Video editing Q6600 VS E8400

[Manic1]

Can someone please tell me what would be better for video editing. A quad core Q6600 or a Wolfdale E8400. I will be running 4 gigs or ram. I racking my brains out over my new build please help me.

 

[myocardia]

Which one will be faster will depend totally on what software you're using. If the software is quad-enabled, the Q6600 will be much faster. If it isn't, the E8400 will be faster.

 

[Manic1]

I'm using adobe premier so i guess its the quadcore then.

 

[Zenoth]

Go with a Quad-Core for that purpose.

 

[Dedpuhl]

flip through the cpu charts on tomshardware and compare the two. The e8400 wins out a lot.

For your needs, the 6600 will probably be better....

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Manic1
Can someone please tell me what would be better for video editing. A quad core Q6600 or a Wolfdale E8400. I will be running 4 gigs or ram. I racking my brains out over my new build please help me.

It depends on the editing...
for streaming and cuts, the E8400 will be better.
For effects rendering and transitions, the Q6600...

 

[djplayer]

Originally posted by: Viditor

It depends on the editing...
for streaming and cuts, the E8400 will be better.
For effects rendering and transitions, the Q6600...

very true.. sse4 vs 3 technology in the e8400.

but the program will utilize the quad core..

the streaming and cuts involved would be much faster on the e8400 though.. also overclocking on the e8400 seems to be easier.. I hit 4.1ghz on air cooling. 3.6ghz w/o even touching the voltage and I see almost no heat difference.

 

[Manic1]

I'm using a lot of after effects and doing a lot rendering so I guess the quad core is still the way to go.

 

[SanDiegoPC]

Originally posted by: Manic1
I'm using a lot of after effects and doing a lot rendering so I guess the quad core is still the way to go.

I use mine in a similar fashion. I'm an amateur astronomer. What we do is image very faint things in the sky, hundreds of times. Those hundres of images get stacked with special software, and compiled into one image that shows the deep space object.

Depending upon the camera I use, the images are either 640x480 or smaller. Using my old, socket 478 P4 chip & 2G of RAM, it would take a couple of minutes to stack 250-400 or so images into one.

This new rig does it in about 15 seconds.

 

[frythecpuofbender]

I can edit uncompressed Quicktime 720p video on my Q6600 without any issues. Runs flawlessly. And that's with only a WDAAKS 750GB hard drive and no raid whatsoever. pretty neat...

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: frythecpuofbender
I can edit uncompressed Quicktime 720p video on my Q6600 without any issues. Runs flawlessly. And that's with only a WDAAKS 750GB hard drive and no raid whatsoever. pretty neat...

Just a couple of nitpicks...
If it's in Quicktime on a PC, then it's compressed...I think you meant lossless (which is slightly different)
The point that the OP has is that he will be doing a lot of rendering and transition F/X.

As an example of that, I did an effect yesterday (for some of the young trainees) that used 46 layers of DVE in real time with 1080p50 in uncompressed 32bit...
Now you're not going to see that speed on any quad core chip made yet (I was using an SGI Onyx2 fully loaded), but that is the eventual goal...
That said, if it were a cuts only editing gig, then any dual core would do (the faster the better).

 

[Imported]

Originally posted by: SanDiegoPC

Originally posted by: Manic1
I'm using a lot of after effects and doing a lot rendering so I guess the quad core is still the way to go.

I use mine in a similar fashion. I'm an amateur astronomer. What we do is image very faint things in the sky, hundreds of times. Those hundres of images get stacked with special software, and compiled into one image that shows the deep space object.

Depending upon the camera I use, the images are either 640x480 or smaller. Using my old, socket 478 P4 chip & 2G of RAM, it would take a couple of minutes to stack 250-400 or so images into one.

This new rig does it in about 15 seconds.

Thats pretty cool. Do you have more info on that? Looks like something I'd be interested in.