Is (4770 3.5 i7 qouad core 8 mb cach) good enough for premier and after effect?

Hi guys,
am buying the new imac 27" with its maximum features: 32 GB, 1 TB ssd, NVidia gtx 780 with 4GB, but I am worried about the cpu (4770 3.5 i7 qouad core 8 mb cach) is it good enough for premier and after effect?

Thanks John, but I've already read that page. I have just a simple question about the performance of "4 core" and "6core" if anyone had already tried both of them.

Similar Messages

Is Prentium D Dual Core 3.0 powerful enough for CS3?

Is Prentium D Dual Core 3.0 powerful enough for CS3?

Yes, Mobotu, I found P Pro 2.0 and Aspect 5.0 much better than 1.5.1 and 4.25 if for no other reason than it fixed the color/saturation shift when I played videos from the timeline without having to monkey around with that overlay playback setting. And it fixed the slight stuttering that the audio used to make when I first started playing a clip in the timeline. Beyond that, it has some other little nifty improvements, multicam, and a flexible window interface. I just received my free CS3 upgrade yesterday (due to a special promo when I bought ver. 2.0 a few months ago), so I will see how that works with Aspect HD 5 now. I also finally get a free upgrade included for my aging version of Encore 1.5 to Encore CS 3.0 and I will also see if I can find any use for On Location as well.

Is a Pentium(R) Dual-Core processor good enough for Adobe Premiere Pro?

is a Pentium(R) Dual-Core processor good enough for Adobe Premiere Pro? Under system requirements, Adobe listed Intel Core Duo...not sure if this is just as good?

Hi Brian,
Good question. Keep in mind that these are minimum system requirements. I have not had a core 2 duo for some time, but I recall that the performance was not that good at that time, and this was CS5.5, or so. If you are going to use this machine, be sure to work at lower playback resolutions until you can afford a more powerful computer.
Video editors typically have more powerful systems than the minimum system requirements. Check our hardware forum for details: Hardware Forum
Thanks,
Kevin

Is iMac Quad Core Good Enough for AVCHD In Premiere Pro CS4

Hi there.
I have a quick question....
I'm thinking about buying a new 27" iMac so that I can edit my AVCHD files in Premiere Pro CS4. I'm presently using a Macbook Pro with a Dual Core and the video playback in Premiere Pro is choppy.
I also read that Premiere Pro doesn't support AVCHD without an expensive plugin.
Does anyone know if the iMac, with the specs below, will playback AVCHD in PP smoothly?
2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
8GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 4x2GB
1TB Serial ATA Drive
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB
Thanks,
David

Hello again.
I have now upgraded to an iMac, quad core i7 with 8GB of RAM. I have my AVCHD footage on a striped RAID hard drive connected via FW800 and the scratch disks on a separate 1TB hard drive that is not striped and that is connected via USB. I am using Premiere Pro CS4 to edit the footage.
When I play the video in PP, it warps on and off. It's better than when I was using my Macbook Pro dual core 4GB RAM, but it's still not playing smoothly. I have the presets set to 1080i30(60i), which is correct for this footage.
I would prefer to not have to convert the AVCHD footage, unless there is a clear advantage to doing this.I have tried converting to a P2 file, but it increases the file size from 284MB to 2.8GB.
Any suggestions?
Thanks,
David

After Effects 6.5 on a Quad Core

Hello,
1 - Can I use after Effects 6.5 on a Quad core... Will it take advantage of it like CS3.
2 - How much memory should I have for 32 bit version of windows?
I don't want to have to upgrade both hardware and software unless I really have to.
3 - Also if I upgrade to Vista, will it run earlier versions on Premiere Pro(1.0), Photoshop(7) and After Effects(6.5) and Flash (8).
Many thanks,
Stephen

Let me clear one big misconception from your mind: XP64 is not faster than its 32bit pendant - it's just different. The main difference is, that each process is launched isolated from each other, so there is no concurrent multitasking and RAM usage - if the system provides enbough physical RAM. This greatly improves overall stability and allows you to launch more applications without them interfering with each other. The real difference is that you can use the full 4GB for a 32bit app to begin with, which is not possible at all on 32bit systems as they will always be truncated to 2/2.5/3GB.
More RAM by itself will not have any impact on the host system's speed, either. In theory (if your motherboard would support that many RAM banks) you could throw 128 GB at XP64, but it wouldn't turn a toaster into a rocket. ;-) There are some 64bit native apps that feel smoother on such systems, but this mostly hinges on the programs having to shuffle less data back and forth. On 32bit systems a lot of time is spent doing just that - swapping memory pages or parking them in the swap file on your hard drive. On a 64 bit system you don't need that as much, you can simply request more RAM.
Pertaining to your programs: Yes, they will run just fine on XP64. I used 6.5 on XP64 until recently myself and the older Photoshop versions never much cared, either. Premiere might be a bit picky, but with a little fiddling should be get to run.
Mylenium

After effects performance issues on mac pro 12-core

Hello everyone,
I feel as if i keep making similar posts to this, but for some reason i am still not satisfied with my machine. Im using a mac pro 12-core 2.4GHz with 40gigs of ram installed and a ATI Radeon 5770 graphics card.
I finally got around to getting my SSD set up and i have all of my applications installed on it along with the OS. i also have all of my cache files set to my WD hard drive so I'm not clogging up my 120GB SSD. My SSD has 40gigs left so i figure i shouldn't go any lower than that to keep the performance of the drive at its fullest potential.
I do a lot of work in after effects CS6 and i feel that the machine is still going slow.. I was working on a project last night and when i went to do a RAM preview i kept getting the beach ball and after effects would glitch up.. what would be the main cause of this? could it have been that the destination file i was working with was on my WD drive and not the SSD?
I don't know what it is i need to keep adding to this machine to finally be satisfied with its performance.. My next investment would most likely be a GTX 570 to enable CUDA cores for open GL rendering, but i still feel that i should still be getting great performance now.
Any suggestions? maybe I'm doing something wrong?
Thanks in advance!

Rick is talking about After Effects Multiprocessing. You can turn it off and on here:
Also, you've only reserved 3 GB out of 40 GB for other applications. Other apps on your computer also need memory to work and setting this number so low could cause these apps to fight with After Effects over the available memory causing AE to slow down. I would suggest starting with that number a lot higher, possibly around 10 GB. Then do a bunch of render tests to see what the best settings are for your machine.
I also highly recommend watching the "Using 'Render Multiple Frames Simultaneously' Multiprocessing" tutorial by Adobe employee Todd Kopriva on Video2Brain for more information. If you really want to learn more about getting the best performance in AE, I would go through the rest of the After Effects & Premiere Pro Performance Workshop. You'll learn a lot.

After Effects CS4 ram preview slow start-up (8 core)

Hi,
I have an Intel 8core PC and I'm working with After Effects CS4 on Windows Vista 64 bit.
When I press on ram preview the CPU usage has a slow startup till 100%.. Is this common or? Cause it takes a while till it really uses the CPU of 100%.. so it has a delay..
Thanks!

I have a similar system. 2 AMD Opeteron 2.3gb quad processors, 8 gb of RAM, Quadro FX5600 video card. I had called Adobe support about how slow my new system was compared to the old system that had a dual core Intel with CS3 and Win XP Pro. Here is the problem:
On the new 64 bit architecture, After Effects CS4 is still a 32 bit program but takes advantage of renders with the 64 bit OS by running After Effects on each core. If you only have 8gb of Ram with 8 cores( like I do), After Effects is loading on to each core. This leaves 1 GB per core to run the OS and After Effects. He told me what I need to do is (1) eliminate half the cores or (2) load the system up with 32 Gb of Ram. I'm currently order more Ram memory but have disabled all but 2 cores in msconfig advanced tab. It working much better at this point. Still slow but not dragging. I've order another 16 Gb of ram and will replace the other old 8 gb of ram with another 16gb at a later date.

MacBook Pro, OS 10.6.8/2.8 GHz/Intel Core 2 Duo/with 4 G memory and would like to hook up an external monitor.

I have a MacBook Pro, OS 10.6.8/2.8 GHz/Intel Core 2 Duo/with 4 G memory and would like to add an external monitor. I have the usual ports; 2 USBs, Ethernet, as well as a couple small ports that I do not know what they are for... sorry . First of all, is it possible to add a monitor or TV screen for a larger screen when using? Secondly, if this can be done, what do I need to buy?
Thanks so much!

Yes, it should be possible. I think every MacBook Pro ever sold has some kind of port for an external monitor. You would have to nail down which kind of port your MBP has and where on your MBP it is located.
Can you find the little "getting started" pamphlet, manual, or PDF that came with it? It should name the connectors.
My guess? If the only ports you have besides USB and Ethernet are smaller than those, you could have a Mini DisplayPort.

Which Mac Pro? More cores=slower speeds? And most of us know the speed matters or FPU for music and I don't understand the faster is for the least amount of procs. And while I get the whole rendering thing and why it makes sense.

Which Mac Pro? More cores=slower speeds? And most of us know the speed matters or FPU for music and I don't understand the faster is for the least amount of procs. And while I get the whole rendering thing and why it makes sense.
The above is what the bar says. It's been a while and wondered, maybe Apple changed the format for forums. Then got this nice big blank canvas to air my concerns. Went to school for Computer Science, BSEE, even worked at Analog Devices in Newton Massachusetts, where they make something for apple.
The bottom line is fast CPU = more FPU = more headroom and still can't figure out why the more cores= the slower it gets unless it's to get us in to a 6 core then come out with faster cores down the road or a newer Mac that uses the GPU. Also. Few. I'm the guy who said a few years ago Mac has an FCP that looks like iMovie on Steroids. Having said that I called the campus one day to ask them something and while I used to work for Apple, I think she thought I still did as she asked me, "HOW ARE THE 32 CORES/1DYE COMING ALONG? Not wanting to embarrass her I said fine, fine and then hung up. Makes the most sense as I never quite got the 2,6,12 cores when for years everything from memory to CPU's have been, in sets of 2 to the 2nd power. 2,4,8,16,32,64,120,256,512, 1024, 2048,4196,8192, 72,768. Wow. W-O-W and will be using whatever I get with Apollo Quad.
Peace to all and hope someone can point us in THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THANK YOU

Thanks for your reply via email/msg. He wrote:
If you are interested in the actual design data for the Xeon processor, go to the Intel site and the actual CPU part numbers are:
Xeon 4 core - E5.1620v2
Xeon 6 core - E5.1650v2
Xeon 8 core - E5.1680v2
Xeon 12 core - E5.2697v2
I read that the CPU is easy to swap out but am sure something goes wrong at a certain point - even if solderedon they make material to absorb the solder, making your work area VERY clean.
My Question now is this, get an 8 core, then replace with 2 3.7 QUAD CHIPS, what would happen?
I also noticed that the 8 core Mac Pro is 3.0 when in fact they do have a 3.4 8 core chip, so 2 =16? Or if correct, wouldn't you be able to replace a QUAD CHIP WITH THAT? I;M SURE THEY ARE UO TO SOMETHING AS 1) WE HAVE SEEN NO AUDIO FPU OR PERHAPS I SHOULD CHECK OUT PC MAKERS WINDOWS machines for Sisoft Sandra "B-E-N-C-H-M-A-R-K-S" -
SOMETHINGS UP AND AM SURE WE'LL ALL BE PLEASED, AS the mac pro was announced Last year, barely made the December mark, then pushed to January, then February and now April.
Would rather wait and have it done correct than released to early only to have it benchmarked in audio and found to be slower in a few areas- - - the logical part of my brain is wondering what else I would have to swap out as I am sure it would run, and fine for a while, then, poof....
PEACE===AM SURE APPLE WILL BLOW US AWAY - they have to figure out how to increase the power for 150 watts or make the GPU work which in regard to FPU, I thought was NVIDIA?

After Effects CC (AERENDER) licensing errors for multiple CORE renders on a SINGLE machine.

I am hoping someone can assist me with an issue I am having in After Effects CC, or know who I should reach out to.
I currently use SMEDGE as a render farm tool. It can launch multiple instances (per core of a licensed machine) of aerender to render a project. This was worked beautifully on CS6, but with CC is breaks. It shoots out the following error: "After Effects error: Unable to obtain a license. Please run the full application to correct the problem or get a more detailed message." My machine is licensed with me logged in and I can run AE CC GUI with no issue.
Is there a way to activate multiple aerender nodes on a single licensed machine? I have an 8-proc machine that used to be able to launch 8 instances of aerender on CS6, since A.E.CC, no more.
Any help would be appreciated as it has cut my render time down drastically.
Thanks,
-Eric

Yes.
... though we think that what we have in store for next year will make such little hacks seem silly. (We have a large portion of our team working on some projects that should make folks like you who want faster rendering very happy.)

After Effects Multi-Core Benchmarks

I have been doing some testing trying to figure out how fast after effects renders and how to
help it render faster. So far i have been very dissapointed with the results. no matter how
much money we spend buying the fastest systems we can i cant seem to get much of a speed
increase. we have 8 computers with 8 cores each now. but i cant seem to get after effects to
use the extra cores even when i have 20Gb ram and enable multi frames with 2GB per frame. i see
it load all the extra copies in task manager but when i render each time 1 core has "some"
usage and the other 7 are always around 10-15% usage.
so i wanted to try a simple benchmark that everyone could try and post their results.
so i made a ntsc dv composition default at 30 seconds and just render it. NOTHING, just blank
frames of nothing. how fast can afx output data like this? i tried tests with multiple frames
enabled and disabled and output to tiff files (no compression) or the microsoft DV 48khz
preset, both with the default BEST setting.
Now i understand that after effects and premiere have 2 completely different rendering methods
but still it is worth pointing out that premiere will output 30 seconds of blank video or
actual real dv video footage to a DV AVI file in about 3-4 seconds. so why is it the same
machine takes 10 times longer to render from after effects?
I know in premiere i can simple drop in a dv avi file and export to mpeg2 and i can watch all 8
cores almost max out as it renders about 6X faster then realtime.
How can i do something in after effects to see my 8 cores max out?
Please give any tips or tricks to speed up after effects. We must use vista64 as we have a 30TB fibrechannel array.
Dell Laptop M6300 - Core 2 Extreme x9000 @2.8ghz (2 cores)
Adobe CS4 Windows XP 64 bit - 8GB ram
Multiple OFF     Tiff=1:24
                       DV=1:24
Multiple ON      Tiff=1:32
                       DV=1:30
Dell Precision 690 - Dual Quad Core Xeon E5320 @1.86ghz (8 cores)
Adobe CS4 - Windows Vista 64 bit - 4GB ram - Matrox Axio LE
Multiple OFF     Tiff= :47
                       DV= :43
Multiple ON      Tiff= :56
                       DV= :52
Dell Precision T7400 - Dual Quad Core Xeon X5482 @3.2ghz (8 cores)
Adobe CS3 - Windows XP 32 bit - 4GB ram - Matrox Axio LE
Multiple OFF     Tiff= :30
                        DV= :30
Multiple ON      Tiff= :31
                       DV= :30
Dell Precision T7400 - Dual Quad Core Xeon X5482 @3.2ghz (8 cores)
Adobe CS4 - Windows Vista 64 bit - 20GB ram - Matrox Axio LE
Multiple OFF     Tiff= :30
                       DV= :31
Multiple ON      Tiff= :35
                      DV= :35

Well we can toss around reasons for AE not using a processors full potental on a comp, but all I know is that all of the truly multithreaded and multi-processor enable applications I use are much better at using resources to their fullest than AE, or for that mater, most of the programs in the MC.
When I run those programs my system is pushed to the limit- which is why I bought a quad core system in the first place. Mental ray, Fusion, 3D Coat, Zbrush...the list is long of programs that have no problem using all my cores for 90%-100% of opperations.
In the end it just adds up to the fact that Adobe owns a large corner of the market- and since there is no competition, sees no reason NOT to be 5-10 years behind the curve when it comes to resource managment in their software.
Making maters worse is how a lot of the user base is oblivious to the technological changes in processors over the last five years. These people don't know that all but one of their cores sit idle most of the time, and they buy the corp. speak put out by Adobe about "...how complex every thing is- so you don't understand...". Sorry- I may not be a programer or a processor engineer for Intel or AMD, but I know when a program is using resources or not and I know quite a few of the things Adobe has said are "...just too complicated to do..." are really covers for lack luster R and D. Either your programers need to get up to speed, or Adobe needs to actually do the right thing and set more money aside for development. I'm betting it's the later.
Softimage 7.x is fully multithreaded and 64bit (yes all the way through not just with mr). This is a complicated program- and the development team is probably 1/10th the size of that working on PS. So why after all of these years are we still waiting for even a half baked attempt at such things on the Adobe front?
The way AE handles RAM compared to programs like Fusion and the like is pathetic.
Don't get me wrong- I love the program for motion graphics and simple comp work, but again, the resource management with AE feels like I'm back in OS8.
-Gideon

Help updating ATI graphics driver in bootcamp Windows 8.1 on iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch) with 4 GHz Intel core i7, 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3 and AMD Radeon R9 M295x 4096MB

Help updating ATI graphics driver in bootcamp Windows 8.1 on iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch) with 4 GHz Intel core i7, 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3 and AMD Radeon R9 M295x 4096MB

Of note there is a new AMD Catalyst Omega driver released earlier in the week that brings 5K resolution to AMD graphics cards. Here is the link (support.ad.com/en-us/download) to the AMD site. But none of these work with my iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2014), Windows 8 bootcamp.
Please advise.
Thanks in advace.

Will logic pro x run on my mac mini dual core intel i5 with 4gb of ram and mountain lion ?

hi there guys,
will logic pro x run on my mac mini dual core intel i5 with 4gb of ram and mountain lion ?
I'm not sure if my machine is 64 bit - it is the current model base mac mini.
Many thanks for any help you can offer !
Simon

SkiJumptoes is right. 4GB is not enough to comfortably run Logic X.
Your Mac Mini will need DDR3 SODIMM RAM. That website seems incredibly steep though. I guess that's the price of finding it for you. You're better off going to any below:
http://www.ebuyer.com/191206-kingston-4gb-ddr3-1066mhz-laptop-memory-kvr1066d3s7 -4g?utm_source=google&utm_medium=products&gclid=COqM6KzdxbgCFcfJtAodoicARg
http://www.ballicom.co.uk/cmso4gx3m1a1600c11-corsair-value-select--memory--4-gb- -so-dimm-204pin--ddr3--1600-mhz--pc312800--cl11--15-v--unbuffered--nonecc.p87434 0.html?ref=5&gclid=CKyej_HdxbgCFQSS3godEjwAug

Difference between core switch types WS-C3750X-12S-S and N3K-C3524P-10G?

Hello All,
I am new to this domain and yet have to look after the setup of our datacenter for a new branch. Could any one of you provide difference between core switch types WS-C3750X-12S-S and N3K-C3524P-10G!
Thanks in advance!!

N3K-C3524P-10G
24 fixed 1/10-Gbps SFP+ ports; upgradeable to 48 with a valid license
Line-rate Layer 2 and Layer 3 throughput of up to 480 Gbps
Compact 1RU form factor
Dual redundant color-coded power supplies
Four redundant color-coded fans

After Effects CC 2014 initializing Media core

Hello Everyone,
So for about the past month or so, After Effects CC 2014 hasn't been opening for me. Every time I open the program, it gets stuck on initializing Mediacor and then proceeds to crash. I have been told that it is a misplaced file during installation, but everything is where it should be. Alo, I'm using Lenovo Y50-90 Gaming Laptop with an Intel Core i7 4700HQ processor and my graphics card is a NVIDIA Geforce GTX 860M 2GB.I am also using Window's 8. Any and all help will be immediately grateful.
Thak you

Hang| Initializing MediaCore | Startup screen | After Effects, Premiere Pro

Is (4770 3.5 i7 qouad core 8 mb cach) good enough for premier and after effect?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for