Old PC Vs. New PC for rendering

ragemaker · Post by **ragemaker** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:58 pm

How important is it during the rendering process is a new PC?
My PC is outdated for today's standard. AMD Xp 2400+, 1.5 GIG of Ram, IDE HDD. How much faster would my projects render on a dual or quad core PC? Would it take a project that my current pc take 2 hours to render and cut it in half or more? I currently do no see me editing anything in HD for the next year so that isn't important.

ragemaker · Post by **ragemaker** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:05 pm

Forgot to mention I'm using Videostudio Pro X2

Thanks

DVDDoug · Post by **DVDDoug** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:34 pm

Corel says:

Encode fast with dual-core and quad-core CPUs, in the latest formats like H.264

Rendering is "CPU intensive", and processing speed is usually the bottleneck. A faster CPU & memory should help.

As for multiple cores... "Your mileage may vary." Video Studio is supposed to take advantage of multiple cores, but I have the impression that it depends on what format you are rendering from, and perhaps what format you are rendering to. My guess is that some CODECs are able to do parallel processing and others are "single threaded" and can only use one processor/core at a time.

Take a look at this post.

Post by **Ken Berry** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:34 pm

I would have to agree with DVDDoug... When I originally moved from my 'old' P4 3.0Ghz to my current Core 2 Quad 6600, there was a marked improvement in rendering time that was 2 to 3 times better than on the P4 (and depending on the complications of a particular project...) But I am by no means sure you can say you will be able to ever put an exact figure on the improvement rate i.e. that Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz will give you X rate of improvement, while an I5 will give you Y...

Another factor with the multiple core processors is that VS 32 bit has not to date appeared to be optimised for multiple cores. I have written in at least one separate thread on this forum about my experiments with a cheap little program called Ashampoo Core Tuner. I set it to assign priority to all four processors in my Quad, and it actually works. However, while I got improved rendering speeds of up to 4 times better, you cannot say that across the board. That was with one type of rendering of high definition HDV video. With AVCHD, there was a marked improvement as well, but it was only about 1.5 to 2 times better.

ragemaker · Post by **ragemaker** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:44 pm

Thanks for your replies, I did read the post about the program and that helps also. Like I said I will not be doing any HD immediately, my concerns are more on SD. But what I am getting into is time sensitive and the less time it takes to render the longer I can take with the content. It looks like I may be PC shopping... my wife will love that!

Thanks again.

Trevor Andrew · Post by **Trevor Andrew** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:45 pm

ragemaker wrote:How important is it during the rendering process is a new PC?
My PC is outdated for today's standard. AMD Xp 2400+, 1.5 GIG of Ram, IDE HDD. How much faster would my projects render on a dual or quad core PC? Would it take a project that my current pc take 2 hours to render and cut it in half or more? I currently do no see me editing anything in HD for the next year so that isn't important.

That depends on the length of the project, if its 10 minutes then 2 hours to render is a long time.
If its an hour project, then that¡¦s not bad for the old pc.

Then it depends on what your converting from and to.
Dv-Avi to Mpeg 2
My old single core took about 2.5 times. My new quad does it in real time if not better.

So yes you should see a marked improvement in render times.

ragemaker · Post by **ragemaker** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:55 pm

Trevor,
I have an example, right now if I do a slideshow type project that is 10 minutes then it takes between 45 minutes and an hour to render. Basic pan and zoom with a title or 2 and some music.

Thanks for the replies!

Black Lab · Post by **Black Lab** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:28 pm

Rendering time is not only dependant on the length of the project, but also (and maybe more importantly) upon effects, titles and such.

At six seconds a pic I'm guessing you have around 100 pics in your project. If you have P & Z applied to each one, that's 100 separate effects that have to be rendered. That's alot, IMHO.

Trevor Andrew · Post by **Trevor Andrew** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:22 pm

Hi

Yes the content and amount of editing affects the render times, but I assumed that the comparison would use similar if not the same projects.

I have just created a slide show using the Movie Wizard using 55 images,(2048 x 1152px) Default template.
The total length being 10min 12sec.
Rendered the project to Pal-DVD 16:9
Total time to render....9 min 58 seconds to playback.

My old machine would have taken 2.5 times the run time, minimum (30 minutes ish) going further back to my old, very old PC rendering to Svcd would take some 12 times. That equates to about 7 hours for a CD, 40 minutes per CD.

Black Lab · Post by **Black Lab** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:01 pm

And to clarify, you did not include Pan & Zoom on the images? I don't want the OP comparing apples to oranges.

Trevor Andrew · Post by **Trevor Andrew** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:29 am

Hi Jeff

I used the Movie wizard, used the default template.
This created a slide show using Pan & Zoom.

If you were to do the same then you would have a identical project.

Alludo USER to USER Web Board

Old PC Vs. New PC for rendering

Old PC Vs. New PC for rendering

Re: Old PC Vs. New PC for rendering