1 person found this helpful
You see, Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 performs at its best with just over 12GB of RAM installed. Had that "iffy4fun" system been equipped with 16GB instead of just 8GB, it would probably have beaten the 162-second result of the "IPDVC4.7G580" system on that list. My system, "Randall's Dark Horse 4.7", got a result of 164 seconds. It should be noted, however, that the "IPDVC4.7G580" system attained its 162-second overall result when equipped entirely with SSDs and an expensive GTX 580 card while my system achieved its 164-second result with absolutely no SSDs at all whatsoever (only mechanical consumer desktop 7200RPM hard drives) and a cheaper GTX 470 card.
thanks for the clarification.
but i do notice that even on my 4gb system, during the benchmark test, it doesnt even eat more than 2.8gig (perhaps because it was set to default ?).
im just very curios on just what the ram does in rendering because during my own video export, my 4gig stil has room for other programs.
On your 4GB system, Premiere Pro CS5 may not have used the full 4GB, but it certainly has caused the Windows paging file (which is normally located on your system's OS hard drive) to become very large - and the system must have used that paging file a lot. And hard drives are always slower than system memory.
Adobe has a memory management system that knows how much memory you have. Take away that limitation in 5.0.3 and previous versions and the CPU can really fly.
SSD for the OS and applications is not of any performance value, when you open Premiere it is loaded into RAM therefore it does nothing to improve the performance. It is nice in that noise and heat are gone but that is at a high cost.
Thanks for a better explanation of how Premiere Pro CS5 works.
It also means that the choice of a drive for the OS and programs is largely irrelevant. A 5400 rpm "Green" drive or an old-generation Raptor or 7200 rpm hard drive used as an OS/programs drive would make Premiere load slower, but once the program is running, little performance is lost.
can i asume that the preview slowdown on transition effects are caused by lack of ram ?
so it would be true that with more ram and 2500k cpu will make things run abit more smoothly and render faster as well ?
if you would list down from your point of view after looking at the benchmark test : what system setup will be the ultimate killer without spending too much money ?
sorry if it seemed off topic.
I really would not consider a green drive for the OS when for $43 you can have a Samsung Spinpoint 7200 RPM 320 GB drive. Save the green drive for archiving
The most important choice is a fast CPU why stop with an i5-2500k when you could go to the i7-2600K for only $90 more?
The next most important (again I have to base this on Premiere 5.0.3) is 16 GB of RAM and the faster it is the better to overclock.
You are correct about the “green” drives, due to their relatively slow random access speeds and their tendency to spin themselves down when they're idle for longer than a certain length of time. Some of the “green” drives are actually as fast in sequential transfers as most of the current 7200 RPM hard drives.
That $90 price difference between the i7-2600K and the i5-2500K equals a 20% to 25% difference in overall performance in CS5 (when both systems are properly tuned). That’s significant enough to justify spending the extra $90 to $100 for the i7-2600(K) over the i5-2500(K) for CS5, especially in terms of the total cost of the system's core components (which includes not only the CPU, but also the motherboard, RAM, GPU and system, work and storage drives - which when added all together less than 10% of the total cost of such an editing system is due to the price difference of the pricier i7-2600K CPU over the i5-2500K CPU). In other words, the <10% price difference of an entire system due just to the change in CPU is truly justified by the 20%~25% boost in performance. The two i5-2500s were ranked pretty low in the PPBM5 results list, largely because they were hobbled by too little RAM (only 4GB in each of those two systems), and also due to several miscellaneous issues (such as software configuration).
Never mind what I stated here. That info was misleading.
Message was edited by: RjL190365