[Ken.Turner]

Hello! Right now, I have a sh**ty Dell laptop, and it takes me 3 hours to render a video, which is just not acceptable. I am planning on getting a new PC (this one) and I was wondering if you guys would know how long it would take to render a 5 minute 1080p 24fps .wmv video with Premiere CS5.5! I would have the system files, and Premiere files stored on the SSD, as well as I would have the footage on the SSD for the time that I'm editing, and would be rendering the final video to a file on the SSD, then moving the footage/final render to the HDD after I upload the video to YouTube. I know that it's hard to know exact timing, but if any of you know approximately how long it would take, that would be great! Thanks you in advance!

P.S. If you know a better place to post this, it would help alot!

 

[firestorm1]

that system you want should do it in a matter of minutes. i dont upload to youtube, so i cant really give you an exact time.

 

[GuardianDuo]

That processor and SSD go together nicely if you're rendering to the SSD. Currently, my bottleneck for .avi files is my hard drive, and my bottleneck for .mp4 files is my CPU.

6-cores and blazing fast write speeds will render your videos in minutes, maybe seconds, even (my rig already renders things in minutes, and I no haz SSD)
Uploading to youtube will take a while - aren't .wmv files like .avi files and are usually uncompressed? Uploading depends on file size and depends more on your internet connection than your PC components.
Transferring the video to your HDD will take a matter of minutes too.

 

[Ghooble]

With my sigrig it takes me a 2.5/1 ratio usually to render a vid for Youtube. So I'm going to assume for that rig it would be something like 1.5/1 ratio. Total assumption of course, but basing it off that I would say maybe 7.5 minutes? I could be totally wrong but it seems logical in my brain

-Ghooble

 

[piskooooo]

You need a CPU with hyperthreading to render faster. Try to get an i7 920 cheap if you can, there's some pretty cheap ones on eBay.

 

[Ken.Turner]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuardianDuo

That processor and SSD go together nicely if you're rendering to the SSD. Currently, my bottleneck for .avi files is my hard drive, and my bottleneck for .mp4 files is my CPU.
6-cores and blazing fast write speeds will render your videos in minutes, maybe seconds, even (my rig already renders things in minutes, and I no haz SSD)
Uploading to youtube will take a while - aren't .wmv files like .avi files and are usually uncompressed? Uploading depends on file size and depends more on your internet connection than your PC components.
Transferring the video to your HDD will take a matter of minutes too.

Well I find that .wmv files are like .avi, but wwayyyy smaller file size, leading to a fast upload to youtube

and thanks for the help!

 

[xd_1771]

Newegg.ca!? Just...no.If yo
If you are in Canada, buy from a CANADIAN retailer. Choose from a place like NCIX, MemoryExpress, etc. Not only will they price match to the price of Newegg and other stores, but the shipping cost is WAY less, because they ship from warehouses in Canada. Buying from Newegg.ca is usually getting a terrible deal.

 

[Ken.Turner]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Newegg.ca!? Just...no.If yo

If you are in Canada, buy from a CANADIAN retailer. Choose from a place like NCIX, MemoryExpress, etc. Not only will they price match to the price of Newegg and other stores, but the shipping cost is WAY less, because they ship from warehouses in Canada. Buying from Newegg.ca is usually getting a terrible deal.

yeah, I'm probably gonna order from NCIX or something... then price match using shopbot or pricebat or something like that

I just like newegg to create wishlists, because of how nice an pleasing it is

 

[xPrestonn]

you could probably do an i7 2600 based system with a budget board and come out with far superior rendering performance for not much more money. You may have to sacrifice GPU performance, if you care about gaming on this thing

 

[Ken.Turner]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xPrestonn

you could probably do an i7 2600 based system with a budget board and come out with far superior rendering performance for not much more money. You may have to sacrifice GPU performance, if you care about gaming on this thing

yeah... but I want to also game with this computer... and I'm kind of getting tired of people telling me to go with Intel LOL

but thanks for the advise !

 

[xPrestonn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken.Turner

yeah... but I want to also game with this computer... and I'm kind of getting tired of people telling me to go with Intel LOL

but thanks for the advise !

People tell you to go intel because intel offers more powerful products that consume less power.

 

[Ken.Turner]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xPrestonn

People tell you to go intel because intel offers more powerful products that consume less power.

eehhhh, well I'd rather have 6 cores instead of 4, and I plan on gaming while rendering... hopefully... idk, I'd just rather have AMD

 

[micro5797]

Premiere pro is one of the very few video editors that use Hyper threading or truly utilize all of your multiple cores. For instance Nero Vision (nero 10 ) won't.
I do like to convert them to .h264 rather then to the youtube format to keep them a higher quality (Premiere pro cs4)

Using my old Q6600 rig with 6 gigs of ram and 2 HDD's.
As for how long, i used to use cs4 for this, but started using camtasia studio as it is noticeable faster with for my purposes the same video quality. I do like to compress to 45%.
I think with camtasia a 3 min video would take about 5 min, with Premiere it would take about 8 min.

I am just getting back into making videos with since it is winter, so i can't say how much faster my 2600k is though.

Also if you are doing videos a lot, i would get another 8 gigs of memory some time down the road. Premiere pro likes to have 2+ gigs per core.

 

[xPrestonn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken.Turner

eehhhh, well I'd rather have 6 cores instead of 4, and I plan on gaming while rendering... hopefully... idk, I'd just rather have AMD

more cores =/= better.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/147?vs=288

the 2500k blows the 1055t away despite having less cores in almost every benchmark, save for a few encoding ones. The ones you care about are rendering performance, and the 2500k has the clear advantage there

edit: and you're not going to be able to game while you render on a 1055t, just sayin.

 

[Ken.Turner]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xPrestonn

more cores =/= better.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/147?vs=288
the 2500k blows the 1055t away despite having less cores in almost every benchmark, save for a few encoding ones. The ones you care about are rendering performance, and the 2500k has the clear advantage there
edit: and you're not going to be able to game while you render on a 1055t, just sayin.

it's a 1090T, not a 1055T... and I'm probably gonna be overclocking it...

 

[xPrestonn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken.Turner

it's a 1090T, not a 1055T... and I'm probably gonna be overclocking it...

The marginal clock speed difference, even if overclocked, will not make a large enough difference to matter.

and just fyi, sandy bridge chips can overclock way higher than thuban [phenom II] chips with conventional cooling methods [i.e not dry ice or liquid nitrogen]