Need advice on a new computer

My old build is 5 years old, and it's fine for everything I do except
video editing. I have 2 DVDs of video.... sent many many 8mm rolls off
to the lab and had it all scanned to video files.... now I have to go
thorough it all, arrange it chronologically, cut out crap and add in
transitions. This means lots of rendering.... and the old computer
doesn't want to do that very quickly. What parameters are best to
optomize for video editing? It seem like multiple threads might help,
but I don't know if my editing program (Premier Elements 9) supports
that.... and don't know how much memory will speed things up. Does
anyone know if a better software program would make things go faster?

Any recommendations appreciated.

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
My old build is 5 years old, and it's fine for everything I do except
video editing. I have 2 DVDs of video.... sent many many 8mm rolls off
to the lab and had it all scanned to video files.... now I have to go
thorough it all, arrange it chronologically, cut out crap and add in
transitions. This means lots of rendering.... and the old computer
doesn't want to do that very quickly. What parameters are best to
optomize for video editing? It seem like multiple threads might help,
but I don't know if my editing program (Premier Elements 9) supports
that.... and don't know how much memory will speed things up. Does
anyone know if a better software program would make things go faster?

Any recommendations appreciated.

Do you have any way to check threaded behavior on your current setup ?
Is your current setup dual core, or single core with Hyperthreading ?
If so, you may be able to judge from Task Manager.

The problem with your question, is the difficulty of getting
straight answers, about any piece of software. I can see your
question ("is my software capable of using multiple cores"),
asked over and over and over again, in Adobe forums, without
any honest answers. This makes it hard for me to promise you
*any* performance improvement.

Not all software algorithms parallelize easily. Some algorithms
for example, will run on two cores, with one of the two cores
doing the bulk of the work, and the other using maybe 30%. And this
is indicative, that a "huge machine" might not run any faster. The
other cores might end up idle in such a case.

Some problems, we know from first principles, they can be
scaled nicely. Some of the things Photoshop does, we can
chop a picture into four pieces, and run the same algorithm
on each piece, on its own core. And then use "stitching" to fix
the edges, to join them back together again. But even Photoshop,
not all the filters work that way. Some run on a single core,
and the others use many cores. Adobe does the single core
filters that way, for "accuracy".

I have a movie editor here, where lots of stuff runs on a single
core, and only during final render, are two cores used. Since
two cores are all that I have, I can't even say whether the
program would use four cores for render, if they were offered.

*******

The sweet spot for a new machine, would be 4C 8T processor for
around $300. A processor with 6C 12T could be around $700, with
a more expensive motherboard (total price around $1400 perhaps
when good RAM is included). For most people the additional
expense does not justify a 35% improvement in multithreaded
performance.

You will likely end up installing a 64 bit OS. Your 32 bit
programs will still run on there.

This table shows memory limits for various situations. Using
a 32 bit program on a 64 bit OS, the lowest max memory it could
use, is 2GB (same as your current setup). If "large address aware"
is available on the program, that lifts the limit slightly. You
can read the table for the various combinations. A 32 bit program
could use as much as 4GB of memory, under some circumstances.
(I'm still waiting to see more than 2GB happen here at my house :-) )

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...78(VS.85).aspx

Extra RAM might help if prefetching content, but I don't
see a reason to assume 2GB of memory helps apply an effect
to a single frame of video data. You might stage all your
content on a RAM drive, if you had enough memory in the
computer for that purpose. For example, this one could
build you a 60GB drive out of RAM, for a reasonable price
(i.e. this software is cheap, but RAM is not cheap).

http://memory.dataram.com/products-a...ftware/ramdisk

I use the free version, and have a 4GB RAM Drive running right now.
The product is pay-ware, if you want it to map larger amounts of
memory. The last time I checked, that program had a 64GB limit
(which would be an early PAE limit - some CPUs, the hardware
actually supports more than that, but we don't know what limits
the OS might have with regard to PAE or AWE memory).

So you can try throwing hardware resources at the problem,
but I can't guarantee you'll get 4X faster results than
your current machine.

A popular CPU choice, for $340.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116901

http://ark.intel.com/products/75123/...90-GHz?q=4770k

Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type) 32 GB

Example of a memory kit. If you actually bought 4x8GB,
with the exception of the RAMDisk idea, most of the time
that RAM would be a total waste. $314. That's just to show
what you could throw into the motherboard of such a machine.
Even 2x4GB would be plenty, as a config (dual channel).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231674

A randomly selected motherboard, with room for 4 DIMMs. $177

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813132046

So I could easily fork out $825 if I was careless, or
a significantly smaller sum if I tempered my tastes a bit.

*******

If the sky was the limit, I'd go 4930K (as a 4960K isn't
going to be that much better). System cost in the $1400 range.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116939

Or if I was a lunatic, maybe a dual G34. A couple of these
in a dual socket motherboard. But getting performance from
something like this, would only happen under very special
conditions (i.e. never going to happen). System cost would be
$3000 or so with an approach like this.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819113305

*******

I'm thinking a 4770K and two sticks of RAM, is enough :-) Given
the uncertainty of the outcome.

Paul

On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 19:35:40 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
wrote:

My old build is 5 years old, and it's fine for everything I do except
video editing. I have 2 DVDs of video.... sent many many 8mm rolls off
to the lab and had it all scanned to video files.... now I have to go
thorough it all, arrange it chronologically, cut out crap and add in
transitions. This means lots of rendering.... and the old computer
doesn't want to do that very quickly. What parameters are best to
optomize for video editing? It seem like multiple threads might help,
but I don't know if my editing program (Premier Elements 9) supports
that.... and don't know how much memory will speed things up. Does
anyone know if a better software program would make things go faster?

Any recommendations appreciated.

Video software for multiple cores is both likely cutting edge and
expensive. Check DOOM9.net for alternatives in free offerings.

Building might take the approach of the best and most expensive of
maximum cores, say at least four, or maximum power on a selection of
four or two cores for less money. The latter, however, can involve
high-power draw processors at 125watts.

Writing predictive code for core branching decisions is notoriously
difficult. I personally prefer fewer cores at lower micron technology
to improved power efficiency consumption, though substantial among
directions to advancements to successive modern platforms, isn't
necessarily a better focus for intensive video processing.

Somewhere subsequent to offerings at the bare Celeron/Sempron level,
either in a dual, quad, possibly six-core, certainly for the money,
would be projected significance in purchasing a new system for
improvements as direct aim derived, in your case, from video
rendering.

Now, there's benefit being proffered in video-enabled CPU cores,
rendering PCI-E, a video-chipped MB redundant if entirely unnecessary.
"Power" CPUs also continue to stand beside them, although advancements
in raw power perhaps wouldn't be so singularly imposing, as
self-contained video, and consequently can be more easily seen for
yesteryear's offerings (discounting a direction for as many cores
possible, four, six, or more -- as mentioned, given limited resources
and a entrenched difficultly for writing code in any general sense to
employ all cores at all times most efficiently.)

If you'd mentioned you wanted it for games, I wouldn't have replied;-
also, since you've just a couple of film canister rolls, might not you
just bear through it. . .once processed, what have you then to keep
this new, extra-power build efficiently employed on? Granted,
downtime for CPUs has forever been a widening handicap for operators
to creatively come up with means to keep a CPU constantly streaming
code.

On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 23:07:03 -0400, Paul wrote:

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
My old build is 5 years old, and it's fine for everything I do except
video editing. I have 2 DVDs of video.... sent many many 8mm rolls off
to the lab and had it all scanned to video files.... now I have to go
thorough it all, arrange it chronologically, cut out crap and add in
transitions. This means lots of rendering.... and the old computer
doesn't want to do that very quickly. What parameters are best to
optomize for video editing? It seem like multiple threads might help,
but I don't know if my editing program (Premier Elements 9) supports
that.... and don't know how much memory will speed things up. Does
anyone know if a better software program would make things go faster?

Any recommendations appreciated.

Do you have any way to check threaded behavior on your current setup ?
Is your current setup dual core, or single core with Hyperthreading ?
If so, you may be able to judge from Task Manager.

I'll try looking at task manager when doing some rendering, to see if
it seems to be using both cores.

My system has an Intel dual core, E8400 65W processor.


The problem with your question, is the difficulty of getting
straight answers, about any piece of software. I can see your
question ("is my software capable of using multiple cores"),
asked over and over and over again, in Adobe forums, without
any honest answers. This makes it hard for me to promise you
*any* performance improvement.

Not all software algorithms parallelize easily. Some algorithms
for example, will run on two cores, with one of the two cores
doing the bulk of the work, and the other using maybe 30%. And this
is indicative, that a "huge machine" might not run any faster. The
other cores might end up idle in such a case.

Some problems, we know from first principles, they can be
scaled nicely. Some of the things Photoshop does, we can
chop a picture into four pieces, and run the same algorithm
on each piece, on its own core. And then use "stitching" to fix
the edges, to join them back together again. But even Photoshop,
not all the filters work that way. Some run on a single core,
and the others use many cores. Adobe does the single core
filters that way, for "accuracy".

I have a movie editor here, where lots of stuff runs on a single
core, and only during final render, are two cores used. Since
two cores are all that I have, I can't even say whether the
program would use four cores for render, if they were offered.

*******

The sweet spot for a new machine, would be 4C 8T processor for
around $300. A processor with 6C 12T could be around $700, with
a more expensive motherboard (total price around $1400 perhaps
when good RAM is included). For most people the additional
expense does not justify a 35% improvement in multithreaded
performance.

You will likely end up installing a 64 bit OS. Your 32 bit
programs will still run on there.

Actually, I do have Win 7 pro, 64 bit.... have 8 GB DDR2 RAM (4 2GB
strips). If more RAM would be helpful, I could replace 2 sticks with 2
4 GB strips to go to 12 GB, but DDR2 is so much more expensive now, I
thought if I had to go to more RAM, I might just upgrade the whole
mess to use DDR3.

This table shows memory limits for various situations. Using
a 32 bit program on a 64 bit OS, the lowest max memory it could
use, is 2GB (same as your current setup). If "large address aware"
is available on the program, that lifts the limit slightly. You
can read the table for the various combinations. A 32 bit program
could use as much as 4GB of memory, under some circumstances.
(I'm still waiting to see more than 2GB happen here at my house :-) )

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...78(VS.85).aspx

Extra RAM might help if prefetching content, but I don't
see a reason to assume 2GB of memory helps apply an effect
to a single frame of video data. You might stage all your
content on a RAM drive, if you had enough memory in the
computer for that purpose. For example, this one could
build you a 60GB drive out of RAM, for a reasonable price
(i.e. this software is cheap, but RAM is not cheap).

http://memory.dataram.com/products-a...ftware/ramdisk

I use the free version, and have a 4GB RAM Drive running right now.
The product is pay-ware, if you want it to map larger amounts of
memory. The last time I checked, that program had a 64GB limit
(which would be an early PAE limit - some CPUs, the hardware
actually supports more than that, but we don't know what limits
the OS might have with regard to PAE or AWE memory).

So you can try throwing hardware resources at the problem,
but I can't guarantee you'll get 4X faster results than
your current machine.

A popular CPU choice, for $340.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116901

http://ark.intel.com/products/75123/...90-GHz?q=4770k

Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type) 32 GB

Example of a memory kit. If you actually bought 4x8GB,
with the exception of the RAMDisk idea, most of the time
that RAM would be a total waste. $314. That's just to show
what you could throw into the motherboard of such a machine.
Even 2x4GB would be plenty, as a config (dual channel).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231674

A randomly selected motherboard, with room for 4 DIMMs. $177

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813132046

So I could easily fork out $825 if I was careless, or
a significantly smaller sum if I tempered my tastes a bit.

*******

If the sky was the limit, I'd go 4930K (as a 4960K isn't
going to be that much better). System cost in the $1400 range.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116939

Or if I was a lunatic, maybe a dual G34. A couple of these
in a dual socket motherboard. But getting performance from
something like this, would only happen under very special
conditions (i.e. never going to happen). System cost would be
$3000 or so with an approach like this.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819113305

*******

I'm thinking a 4770K and two sticks of RAM, is enough :-) Given
the uncertainty of the outcome.

Paul

Thanks for all the comments, especially the ones about the "dream"
setups. Basically, I'm concluding that "any" improvement over my
present dual core, 8 GB RAM setup might only be marginal. As Flasherly
said in another reply, I might just tough it out. It "does" work, and
that way it only costs me time.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 01:19:47 -0400, Flasherly
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 19:35:40 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
wrote:

My old build is 5 years old, and it's fine for everything I do except
video editing. I have 2 DVDs of video.... sent many many 8mm rolls off
to the lab and had it all scanned to video files.... now I have to go
thorough it all, arrange it chronologically, cut out crap and add in
transitions. This means lots of rendering.... and the old computer
doesn't want to do that very quickly. What parameters are best to
optomize for video editing? It seem like multiple threads might help,
but I don't know if my editing program (Premier Elements 9) supports
that.... and don't know how much memory will speed things up. Does
anyone know if a better software program would make things go faster?

Any recommendations appreciated.

Video software for multiple cores is both likely cutting edge and
expensive. Check DOOM9.net for alternatives in free offerings.

Building might take the approach of the best and most expensive of
maximum cores, say at least four, or maximum power on a selection of
four or two cores for less money. The latter, however, can involve
high-power draw processors at 125watts.

Writing predictive code for core branching decisions is notoriously
difficult. I personally prefer fewer cores at lower micron technology
to improved power efficiency consumption, though substantial among
directions to advancements to successive modern platforms, isn't
necessarily a better focus for intensive video processing.

Somewhere subsequent to offerings at the bare Celeron/Sempron level,
either in a dual, quad, possibly six-core, certainly for the money,
would be projected significance in purchasing a new system for
improvements as direct aim derived, in your case, from video
rendering.

Now, there's benefit being proffered in video-enabled CPU cores,
rendering PCI-E, a video-chipped MB redundant if entirely unnecessary.
"Power" CPUs also continue to stand beside them, although advancements
in raw power perhaps wouldn't be so singularly imposing, as
self-contained video, and consequently can be more easily seen for
yesteryear's offerings (discounting a direction for as many cores
possible, four, six, or more -- as mentioned, given limited resources
and a entrenched difficultly for writing code in any general sense to
employ all cores at all times most efficiently.)

If you'd mentioned you wanted it for games, I wouldn't have replied;-
also, since you've just a couple of film canister rolls, might not you
just bear through it. . .once processed, what have you then to keep
this new, extra-power build efficiently employed on? Granted,
downtime for CPUs has forever been a widening handicap for operators
to creatively come up with means to keep a CPU constantly streaming
code.

Thanks for your comments... As you say, what would I do with it after
the video processing is finished? The most sophisticated game I play
is spider solitare, so what I have now is great for what I do, lots of
Photoshop, and some database (Access and Filemaker pro), some
spreadsheet, and some MS word, all those mainly associated with
genealogy work. I do have lots of stuff open at the same time when
heavily inbto genealogy, but the present system seems to handle that
without any problems.

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:


Thanks for all the comments, especially the ones about the "dream"
setups. Basically, I'm concluding that "any" improvement over my
present dual core, 8 GB RAM setup might only be marginal. As Flasherly
said in another reply, I might just tough it out. It "does" work, and
that way it only costs me time.

I'm just trying to keep that guy at the Intel plant busy :-)

Your 8GB of RAM should be good enough. You can use
Task Manager, to see if any of it is being used during
your video editing session. I don't expect sinking more
money into that, would make a bit of difference.

Paul

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:26:44 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
wrote:

As you say, what would I do with it after
the video processing is finished?

Just keep those edges clean and ready when the time is right. They
all eventually develop core problems and require effectively a new
system build. (Heh - I've a single core P4 on the backburner, still
working last I looked, in case either my dualcores go belly up.)

On 18/04/2014 8:35 PM, Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
My old build is 5 years old, and it's fine for everything I do except
video editing. I have 2 DVDs of video.... sent many many 8mm rolls off
to the lab and had it all scanned to video files.... now I have to go
thorough it all, arrange it chronologically, cut out crap and add in
transitions. This means lots of rendering.... and the old computer
doesn't want to do that very quickly. What parameters are best to
optomize for video editing? It seem like multiple threads might help,
but I don't know if my editing program (Premier Elements 9) supports
that.... and don't know how much memory will speed things up. Does
anyone know if a better software program would make things go faster?

Any recommendations appreciated.

According to this review:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372120,00.asp

"Both Elements—Premiere and Photoshop—can be had for $149.99 together or
$99.99 separately. If you're upgrading from a previous version, those
prices drop to $119.99 and $79.99. The software is available for both
Windows (XP with SP3, Vista with SP2, Windows 7, or Windows 8 & 8.1) and
Mac (OS X v10.7 through v10.9). On Windows it requires a 2GHz or faster
processor with SSE2 support, 2GB RAM (though I'd recommend more), and a
DX 9 or 10 graphics card with at least a 1024x768 monitor. It only runs
at 64-bits on Windows 7, 8, and 8.1 and Mac. For this review, I tested
Premiere Elements 12 on a 3.4GHz AMD quad-core Windows 7 Ultimate PC
with 8GB DDR3 RAM and an ATI Radeon HD 4290 graphics adapter."

The only things it needs are SSE2 support and a DirectX 9 or 10 video
card. Of course, that's for Premiere Elements 12, rather than PE 9, so
PE 9 might be even more lax on its requirements.

How much RAM and how many cores do you have on your current rig?

Yousuf Khan

On 19/04/2014 9:26 AM, Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
Thanks for your comments... As you say, what would I do with it after
the video processing is finished? The most sophisticated game I play
is spider solitare, so what I have now is great for what I do, lots of
Photoshop, and some database (Access and Filemaker pro), some
spreadsheet, and some MS word, all those mainly associated with
genealogy work. I do have lots of stuff open at the same time when
heavily inbto genealogy, but the present system seems to handle that
without any problems.

A good quality AMD FX 6300 system with DDR3 might be a good upgrade
nowadays. The FX's are much under-rated, but not only are they extremely
good for gaming, they also usually have more cores than typical Intel
systems for much less price. When multithreading is important, then FX's
are good cheap way to get there.

Yousuf Khan

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 12:21:01 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

On 18/04/2014 8:35 PM, Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
My old build is 5 years old, and it's fine for everything I do except
video editing. I have 2 DVDs of video.... sent many many 8mm rolls off
to the lab and had it all scanned to video files.... now I have to go
thorough it all, arrange it chronologically, cut out crap and add in
transitions. This means lots of rendering.... and the old computer
doesn't want to do that very quickly. What parameters are best to
optomize for video editing? It seem like multiple threads might help,
but I don't know if my editing program (Premier Elements 9) supports
that.... and don't know how much memory will speed things up. Does
anyone know if a better software program would make things go faster?

Any recommendations appreciated.

According to this review:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372120,00.asp

"Both Elements—Premiere and Photoshop—can be had for $149.99 together or
$99.99 separately. If you're upgrading from a previous version, those
prices drop to $119.99 and $79.99. The software is available for both
Windows (XP with SP3, Vista with SP2, Windows 7, or Windows 8 & 8.1) and
Mac (OS X v10.7 through v10.9). On Windows it requires a 2GHz or faster
processor with SSE2 support, 2GB RAM (though I'd recommend more), and a
DX 9 or 10 graphics card with at least a 1024x768 monitor. It only runs
at 64-bits on Windows 7, 8, and 8.1 and Mac. For this review, I tested
Premiere Elements 12 on a 3.4GHz AMD quad-core Windows 7 Ultimate PC
with 8GB DDR3 RAM and an ATI Radeon HD 4290 graphics adapter."

The only things it needs are SSE2 support and a DirectX 9 or 10 video
card. Of course, that's for Premiere Elements 12, rather than PE 9, so
PE 9 might be even more lax on its requirements.

How much RAM and how many cores do you have on your current rig?

Yousuf Khan

2 cores (Intel E8400) and 8 GB, Win 7 64bit.