1 person found this helpful
1-video card is NOT going to work with CUDA with less than 1Gig of video memory
2-1080p is NOT going to edit smoothly with less than an i7
How many hard drives?
1 500GB SATA II hard drive partitioned into 2.
1 person found this helpful
Not good. Hard drives should never be partitioned into more than a single volume for the following reasons:
1) This will increase wear and tear on the primary partition.
2) Both the access speed and the sequential transfer speed of the secondary partition will be much slower than if you were to have just a single volume per physical drive.
I always thought having my data (media) files separate from the OS and other program files would make things more efficient. Am I thinking of 2 physically different hard drives? Thanks for the info.
Yes, at least two physically separate hard drives should be used.
The lowest speed dual core processor on the current results submitted on our
PPBM5 benchmark is a 1.8 GHz unit and it is ranked 888th out of 908 records,
which is pretty sad. I doubt that processor can run hyper-threaded. You need a
serious upgrade to even edit DV material. I cannot positively identify your
processor but I doubt it even meets the Adobe minimum requirements..
In addition, Bill, the Mac Pro that the OP used at school actually had much, much higher specs than the laptop he currently uses. Most Mac Pros have at least quad-core Xeon processors - and many have dual CPUs, to boot.
And the purchase year of 2010 (if purchased brand-new) is a giveaway that the laptop the OP has in question is powered by an Intel Core 2 Duo SU7300, a version of the mobile Core 2 Duo that favors ultra-low power consumption over performance.
Okay, my setup is dreadful. I'm assuming something like the following would be adequate?
NVIDIA Quadro 600 1GB 128-bit DDR3
Intel® Core™ i7-3770K Processor (4x 3.50GHz/8MB L3 Cache)
Also, how much of a difference do SSD hard drives make during actual editing? Thanks again.
Forget about the Quadro 600: It is based on a really cheapo GeForce GT 430. As such, it is so slow that the CPU is forced to wait for the GPU to catch up to it. Plus, it costs three times more money than the GT 430 that it's based on. An example of a CPU-heavy, GPU-light PC.
Hmm, interesting RJ. That's a very disappointing assessment of a graphics card deemed "professional." Would I be better off just getting a GTX 560 Ti that the gaming community seems to support?
And I only "slammed" the Quadro 600 because Adobe Premiere Pro does not make much if any use of the enhanced OpenGL features of that card and its drivers. (GeForce cards have some of those features disabled.) Such enhanced features are needed only for those 3D modeling programs that do make good use of such features (which are mostly wasted with Premiere).
Randall, I think you really are correct in your analogy
I was just going back and testing my stack of CUDA boards with a personal MPEG benchmark. When I got down near the bottom of the stack, a GTX 260 with 216 cores, I found that with the current nVidia driver recommended for this board is the 301.42 driver. Three times out of about 6 tries it timed out with an error message that said it had waited 2 seconds for data and then an error message cropped up. This did not happen with that board about a year ago when I used an earlier driver.