Guess what? Your system just barely surpasses Adobe's official minimum requirements to run Premiere Pro CS6 at all. You see, AMD CPUs, especially those with only two physical cores, never performed well in the Adobe programs to begin with because those CPUs support only four of the many instructions in the SSE 4.x set (thus, SSE 4.x support in the AMD CPUs is very incomplete). Second, the Windows version of Premiere Pro does not support OpenCL GPU acceleration at all at this time; GPU acceleration in MPE is NVIDIA CUDA-specific. Thus, not only is your PC handicapped by the AMD CPU, but also by the AMD GPU that cannot use MPE GPU acceleration at all. Thus, six hours to render a 25-minute project is about right for that system. Intel CPUs perform much better in Adobe.

And not only that, but no PC with only a dual-core CPU performs as fast as a PC with even a mediocre-performing quad-core CPU in Premiere. The best that I can do with a dual-core Sandy Bridge Intel i3 CPU is around 500 seconds in the PPBM5 benchmark while even the cheapest of the full-power quad-core Sandy Bridge i5 desktop CPUs can run that same benchmark in about 360 seconds.

RTC, this does not exactly compare to your specs, but it is about as close as I can come for a trial encoding run.  I have a 20 minute long  1920 x 1080 AVCHD (H.264) project that is more complex (I believe) than your project because it has several necessary video effects.  I have used Fast Color Correction and also Brightness and Contrast adjustments.  My test computer is a three generation old i7-980X hex core with hyperthreading overclocked to 4.2 GHz has 24 GB of RAM and at this moment has an nVidia GTX 560 Ti 448 core GPU.  Here are the export settings:

To encode this it took me 6 minutes and 47 seconds!

Your i7-3820 should do well compared to your current 6 hours.  Be careful of the LGA 2011 socket CPU's they have fussy requirements on the RAM   A middle-of-the-road GTX 560 Ti like I used is about $200 to $250 dollars

Here is an alternate sort of temporary path for you to consider.  The most important upgrade on your current system would be the GPU.  Since you are probably going to do it anyway why don't you get the GPU as your first option and install it in the current computer and just see how much that helps.  You do have to add a line to the Adobe file "cuda_supported_cards.txt".  Before you do make sure you have a large enough power suppy for the new card and the correct connectors to supply the card.

Your current motherboard is only for AMD CPUs. None of the Intel CPUs will fit your motherboard at all. Not even physically.

Some ideas for a Desktop Video Editing PC

http://www.adkvideoediting.com/

-ADK Kudos http://forums.adobe.com/thread/877201

.

Build http://forums.adobe.com/thread/878520?tstart=0

-more build ideas http://ppbm6.com/Planning.html

-Build it Yourself http://forums.adobe.com/thread/815798

-http://www.shawnlam.ca/2012/premiere-pro-cs6-video-editing-computer-bu ild/

Bill,

I just looked at the GT 640. The retail version only has the memory bandwidth that's barely higher than a DDR3 version of the GT 440: It uses only 128-bit DDR3 video RAM with a total memory throughput of only 28.5 GB/s - just less than half that of the 57.7 GB/s memory throughput of a reference GTS 450. Also, Kepler shaders only run at the GPU core speed while Fermi shaders run at double speed. Thus, if anything, the GT 640 (in this 128-bit DDR3 form) will actually be slower than a GTX 550 Ti or even a GTS 450. However, it will be noticeably faster than a GT 440 DDR3 because 384 CUDA cores in Kepler roughly equals 192 CUDA cores in Fermi.

What we really need is a retail GT 640 with GDDR5 RAM instead of DDR3 RAM.

On the other hand, the GeForce GT 545 currently comes in two versions: one with 192-bit DDR3 RAM and another with 128-bit GDDR5 RAM. In this particular case, the two versions perform almost equal to one another because the two have almost equal memory throughput, and that the wider bus width of the DDR3 version of the GT 545 makes up for the lack of throughput efficiency of this older RAM technology. (One version of the GT 640 that's supplied only to OEMs is a renamed GT 545 DDR3.)

Message was edited by: RjL190365

RjL190365 wrote:

 

Bill,

 

I just looked at the GT 640. The retail version only has the memory bandwidth that's barely higher than a DDR3 version of the GT 440: It uses only 128-bit DDR3 video RAM with a total memory throughput of only 28.5 GB/s - just less than half that of the 57.7 GB/s memory throughput of a reference GTS 450. Also, Kepler shaders only run at the GPU core speed while Fermi shaders run at double speed. Thus, if anything, the GT 640 (in this 128-bit DDR3 form) will actually be slower than a GTX 550 Ti or even a GTS 450. However, it will be noticeably faster than a GT 440 DDR3 because 384 CUDA cores in Kepler roughly equals 192 CUDA cores in Fermi.

 

What we really need is a retail GT 640 with GDDR5 RAM instead of DDR3 RAM.

And that retail GT 640 will be the least expensive Kepler-derived GPU available on a retail graphics card - at least for the foreseeable future. There is only one Kepler-derived GPU that's below the GT 640 - and that's an OEM-only version of the GT 630, which is a GT 640 with half of its shader/texture units disabled. Other than that, all of the GT 6xx cards below the GT 640 are rebrands of the earlier lower-end Fermi-derived cards (for example, the retail GT 610, GT 620 and GT 630 are the GT 520, GT 430 and GT 440, respectively, with new names).

Bill, I just read a review of the GT 640 on the Tom's Hardware site, and discovered that its performance falls in between a GTS 450 and a GDDR5 version of the GT 440. That's in line with what I had predicted a few posts up - and disappointing since the GTS 450 has only 192 CUDA cores. Predictably, the GT 440, despite the higher VRAM throughput of its GDDR5 variant, is held back by its 96 CUDA cores.

As for the gap in the 600 series, there is only one 600-named GPU that's in between this wimp of a GT 640 and the GTX 670 - and that is a 600 only in name, the OEM-only GT 645 (which as I knew is a renamed GTX 560 SE with only 288 cores and a 192-bit memory bus using GDDR5 VRAM). Three other versions of the GT 640 are available to OEMs: A lower-clocked version of the retail GT 640, a version of the GT 640 with retail clocks but GDDR5 VRAM and a GT 640 that's really a GT 545 DDR3 (192-bit) with a new name.

Finally, as of now no 650s or 660s have been announced yet. This is because the yields on the 28nm GPUs still have not yet been as high as either NVidia or AMD would have liked.

Bill, I just did take a look at that site. As I stated in my previous post, there has been no official announcement from NVidia or any of its card brand partners about any of the Kepler-derived GPUs between the GT 640 and the GTX 670. And the final specs on the released versions of those intermediate 600 series GPUs may very well be different from what had been leaked, especially since the leaked specs on the "GTX 660 Ti" specified greater memory throughput than even the GTX 680 (but only half the cores of the GTX 680).