Welcome to the forum.
Is that a single 1TB HDD?
Is it partitioned, or seen as the full 1TB?
When you say "rendering," are you referring to doing a Render for smoothest playback, or to Exporting?
What are the specs. of your Source Files, and the Sequence setting?
If Export, what are the specs. of your Export?
Good luck, and thank you for the information.
To speed things up, you really do need a new computer. Specifically, your CPU is very underpowered for HD work.
You should be looking at an i7 2500K at the very least. (Which will also mean a new motherbord and memory.)
As the replies to your original post have noted, your system is definitely severely underpowered for HD video editing and encoding. Everything - from the CPU, RAM, GPU and disk setup - are far below Adobe's practical minimum requirements for using Premiere Pro at all.
1) The AMD CPUs, even the current ones, lack support for SSE 4.x that the current Intel CPUs support (and Adobe makes good use of). The Athlon 64 x2 4400+ came out before the advent of the Intel Core 2 Duo (which I believe is Adobe's absolute stated minimum CPU requirement), while your system still uses DDR1 or DDR2 system memory that simply lacks the bandwidth capability of modern DDR3 system memory. (The PPBM5 benchmark testing showed small but tangible improvements with faster memory.)
2) The GT 220 is also a sluggish performer even with an extremely fast CPU: It has only 48 CUDA cores, making it almost as slow as the 9500 GT that Bill Gehrke had tested.
3) It appears that your system has just one hard drive and nothing else for storage. This severely slows down editing and encoding performance since Premiere Pro always performs simultaneous reads and writes, which a single SATA channel cannot handle. (After all, SATA is still only a half-duplex interface, which means that it has to wait for a read operation to be completed before any write operation begins.)
Put them all together and you have what's effectively a "stone-age residue under the desk" that's barely capable of even standard-definition (480i SD) work. In other words, the only way to improve performance is to retire your current system (or reassign it to non-editing and non-serious use) and buy or build an entirely new system. (You could add two or more additional hard disks to improve performance - but then, you'd still be stuck with an obsolete CPU, slow RAM and a molasses-slow GPU.)
Hope this helps in whatever decision that you may end up making.
Message was edited by: RjL190365
Hi Lee, Welcome to the forums. Can you explain a little more about the project and which aspect of it is taking so long to render? Often the estimated render duration fluctuates - especially in the early stages - the time remaining can drop very quickly as things progress. If you project is very simple - mainly cuts/dissolves exporting to DVD or Mpeg2 Blu-ray then you should expect it to encode a lot quicker - perhaps 4/5 hours. On the other hand a heavily layered project with lots of non-GPU effects might well take tens of hours to encode. Modern systems can encode very quickly BUT even my newly built i7 chugs a bit encoding To H.264 in software. A hardware encoder like a Matrox MXO2 Max will speed up H.264 for Blu-ray etc on older systems - We have an i5 laptop which is just about good enough for AVCHD editing (GT330m GPU) - the Max option on the MXO2 mini makes it perfectly capable of fast encoding for Blu-ray.
On the other hand, some hardware I/O cards do have compatibility issues with newer systems. The Matrox card mentioned has compatibility issues with Intel systems newer than a Core 2 Quad. The disk speed (AVI conversion) actually takes much longer with the card installed than without the card. What might take two hours without the Matrox card installed actually took more than several days with the card installed. Buggy drivers are largely to blame in this instance. Matrox has never made a stable, bug-free Windows 7 driver (especially 64-bit) for its cards, especially when its cards had been designed strictly for 32-bit Windows XP to begin with.
I'm glad you are not my physician.
Matrox slows down every system severely. When using an i5 is can easily become disastrous. Unless you have all the time in the world, but that is not a general trait of editors.
I make my living from editing and encoding. We always buy-in late to my NLE systems to avoid teething problems. The latest CS5.03/MXO2 drivers seem pretty good to me - maybe they've fixed the bugs? The only noticeable difference between the BMD and Matrox seats in terms of speed is the faster H.264 encodes with the Max. YMMV.
On average I see performance degrade by a factor 6 on disk I/O and no performance gain on any other test when a Matrox card is installed.