Complete waste of money to use PPro CS5/CS5.5 and HD video
Laptop Video Editing PC http://www.sagernotebook.com/
-or another brand laptop with the following features
-the newer sandy bridge 2720 or 2820 quad processor
-and nvidia graphics preferably the 460m, 485m is a bit much
-1280x900 display with OpenGL 2.0-compatible graphics card
-and 8 or 16 gig ram and Win7 64bit Pro
-and 2 internal 7200 HDDs minimum
This message has a really good graphic about requirements
CS5 Requirements http://forums.adobe.com/thread/810750?tstart=0
Build it Yourself http://forums.adobe.com/thread/815798?tstart=0
About Requirements http://forums.adobe.com/thread/618058?tstart=0
Disk Configurations http://forums.adobe.com/thread/878419?tstart=0
So, when you said complete waste I assume you mean this computer won't be able to? Thanks for your help!
Where did you find this antique? No SATA disk drive capability! Only 4 GB of RAM maximum! On Newegg the only socket 478 chips that are available are used recertified chips!
Don't they have an original 8088 IBM PC with 160 KB 5.25" floppy drive from early 1983? That would at least be worth more than $ 5. This system you mention is not even worth the shipping cost if it were free.
Run away. I've put faster / better computers than this in the trash.
>said complete waste I assume you mean this computer won't be able
That is exactly what I mean... that computer will not be able to use CS5 to edit HD
My previous computer was a Pentium 4 and I used CS3 to SLOWLY edit SD video
You need an Intel i7 CPU and Win7 64bit and a MINIMUM of 6Gig ram and a MINIMUM of two hard drives
That computer cannot run Premiere Pro CS5.x at all because Intel has never manufactured a Socket 478 CPU that supported x86-64 at all. All Socket 478 CPUs are strictly 32-bit-only. CS5.x requires a 64-bit computer with a 64-bit CPU running the 64-bit versions of Windows 7 or Vista. And even if you could get Premiere Pro CS4 running on that system, CS4 would be molasses-slow on that system.
In addition, there has never been a PATA hard drive that's anywhere near as fast (in terms of physical sustainable transfer speed) as any of today's SATA hard drives. In fact, the fastest PATA hard drives are as slow as some of the 5400 RPM SATA "green" hard drives on the market. (By the way, that Biostar P4M900 motherboard does have two SATA 1.5 Gbps ports - but that's not nearly enough to support a proper (R)AID 0 configuration that's recommended for anything HD, and which forces you to use PATA for the OS drive and the optical drive if you want RAID 0 at all while retaining a non-RAID drive for the OS. What's more, SATA 1.5 Gbps is already obsolete since most of the current-generation SATA hard drives can already surprass the maximum sustainable transfer speed of the interface physically on the outer tracks of the platters. The PATA ports do not support RAID at all.)
Third, that system's motherboard uses a VIA chipset, which is neither as fast nor as stable as Intel's own chipsets of that era. Plus, the P4M900 chipset's memory controller did not support dual-channel operation at all; it was limited to single-channel-only which limited the performance of most of the HyperThreading-enabled Pentium 4 CPUs of the era. (All of the 3.2GHz Pentium 4 CPUs in Socket 478 used an "800MHz" FSB while the P4M900 only ran DDR2 memory at up to "667MHz" and in single-channel mode; that created a mismatch between the CPU bus bandwidth and the memory bandwidth which resulted in a performance bottleneck.)
Fourth, that entire system is now completely obsolete. The motherboard has onboard graphics that are unbearably slow, and its PCI-e x16 slot is too slow for any of today's GPUs. Plus, the chipset is so old that Windows 7 might not run properly on that system (for example, there are no Windows 7 drivers available at all for at least some of the components of that system).
Fifth, that system's single 80GB hard drive is too small and too slow to be of much use in a video editing system.
There is a reason why Intel completely ditched the Netburst architecture used in the Pentium 4 in favor of a derivative of the Pentium M architecture back in 2006: Netburst CPUs are extremely inefficient, delivering a poor performance-to-wattage ratio even when compared to the AMD CPUs of that era.
In other words, that system is not worth even the cost to ship it (if it must be shipped). I would not take that system even if it were free. In fact, if that system were all you can afford, you'd be much, much better off with an i3-2100 build with 4 to 8 GB of DDR3-1333 RAM and integrated Intel HD Graphics 2000. (As shown in the PPBM5 results list under the name "Rag-Tag Jalopy", I'd be willing to bet that the i3-2100 with just the integrated graphics would be much, much faster in CS4 than a Pentium 4 with even the fastest discrete Nvidia Quadro or AMD/ATi FirePro 3D GPU.)
Message was edited by: RjL190365
lol, i had to check the date after reading this post
You and I should team up together... your 1983 antique with my senior citizen rustbox (Celeron 2.4 GHz, 1.49 GB RAM, 40 GB HDD) will look good together ! Wait til you read some of my threads ...
... but I'm catching on (slowly).