Intel Quad Core for Premiere - is this a smart choice ?

Hi everyone,
I'm wondering if Intel's new Quad Core processor ( 2.4 Ghz ) will give a good boost to system performance over an older Intel 3.2 Ghz Ht chip.
I have seen test results where a 1.6 ghz dual core Intel processor has lost in speed tests vs regular 3.2 ghz chips ( not dual core )
So I'm puzzled,, will a Quad Core chip have any advantage when running Premiere ?
I'm hoping there is a clear cut answer here, and I look forward to any responses.
Thank you,
Dave.

Guys...
Before you all go out and throw a party...
My understanding is that with regards to CS3:
1. 32bit XP normally supports up to 2gigs of ram. 4gigs if you modify a line in the bootstrap file. But 4gigs is divided into 3gigs for apps and 1gig for system stuff.
2. 64bit XP is not supported.
3. 64bit Vista is not supported yet.
Here's the specs from Adobe:
- Intel® Pentium® 4 (1.4GHz processor for DV; 3.4GHz processor for HDV), Intel Centrino®, Intel Xeon® (dual 2.8GHz processors for HD), or Intel Core Duo (or compatible) processor; SSE2-enabled processor required for AMD systems
- Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional or Home Edition with Service Pack 2 or Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise (certified for 32-bit editions)
- 1GB of RAM for DV; 2GB of RAM for HDV and HD; more RAM recommended when running multiple components
Here's the memory specs for xp from Microsoft:
Operating systems based on Microsoft Windows NT technologies have always provided applications with a flat 32-bit virtual address space that describes 4 gigabytes (GB) of virtual memory. The address space is usually split so that 2 GB of address space is directly accessible to the application and the other 2 GB is only accessible to the Windows executive software.
The 32-bit versions of the Windows 2000 Advanced Server and Windows NT Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition, operating systems were the first versions of Windows to provide applications with a 3-GB flat virtual address space, with the kernel and executive components using only 1 GB. In response to customer requests, Microsoft has expanded the availability of this support to the 32-bit version of Windows XP Professional and all 32-bit versions of Windows Server 2003.
Windows 2000 Memory Support. With Windows 2000 Professional and Server, the maximum amount of memory that can be supported is 4 GB (identical to Windows NT 4.0, as described later in this section). However, Windows 2000 Advanced Server supports 8 GB of physical RAM and Windows 2000 Datacenter Server supports 32 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature of the IA-32 processor family, beginning with Intel Pentium Pro and later.
Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 Memory Support. The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB of physical RAM and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature.
The virtual address space of processes and applications is still limited to 2 GB unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file. When the physical RAM in the system exceeds 16 GB and the /3GB switch is used, the operating system will ignore the additional RAM until the /3GB switch is removed. This is because of the increased size of the kernel required to support more Page Table Entries. The assumption is made that the administrator would rather not lose the /3GB functionality silently and automatically; therefore, this requires the administrator to explicitly change this setting.
The /3GB switch allocates 3 GB of virtual address space to an application that uses IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE in the process header. This switch allows applications to address 1 GB of additional virtual address space above 2 GB.
The virtual address space of processes and applications is still limited to 2 GB, unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file. The following example shows how to add the /3GB parameter in the Boot.ini file to enable application memory tuning:
However, knock yourselves out on getting the biggest baddest processors out there.
regards,

Similar Messages

Dual-core or Quad-core for Premiere, After Effects, and Photoshop CS4?

We are planning to purchase around 25 computers for a computer lab for working with CS4 Production Premium at the high school level. Mainly Premiere Pro, After Effects, and Photoshop. Our budget is, unfortunately, a mere $550-$625 per machine (just the tower though, we have monitors). I've already established that a 64-bit operating system makes a significant difference in the performance, even though Photoshop is the only 64-bit application, and I'm now hung up on whether or not it's worth the cost of a quad-core processor over a dual-core.
I'm discovering the different hardware needs for each application, so I'm trying to find an economic balance that will give me the best performance per buck. It seems that Premiere benefits significantly from more cores (we're editing 1440x1080 AVCHD), and this article over at Tom's Hardware has convinced me that I don't want to compromise with a hyperthreaded dual-core for After Effects.
I'm also struggling with what part the graphics card plays in the mix. Which applications lean on the graphics card, and will it make much difference as long as I meet the requirements (OpenGL 2.0, Shader Model 3.0, Direct3D 10, and 256 Mb Ram)?
I understand I will need to settle for less-than-awesome with my budget, but I'm already making sacrifices to get the number to $625. I would like to make sure that those sacrifices will be worth it for a quad-core system.

I think I may have answered my own question by looking at these charts over at Tom's Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CS4 ,1404.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/Adobe-Photoshop-CS-4,1 387.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/Video-Editing-Adobe-After-Effec ts-CS5,2427.html
I think that the jump to the quad core in Premiere Pro is worth it, even if I don't see as large of an improvement in Photoshop or After Effects. I am still interested in the role of the graphics card in the mix if anyone can shed some light on that. Will an integrated graphics card (like an Intel GMA x4500 or Radeon HD4200) suffice or will I need an actual graphics card to realize the benefits?
Thanks

Intel quad core i5 versus i7

Intel quad core i5 versus i7. A lot of the posts I see on this are old. Am about to purchase a new iMac and this is the sticking point. I do not do video or heavy duty gaming. Sometimes work with photos. Usually try to buy the upper end, but if the i7 is not worth it??? Just don't want to be sorry if I do not get it.
Another question. Is there any rumor of new processors for the iMac? If so, I would wait a bit before purchasing
Thanks

Answering your questions helps here.
1. Worth it? It's a cost thing for sure. Moving up to device longevity (future prospects) the 8-core is $2,000 more than 4-core, while the 6-core is just $500 more. K5-models are way more than display updates in D500 and D700. The processor are dumping the 1600's and moving to the 2500's. If you try and mix-match, you bottle-neck. With two generations on the sales rack. be careful!
2. 2500's ARE the new processor. Follow these links to http://ark.intel.com and spec your Mac Pro stats vs. the processor stats. Apple store back room tech advised me to line-up the dots. Processor and Memory are easy: 3.7GHz to 12GB, etc. Fit to Graphics involves droping from 4 options to 3 options... but only at first glance. D300 is definitely a 3.7-12 selection. Using it anywhere else is asking for trouble. Dual D700 is your crossfire PC W9100 spec. You can over-kill without worry, out of curiosity. D500 is a respectable Unix adaptation for 3.5-16 and for 3.0-32. The former is for gamers, fast vid only (sort-of-thing). The later is for multi-threading.
Lining up the dots may sound like a game... but it's not for folks like me who like less friction and more compatibility.
Read the Intel Unix stats.
http://ark.intel.com/products/75779/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1620-v2-10M-Cache-3_ 70-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/75780/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1650-v2-12M-Cache-3_ 50-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/75279/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2690-v2-25M-Cache-3_ 00-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/75283/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2697-v2-30M-Cache-2_ 70-GHz
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

MSI P6N-SLI AND INTEL QUAD CORE Q8200 NOT SUPPORTED ? BIOS FLASH ?

HI,I have MSI-P6N SLI (MS-7350) pc mainboard and my new processor Intel Quad Core Q8200 not running on this desk.
It possible some bios update or something ?? :(
thanks for answers

Quote from: DaLoona on 02-September-10, 02:46:27
According to this:
http://global.msi.eu/index.php?func=prodcpu2&prod_no=1141&maincat_no=1&orderby=cpu_name%20ASC#menu
"Yorkfield" 45nm quadcores are not going to work on this board, only "wolfdale" 45nm dualcores and even that depends on revision, like Jack mentioned.
So your Q8200 is a no go unfortunatly.
Only the older 65nm "Conroe" quads will work.
and fastest intel processor (not 45nm quad core) ?

Intel Quad Core QX6700 + Dreamweaver 8 + CuteFTP Pro Problem

I know you guys probably can't help me with CuteFTP, but here
goes with DW8 anyway:
Ok, last week I upgraded from my single core CPU to the nice
Intel Quad Core Extreme QX6700 Kentsfield. It wasn't until today
that when I wanted to put up Dreamweaver 8 and my CuteFTP program
for some website updating, I noticed that DW8 would not startup
unless all but 1 core was disabled otherwise the system would hang
and lockup. CuteFTP would not even load up reguareless if 1 or all
4 cores were running.
Previously, I was using WS FTP Pro 2006, but it is not
compatable with IE7 which was the reason why I switched to CuteFTP.
I don't care if the workload is distributed over the
multicores as it is just website editing, nothing fancy. I would
just like to know if there is a way to just get it to run with all
4 cores active. So far, every Adobe program I have runs fine with 4
cores, it is just DW8 and CuteFTP which are finiky. I purchased it
when it was under Macromedia which could be a factor.
If anyone could help me out, it would be great!
PS: I know website design doesn't need 4 cores, lol! I am
also a CGI graphics artist in advance production classes at my
university, hence needing the 4 cores for rendering!

Unfortunately, you'll probably have to wait for a CuteFTP
update, too.
If there's a support forum or contact for CuteFTP, ask them
what to do.
"NITRO1250" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:euukct$run$[email protected]..
> Downloaded the 8.02 update and it fixed the problem.
Does anyone know of a
> way to fix Cute FTP?

Intel quad core i7 2.6 vs 2.7 GHz

hello,
I would like to buy a macbook pro, but now I doubt which intel quad core I should choose.
Is there a noticeable difference between the 2.6 and 2.7 GHz?

the only time you'll see a difference between the 2.6GHz and 2.7GHz if you're using benchmarking software which most are sythetic and not real world conditons (what we'll use it for).
In paper, the difference of the 2.6GHz level 3 cache memory at 6MB and the 2.7GHz level 3 cache memory at 8MB looks good. In reality, you will not see a difference or benefits going with the 2.7GHz.
suggestion - if you're buying a NON-Retina Macbook Pro get the 2.6GHz and use the money you save to buy either a 16GB of RAM or a SSD drive.
good luck

Quad core or Hex core for Premiere pro

I am about to take the plunge and upgrade my aging edit PC
Having read some very useful posts on what to get at various budgets but I am still left with a few questions.
I edit mainly AVCHD footage on CS5 and compress to h264 for vimeo or intanet, I have a GoPro 3 but this is rearly used for anything serious but I do intend to upgrade to CS6 in the future.
Do I need a hexcore if I am not burning Blu-ray discs and am unlikely to edit 4k in the near future?
If I buy a quad core machine will I have a dramatic increase in rendering and compression time over the hex core?
The quad core will save more than the cost of a Matrox MXO2 Mini MAX if I do need h264 accelaration but this may still not be as fast, has anyone had experience of the Matrox compared to a hex core machine?
The specs only give a guide and practical experience available on this forum seems the best advice.
I look forward to your replies
Aidan

Aidan,
I'd say it depends on your price point. Premiere Pro gets great performance by taxing much of a system including cpu, gpu, drives, bus (motherboard), and memory.
If you are wanting to build a desktop system yourself for under $1700, then I'd say Z77 4-core would be excellent. You can edit AVCHD for sure, but you would be more limited for complex projects.
If you are willing to spend more, the x79 chipset and i7-3930k 6-core is an excellent way to go.
Search around this site for awhile and you will find various build lists with lots of passionate comments on component selection for a wide variety of price points.
Regards,
Jim

Are all intels quad-core?

I went to Best Buy to buy a laptop today and I went to buy a AMD quadcore because there were no Intels that I saw in my price range with more than one core. Well the associate there told me that all the Intels are quadcore, so I left without purchasing anything because I wanted to do my research on it before I pay this much money for something, but I cannot seem to find much on it online. So I was wondering can anyone confirm that all Intel processors are quadcore now? I did notice that all the laptops with Intel processors didn't have how many cores were in the name as the AMD did. He also told me, it would be best not to buy a computer with an AMD processor.

i5 (certain models) and i7 do have quad. Even my i5 does and it's EOL (i5-2500K). No, it doesn't hyperthread. What is absolute is that of the three, only the i7s have quad and hyperthreading together.
That being said, it is better to have a really beefy processor when doing video editing especially if you are doing any sort of 3D work. Most video editing software relies on the multicore processors way more than GPUs. Hence why you have video shops such as Pixar putting the beefiest processors in their machines. Like bobberuchi said about integrated graphics, skip that. It comes on most Intel chips these days, so you can't really get around it, but offloading whatever it can to the GPU will definitely save you some cycles here and there.
My recommendation, grab the i7 with hyperthreading. The quad cores with a logical 8 will carry you much farther than the greatest of video cards. Most of my friends who are in the industry figured that out the hard way. However, doing any serious video editing work will probably choke out the laptop and hard drive space will be finite. You can always plug in an external hard drive, but it will be slower.

Dual core vs Quad Core for mild video and photo editing

I've owned PC's since ever and I'm now contemplating on coming over to the Mac world, my question is would a fully upgraded 13" MBPr Suffice for mild photo and video editing or should I try to shell out the extra cash for a lower end 15" with Quad-Core?
13" specs
2.8GHz Dual-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
16GB 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage
2199$
15" specs
2.3GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.5GHz
16GB 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage
2599$

Sorry, yes it will suffice? if so how many years would I expect this computer to last me? (Sorry I'm really new to apple)

Dual core vs Quad core for a Filmmaker?

Hi, I'm a 14 year-old filmmaker who really wants their next computer to be a mac mini. I am obviously on a tight budget being 14, so I was thinking just buying the standard dual-core processor. But for a filmmaker like myself, is it worth the extra $200 for my heavy-duty video-editing applications? I would use a mixture of Apple Motion 5, and the video-effects program Hitfilm Ultimate. I know quad is faster, but is it worth it for me?
Thanks.

"Hyperthreading" is the key. Hyper-threading enables each execution unit (or core, if you will) to process two threads (tasks) simultaneously. It can do this because not every instruction takes only a single instruction cycle. Sometimes instructions have to wait for a read from memory, which can take many clock cycles. Sometimes multiple instructions can be performed at once -- for example, a floating point addition and an integer multiplication, as long as both instructions already have their operands in registers and store the results in different registers. Hyper-threading enables each processor to handle multiple tasks by allowing one task to work while the other is waiting for a result, or allowing both instructions to be completed at the same time because they use non-conflicting resources.
So, two "hyperthreaded" cores work as fast as four without hyperthreading, or the difference in speed is so negligible, you wouldn't notice it. Since the Mac Mini Core i7 is also hyperthreaded, it works as well as dual quad cores, so if you need inudstry standard speed, then the Core i7 would be your best choice.
As I said though, I can take 1080p video from my Canon Vixia, and edit it with OnLocation or Premiere Pro, and render it with barely a drain on my processor cores (2 or 4). So far, the biggest vid file I've done was about 250Mb, which was about a ten minute shoot. If you're going to work with 2Gb and up, then I'd definitely go with the Core i7 and max the RAM out to 16Gb.

8-Core vs Quad-Core for Adobe After Effects

With AfterEffects running native on Intel, how much difference will it make to run AE on an 8-core MacPro vs the Quad-core?
Thanks!

Without specifically knowing AE, it's behaviours and requirements, it's hard to say. However, generally speaking the ability to saturate 8 cores is dependent on two things…
1) Mac OS X. The performance of Mac OS X and its handling of multi-threaded applications is all important. While Tiger does a decent job of this you'll find that Leopard will put it to shame in this regard. If you actually monitor your core saturation during processing you'll notice that many application, which includes the like of iTunes etc, won't simultaneously saturate all cores. What they'll actually do is saturate one core at a time sequentially. Funnily I find that multi-threaded PowerPC applications/Rosetta saturates all cores very well.
2) Data source and destination. Where your data is coming from and going to, obviously with CPU processing in between, is a hugge consideration. For instance, if data must come and go from hard disk you might well find that this will be you bottleneck. This also goes for RAM. How much data must come and go from the processors is all important as this will result, or not, in the processor cores waiting for data or not. If they're waiting they won't saturate.
Obviously there are things you can do in this regard to minimise your data bottlenecks such as using RAID and optimal RAM installations (I'd recommend anyone going with 8 cores go with a minimum 8GB - 4 x 2GB in Slots 1/2 - RAM)
Ultimately, unless you know how efficient AE is in the multi-threaded and its data handling stakes you might well find a huge benefit by going with 8 cores. On the other hand, you could also be wasting your money. My advise would be to call Adobe and ask them. Additionally, find someone with AE and a quad-core MP and watch the core saturation for yourself. I'd use MenuMeters…
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/17713
… set to update as fast as possible for this to see what's going on.
I get the feeling the biggest benefit, as others have noted, will be more efficient multiple application processing/multi-tasking rather than single application processing. Until it gets into oswers hands it's hard to really say for certain.

New NI CompactRIO calls the question, "¿Quien is mas macho, Intel quad-core Atom or 4-year-old i7?"

Perhaps you remember the Saturday Night Live TV sketch from 1979 where Bill Murray played a game show host who asked the show’s titular question, “¿Quien es mas macho?”
Today, Matt Spexarth, Principal Product Manager for Embedded Systems at National Instruments (NI), called the NI CompactRIO controller introduced this week at NI Week—the model cRIO-9039, which pairs a 1.91GHz, quad-core Intel Atom CPU with a Xilinx Kintex-7 325T FPGA—the highest-performance CompactRIO ever released. That includes the existing cRIO-9082 controller, which pairs a 1.33GHz, dual-core Intel i7 CPU and a Xilinx Spartan-6 LX150 FPGA. So both the processor and the FPGA have been upgraded in the new CompactRIO controller. The NI cRIO-9039 controller es mas macho.
NI Model cRIO-9039 Controller in an 8-slot CompactRIO Chassis
The new NI CompactRIO controller runs security-enhanced NI Linux Real-Time. It has an SDHC card slot for non-volatile storage and can directly operate a local, graphical UI (user interface) as a human-machine interface. Another key performance feature, noted Spexarth, is a bank of DDR3 SDRAM attached directly to the Kintex-7 FPGA to allow the FPGA to directly handle large data sets, to process large FFTs for example.
As with the entire line of NI CompactRIO controllers, you program the cRIO-9039 controller using NI’s LabVIEW graphical development environment with its many add-on modules including LabVIEW FPGA. In addition, the new CompactRIO controller maintain compatibility with the many CompactRIO plug-in I/O hardware modules.

Whygirl,
it reads as though an internal disk upgrade (and possibly a battery replacement) would suffice for you, and those two together would be far less expensive than a new MacBook Pro. Yes, you could install either a HDD or a SSD in place of its current internal HDD. You could look at the Hitachi Travelstar 7K1000 as an example of a suitable 1 TB HDD; SSDs are more expensive per unit of storage than a HDD, but might be worth the extra cost if your apps are disk-bound. (I put a Samsung 840 PRO into my 13-inch Mid 2010 model, and it’s been working well.) Note that Chrome might be responsible for the extra heat (and the extra heat is responsible for the increased volume from the fans kicking in); Chrome isn’t optimized for use on 64-bit versions of OS X, like 10.8.5.

2.0 GHz Intel Quad core i7 vs. 3.7 GHz Intel Duo Core i7 Processor: Why not make the Quad Core 3.7GHz?

I don't really understand processors, but is the 2.0GHz Quad Core i7 really a better processor in terms of performance? If it has 4 cores why not give it greater processing speed like 2.7 or 3.0 GHz?
I am asking because I am thinking about getting the high end Mac Mini, but I see that it's processor runs at 2.0GHz and the others in the line run at 2.5 and 2.7 respectively. Why is this?

I'm really oversimplifying here, but...
Let's just assume that each core runs at full speed all the time, the total performance of that processor would be the sum of the running totals of each core:
Duo Core i7 = 2 (cores) * 2.7 GHZ = 5.4 Ghz total processor power
Quad Core i5 = 4 (cores) * 2.0 GHZ = 8.0 Ghz
Like I said, oversimplified. But, you get the point. Not to mention, most apps still aren't optimized, so at a given time they only use a single core anyway. In this case, it'd be more beneficial to have more cores, since they would (hypothetically) be able to run more simultaneous processes (four vs. two in your case).
I gues the greater question is: what were you planning on using the mini for? Most CPUs go underutilized anyway, so you may be better off getting a 2.0, and maxing out your RAM and maybe adding a SSD. Those upgrades (the SSD especially) will result in a very noticeable increase in performance.

What to get: 3.7GHz quad-core or 3.5GHz 6-quad-core for the Mac Pro 6,1?

I'm thinking of getting the new Mac Pro 6,1. I want to keep the price down as much as I can. I work in, FCPX 10.1, Motion 5, Premiere Pro CC, After Effects CC, Speedgrade CC and DaVinci Resolve 11 lite? Sufficient to say I do a lot of rendering. I do not work with any 4K footage, just 1080P. So does anybody have any thoughts or experience with the MP 6,1 and do you think the 3.7GHz quad-core has enough power?
Thanks,
-Russ

There are two ways to get the 6-core:
One is to start with the entry for the 4-core (includes D300 graphics) and customize to 6-core processor only, adds US$500.
The other is to start with the 6-core (includes D500 graphics) and starts at US$1000 more.
If you buy the 4-core today, the processor can be third-party or do-it-yourself upgraded with an off-the-shelf processor later.
I expect others would advise you to buy as much graphics power as you can afford, but I think it has a smaller and diminishing return.

Do you need quad-core for gaming?

Really attracted by the 13" retina MBP (although i've read many very mixed reviews). Was hoping someone could help me with a niggling concern with it; will the dual-core i5 be enough for running parallel Windows/OS, photoshop and gaming, all day, everyday?
By the time you upgrade the 256GB 13" to i7 you're into the 15" terratory which comes with quad-core i7 as standard. Just put off by the size...
Would really appreciate peoples thoughts on this.
Cheers

Will the dual-core i5 be able to handle parallel OS, photo editing and gaming or are we talking quad-core i7 realms to manage this comfortably?
Cheers

Intel Quad Core for Premiere - is this a smart choice ?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for