacBook, dual core, will be fine. My new MacBook
has so much more power than my old G4, but I used that "old" Mac to
create and edit dozens of movies, using several different programs--yes
you DO have good choices, including open source like Jahshaka, free
iMovie/iDVD--you
>Increases of processor speed increase processing not mathematically
>but algebraically. (I may have the terms wrong but it is not 2+2+2,
>it is 2x2x2)
Who told you that? Next time they tell you anything put your fingers in
your ears and sing la-la-la until they go away.
Due to overhead of va
>Video is one of the vertical markets Macs enjoy (along with
>publishing), but I personally feel the system is very limiting,
>basically confining users to a single video package (FCP).
Lies. FCP is not the only choice. It is merely a very good choice. Even
Adobe, after much work, is again trying
>You mention a rendering speed increase of 8X. While that may be true
>for some people, most won't be upgrading that far, and will only see
>rendering speed increases of maybe 2X.
Rendering speed is not always such a big issue. For example FCP will
provide a quick render that is usually plenty go
>Professionals were doing video work on computers long before 2.66 gig
>speeds were available, but this friend of mine has apparently become
>convinced that such speeds are the minimum requirements these days. Of
>course, such speeds require the latest machines and big bucks, so she
>may be ge
Did I say anything about Dual cores in what I wrote?
Typically when you are increasing processor speed a number of things
are happening which increase your speed more than just a mere
multiple of the processor clock speed.
when you go from say a 1.5 to a 3.0 you are not merely just doubling
Many factors affect how much increase in efficiency you can realize by
multiple core or multiple processors. In a design with good
infrastructure (such as a good server), you may get up to .85 times
faster processing with two processors versus one, especially in a 64-bit
design with plenty of memo
Actually, we're straying off topic here, but a few direct observations
specifically about video rendering...
Multiplying CPU cores *directly* multiplies rendering speed. ie, turn
off one core, you render at 1/2 the speed. Not a fraction, but exactly
double if all else is equal.
Of course, when yo
in a cheep pc, the processor is at least 25%(retail) of the cost of the
machine. in an iMac, it is probably under 10%(retail) cost of the machine.
even 50% reduction cost of chip will have but small effect on iMac.
At 01:23 PM 9/19/2007, you wrote:
>Apple uses the same Intel chips that many PC'
20 matches
Mail list logo
