This content has been marked as final. Show 24 replies
You need XP 64 or Vista 64 for 4 GB of ram.
Rest don't see so much ram.
I heave vista64 with 4GB and quad processor plus 1 disk for system and 2 raid 0 (2 disk each) disk for footage and scratch.
Works good but CS4 i think has some problems... Need to work more on it.
You can have up to 4 GB using a 32 bit OS. You need 64 bit to go higher than 4 GB.
Personally, I'd choose Home Basic 64 bit over Ultimate, which seems bloated with things unneeded for an editing workstation.
A couple of users here have reported speed improvements using Vista 64 over 32 bit.
I have just installed the Business OEM 64 bit edition ($140). It seems fine but sure takes a lot of learning to get familiar. Many items are hidden in new places with new names. I am still in the driver updating stage. I have made a few benchmarking runs with CS4.0.1 and it does appear a slight bit faster than Win XP 32!
Agreed - I've noticed much improvement of Vista 64 over XP on the same hardware. The future-proof nature of the OS (memory upgrades) makes good sense as well.
If you have 4gb memory already, going from Vista 32-bit to Vista 64-bit buys you very little extra memory. Vista 32-bit sees the 4gb of memory but the hard-coded IO addresses and some graphics buffers come out of the top end of that 4gb, leaving the system with 3.something, not the full 4gb. With Vista 64-bit, I think the IO addresses are moved up higher (which is why you need new drivers for 64-bit) leaving the entire 4gb useable. But that is not much of a gain. To make your investment in Vista 64-bit pay off, you should probably add more memory.
Vista Home Basic leaves out some networking capabilities, I'm told, but actually I don't know exactly what is left out.
>With Vista 64-bit, I think the IO addresses are moved up higher
Only if you add more than the original 4 GB. Otherwise it has nowhere else to go.
In my opinion, the current version of Vista is a better operating system than XP. I would go with Vista 64.
Forget about the Q6600. It's a great processor, we have 3 systems based on this, but the new low end i7 is faster in most benchmarks than the former (expensive Q9770 $1400) champ. The low end i7 is available for under $400.
You need a new X58 motherboard. Until something changes my mind, I'm currently sold on the Gigabyte Ultra Durable 3 motherboards. I also prefer Crucial RAM, but the new Corsair offering for the X58 motherboards is looking good if you've got some extra cash.
Overall the price is good for the new i7's. Customer satisfaction is high:
Those reviewers must have missed the serious TLB bug, that Intel confirmed and currently can only be avoided by a BIOS update which fully disables TLB, but the performance penalty is not yet known. It is not only AMD to be plagued by this bug. AMD suffered dearly from that bug. What it will do to i7 sales until there is a new stepping with a solution is a guess.
"A TLB flaw could have serious implications for Intels street cred, but the firm insists there is nothing to get excited about. "This is a spec clarification that points back to a programmer's application note written by Intel in April 2007. The same spec clarification is in our Penryn docs pointing to same app note, which advises on programming techniques to avoid any issue", an Intel spokesman told the INQ.
The Intel spinner went on to say that, as far as the spec clarification was concerned, the problem didnt affect Core i7 or any Nehalem processor. "That was for Core 2 Duo and that has been fixed via BIOS updates long ago. Any outstanding software programmer developer manual changes are shown in all product spec updates so it was listed", he noted.
The INQ was also assured that if one were to look through the various Core i7 updates in the errata part of the spec update, there would be some mention of TLB (unrelated to the previous mention), but that anything significant had been fixed before Core i7s launch."
>Another report follows:
"The BIOSes to workarround the TLB bug already are in place and it seems that this fix has very little effect on overall performance.
The BIOS update was issued on 11-14-08, before the products actually hit retail. In Intel's defense, so far everything we tested .. was 100% stable and extremely fast. But we'll report more once we hear more."
>And one more:
"a quick search on Google will show you this errata was not only in the Core i7 processor but in various other Intel chips, including Core 2, Atom, Celeron, Pentium Dual-Core and Xeon series processors. The TLB issue has been known since 2007 and has been fixed via BIOS microcode updates, IMO this is nothing more than crying wolf and there's nothing to worry about.
"The Tech Report has received an official statement from Intel. Intel PR manager Dan Snyder explains the TLB clarification is a spec clarification, and a pointer to a previous document written in April 2007. This TLB issue was present in the Conroe architecture but has been fixed with a BIOS microcode update. The Core i7 (Nehalem) was never really affected by the bug."
I'm gonna wait 6 months when the 35nm i7's come out and the motherboards go down in price. My q9550 @ 3.7 is plenty fast for right now. Plus any bugs will be fixed and by then and it'll give software makers a little time to program in some extra speed.
This document says in a large fontsize:
b November 2008
Yesterday Intel confirmed the bug, today their PR department reversed that statement. The TLB bug cost AMD dearly and admitting a similar bug that may cause 20-30% performance loss can be devastating to the success of i7.
If the current statement is correct and the bug has been corrected with BIOS patches, why does Intel still advise programmers to take this bug into consideration. Has it been fixed or not? Their own document says it can be resolved by a BIOS patch, but does not say what the performance penalty is. Simply bypassing the TLB or reloading it every time will be a nasty performance loss.
>Their own document says it can be resolved by a BIOS patch, but does not say what the performance penalty is.
I covered that.
>"The BIOSes to workarround the TLB bug already are in place and it seems that this fix has very little effect on overall performance. In Intel's defense, so far everything we tested .. was 100% stable and extremely fast."
And don't forget, this issue was present in many previous processors, including your preferred Xeons.
Like one reviewer said, "IMO this is nothing more than crying wolf and there's nothing to worry about."
Hey, I might have developed a TLB discovery tool! I am now wondering if this could be responsible for my erratic MPEG2-DVD encoding benchmark results.
When I run MPEG2-DVD encoding on my yet unpublished new benchmark in AME in CS4 and watch the progress bar on the window it stops randomly and appears to stop for anywhere from 3 seconds to approximately 15 seconds and I can find nothing else running at those times. I have even used Microsoft's Process Explorer and can see the stop and restarting but cannot find a reason (so far).
I have two Harpertown (Penryn) chips and these inconsistent results have been driving me nuts and the only reason I have not published the new benchmark.
As soon as I get back to it I will load Premiere CS4 on my old computer
Thanks to all for this interesting information and advice, especially on drawing my attention to the new i7 processors. I will try to live with my current config for another 6 months or so and then upgrade.
"Under Cinebench, the Core i7-920 system 1 was about 33% faster than the core 2 Quad Q9300 2 when using a single CPU...and 50% faster when using multiple CPUs, possibly reflecting the hyper-threading features of the Core i7 chip (which lets it run 2 threads on each of its 4 cores for 8 total vs. 4 on the Core 2 Quad.)"
1. Dell Studio XPS machine with a 2.67 GHz Core i7-920, 4GB of memory, and an ATI Radeon 3450 graphics card with 256 MB of graphics memory.
2. Gateway FX with a 2.5 GHz Core 2 Quad Q9300 processor, 6GB of RAM, 640GB hard drive, and an nVidia GeForce 9800 GT with 512 MB of graphics memory
Could someone clarify, if I were to move to Vista 64-bit, does this require CS4 or will CS3 work with Vista 64-bit as well? I am currently using XP and a core 2 quad with 4 gb ram. I have notice some performance lag with indexing newly captured files with HDV which is why I am looking into this. tx
Yes, but it makes no sense changing to Vista 64 with your hardware.
Like CS3, CS4 is a 32-bit application. The only difference is that supposedly CS4 has been written in such a way that it is "optimized" for use in a 64-bit environment. You can take that anyway you want.
Installation is not affected by the OS. With a 64-bit OS your 32-bit applications get installed into a seperate 32-bit system folder, allowing the 64-bit OS to be downward compatible with 32-bit applications. Confused yet?
>I have notice some performance lag with indexing newly captured files
You should probably just walk away until the process is done.
Harm, is your point only about RAM? I can go to 8 gb easy enough. My PC guy will even credit me on the 4gb since DDR3 is still new.
Keith, answer - YES very confused :_). Are folks sing a performance improvement with Vista 64-bit or not?
Jim - yea, it was painful but I eventually figured this out. I guess when you think about it 12GB is a lot to sort through whether it is indexing in CS3 or virus or defraf or whatever.
Bottom-line, if spending $130 on Vista-64 and some more on the extra 4GB of system memory was going to make a noticeable different in working with CS3 and HDV than I don't mind spending a little more money.
Feedback/suggestions much appreciated.
I'd recommend walking away while indexing even if you do upgrade.
"Are folks seeing a performance improvement with Vista 64-bit or not?"
Do a quick search in this forum. I believe I read somewhere here that some people were confirming a performance increase with Vista 64-bit over 32-bit.
As far as Adobe is concerned, because CS4 is optimized for use in a 64-bit environment, theoretically you should see a performance increase.
I will perform a test to figure it out.. So far I have tried Xp 32 bit, Xp 64 bit, vista 32 bit. Still need to check out vista 64.
From current testing it seems like vista has better compatibility with graphics cards..
Forinstance I have an issue where I use 3 monitors, with Two of them sitting on a 8800 GT and the third on 7800GTX, which Im using as a full screen video feed (Well I did i CS3) In CS4 the screen goes black in both XP 32 and 64. tested it by replacing my 8800 GT with another 7800 and all 3 monitors worked fine. In Vista 32 bit all 3 monitors work without issues no matter which GPU.
However. Vista 32 bit performance is very poor compared to XP 32 bit. The difference between XP 32 and 64 is very little, altho you benefit from the additional ram support to run background programs smoother in 64 bit.