Frage von Felix E. Klee:
Hello,
Known for a search for a system for video editing (source currently
Canon HV30). As the budget for the following components are initially
EUR 400 is available.
Motherboard, CPU, RAM, hard drive, graphics card
Because at times synonymous with the system OS X will be installed, the
Restricted choice of components, mainly due to Gigabyte
Motherboards, Intel CPUs and NVIDIA graphics cards. [1]
What I'll have put together:
* Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS4: 110 EUR
* Intel Core 2 Duo E6750, 2x 2.67GHz, 333MHz FSB, 4MB shared Cache:
130 EUR
* 4 x 1GB 800 MHz DDR2 RAM: 70 EUR
* Samsung SpinPoint F1 HD502IJ - 500GB 7200rpm 16MB 3.5zoll SATA300:
50 EUR
* ASUS EN7300GT, passively cooled. 40 EUR
If the balanced combination of the intended use? Would it make sense
$ 100 but pay more? If yes, for what? I appreciate each
Advice.
- Felix
PS: Oh yes, somewhat quietly, the system should already be. But this
it is probably more reasonable housing and power supply ensured
and CPU fan. There are approximately 100 EUR are available.
[1] http://www.efi-x.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=
& & language = english
Antwort von Felix E. Klee:
Have been significantly changed the composition, but a
final decision is still not like it. If interested, simply
Decision type.
Antwort von Frank Jedner:
Hello
I would for DV editing always a 4 core CPU prefer.
At least under Windows s.XP brings this to the known solutions, such as SW
Magix eg significant performance advantages.
Viele Grüsse
Frank Jedn
Antwort von Andre Sokolew:
"Frank Jedn"
wrote:
> I would for DV editing always a 4 core CPU prefer.
> At least under Windows s.XP brings with it the familiar SW solutions
> Such as Magix significant performance advantages.
This statement surprised me.
Forgot your comparison?
Andre
Antwort von Arno Welzel:
Andre Sokolew wrote:
> "Frank Jedn" wrote:
>
>> I would for DV editing always a 4 core CPU prefer.
>> At least under Windows s.XP brings with it the familiar SW solutions
>> Like Magix significant performance advantages.
>
> This statement surprised me.
> Have you compared the?
See eg
Unless the manufacturer of video editing software, the mind can
the performance even more than with the number of cores increase.
--
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
Antwort von Heiko Nocon:
Arno Welzel wrote:
> See for example
There is only how to make _sollte_, but there is no way that
synonymous as it is made. Already garnicht is there that the concrete
said program makes it so. And it is not already there, because
Intel probably reluctant to stand as a liar, because it would be a
lie flat and an easy-to-top revealing ...
> Unless the manufacturer of video editing software, the mind can
> the performance even more than with the number of cores increase.
Theoretically, because of the core location of L1 cache, yes. Practice
However, the advantage in almost all real scenarios by
Expenses for thread synchronization again after more than
eaten. It is not the result of a partial problem
auszurechnen quickly, the solution must be synonymous again afterwards in order
to solve the overall problem can be inserted.
One may in this document is part of a well safely Intel Marketing
presuppose. Somehow, yes, the reasons can be found, so that someone
the expensive multi-core chip.
Practically, you can give my programming experience happy, when the
Apply at least approximately with the number of cores scales. To
reach is the only well-parallelizable problems.
They are, however, in the massively parallel computing today
High-performance graphics cards again much better. Against the
Performance of 256 or even 512 shaders may be appropriate
No problems-Intel CPU synonymous only approximated anstinken.
But no preference whether shader graphics card or multi-cores of Intel: The
Main problem is that there are no development tools are included in the
Are capable of existing complex sequential algorithms independently
parallelize, even if this principle well parallelizable
would be.
What it so far in this direction, you may do so only in very simple
Matters afford.
Ie: This work would need expensive developers like I do. That
None but want to pay. And so it usually happens that the
Harnessing multiple cores today, mostly on a very different way
done. There are only individual elements of existing
sequential processing chains in outsourced thread, thus
almost never an optimal load distribution is possible. The idea
that a quad to work four times as fast as a could
Single core, there is at present existing applications regularly
a complete illusion.
Antwort von Arno Welzel:
Nocon Heiko wrote:
> Arno Welzel wrote:
>
>> See eg
>
> There is only how to make _sollte_, but there is no way that
> Synonymous as it is made. Already garnicht is there that the concrete
> Said program makes it so. And it is not already there, because
> Intel probably reluctant to stand as a liar, because it would be a
> Lie flat and an easy-to-top revealing ...
Right - this is an import, as it should do. More will
yes here is not synonymous claims.
>> Unless the manufacturer of video editing software, the mind can
>> The performance even more than with the number of cores increase.
>
> Theoretically, because of the core location of L1 cache, yes. Practice
> However, the advantage in almost all real scenarios by
> Expenses for thread synchronization again after more than
> Eaten. It is not the result of a partial problem
> Auszurechnen quickly, the solution must be synonymous again afterwards in order
> Solve the overall problem can be inserted.
>
> It is in this document may safely be a good part of Intel Marketing
> Assume. Somehow, yes, the reasons can be found, so that someone
> The expensive multi-core chip.
>
> Practically, you can give my programming experience happy, when the
> Application with at least approximate the number of cores scales. To
> Achieve is the only well-parallelizable problems.
Eben - and video coding * is * a good parallelizable problem. We
are not talking about general possibilities of any
Applications for multi-core, but quite specifically of video encoding.
> They are, however, in the massively parallel computing today
> High-performance graphics cards again much better. Against the
> Performance of 256 or even 512 shaders may be appropriate
> No problems Intel CPUs synonymous only approximated anstinken.
[...]
Also correct. But it is likely that existing solutions,
already available for x86 architecture have been realized on Multithreading
Parallelization and be converted, as the existing approach
to completely rebuild shader.
As a suggestion:
E6600, 2 cores, 2.4 Ghz
Time spent on H264 encoding of test: 128 seconds
Time spent on H264 encoding of 2.5 hours DVD: 7997 seconds
Q6600, 4 cores, 2.4 GHz
Time spent on H264 encoding of test: 67 seconds
Time spent on H264 encoding of 2.5 hours DVD: 15801 seconds
4 to 2 ratio of test scores: approximately 0.52
Ratio 4 to 2 score at 2.5 hours DVD: approx 0.51
That is twice the performance s.der by twice as many cores already
very close. From "more than eaten" because I see little.
--
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
Antwort von Heiko Nocon:
Arno Welzel wrote:
> This is s.der dual performance by twice as many cores already
> very close. From "more than eaten" because I see little.
Read again, please correct.
I am referring to the phrase "disproportionate", which is probably
says that as _mehr_ out, as by the mere
Multiplication of the number of core might be expected.
I have shown that it is actually possible, but that this
_zusätzliche_ advantage through the practical necessities again
eaten as is, and that as a consequence the best
Total earnings in good parallelizable problem with the approximated
Number of cores scales, so do not _über_proportional, but
just proportional.
Antwort von Stefan Schaper:
Moin!
> Hello,
>
> Known for a search for a system for video editing (source currently
> Canon HV30). As the budget for the following components are initially
> 400 EUR are available.
>
> Motherboard, CPU, RAM, hard drive, graphics card
>
> Because the system at times synonymous OS X to be installed, the
> Choice of components restricted, mainly due to Gigabyte
> Motherboards, Intel CPUs and NVIDIA graphics cards. [1]
>
> What times I've put together:
>
> * Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS4: 110 EUR
I may be synonymous the MSI P35 Neo2-FIR P35 highly recommend a couple of weeks
older, but now for far less than 100 euro. Whether it is the OS-X
Problems, I can not say, maybe the documentary reveals.
more.
> * Intel Core 2 Duo E6750, 2x 2.67GHz, 333MHz FSB, 4MB shared Cache:
> 130 EUR
>
> * 4 x 1GB 800 MHz DDR2 RAM: 70 EUR
If you are using Xp then rich 3 GB, XP can no longer address
MacOS is synonymous with 3GB fast enough. Vista takes at least four GB,
but was already needs Vista? :-)
>
> * Samsung SpinPoint F1 HD502IJ - 500GB 7200rpm 16MB 3.5zoll SATA300:
> 50 EUR
My tip, bright as a system disk, a small, fixed 80 -? GB purely
and use the 500GB as a video store. Nothing slows down the rendering as
much from a simultaneous video store and fill the
Paging file.
>
> * ASUS EN7300GT, passively cooled. 40 EUR
> Is the combination of balanced for the intended use? Would it make sense
> $ 100 but pay more? If yes, for what? I appreciate each
> Tip.
Passt know, your friend will hardly create a television company,
Normalos enough for the box fed from ... and so, quietly, the part
be. Nothing more annoying when cutting the tubes as a fan. Oh
so, you should synonymous s.ein optical drive think. :-)
Ciao
Stefan
--
- Stefan Schaper (Dipl.-Soz.Päd-/Arb.) - Parents Media Trainer
--- www. DV x Medien.de Multimedia Design
---- www. MedienKids.de x Kids grid
----- www. Medienkoeche.de x Medienpädagokik in Nds.
------ www. KJZ-Schiene.de x AWO Children and Youth Center
Antwort von Felix E. Klee:
On Oct 31, 1:31 pm, "Stefan Schaper"
wrote:
> Moin!
Moin!
Thank you for your instructions!
Antwort von Felix E. Klee:
On Oct 26, 2:03 pm, "Frank Jedn" wrote:
> I would for DV editing always a 4 core CPU prefer.
Come to the most used software. Final Cut Pro, for example, is supposedly
not well parallelized. We are still s.schwanken.
Antwort von Stefan Krieg:
Hello Felix,
Felix E. Klee wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2:03 pm, "Frank Jedn" wrote:
>> I would for DV editing always a 4 core CPU prefer.
> Come to the most used software. Final Cut Pro, for example, is supposedly
> Is not well parallelized.
How's notes. Here at rendering all nuclei tend to stop.
See synonymous: http://www.macwelt.de/tests/hardware-tests/353957/index2.html
Which (old) Final Cut Pro version you have then?
gruß aus berlin
the stef
