# 8GB vs 16GB for Video Editing?



## Ownaholic

Hey everybody!

I've recently came across some Amazon credit and looking to upgrade my newly-custom built PC a bit more.

I have been doing a lot of video editing lately for a gaming walkthrough website that I have been working on, and would like to increase the rendering speed.

My average video is about 9-12 minutes long, rendered in 1080p, 1920x1080 resolution, etc. Basically the highest settings possible on Sony Vegas Pro 10.

Now, my current rendering speeds are pretty high with my current 8GB of RAM, (roughly between 20-40 minutes of rendering time depending on video length) but I'd love to be able to cut those times in half if at all possible.

My question to you is this: Would upgrading to 16GB of RAM do that? I checked the Resource Monitor while I was rendering, and it came up with this (rounded estimates here): 
3200 MB in use.
4400 MB in standby.
471 MB free.

I don't regularly use Resource Monitor, but I'm pretty sure that is telling me that Vega Pro isn't utilizing all of the RAM that it could utilize, given the fact that there is still 4GB of RAM in standby.

Alternatively, I could blow the cash on a second graphics card, SSD, or a second hard-drive (video editing takes up a LOT of space, and I've only got a 500GB HD). Your thoughts?


*Current Overall Specs:*
Win 7 Ultimate (64bit)
Intel Core i5 2500K @ 3.30GHz (Not overclocked)
8GB RAM
Asus-brand GeForce GTX 560
500GB HDD


Thanks!


----------



## claptonman

If  you have RAM still available, then it's using all the available RAM it can use. If it was using all of it, you would be at 100% RAM usage. I would recommend 2 options.

An SSD will increase your performance. Get one big enough so it can fit Vega Pro and any other programs you want to load fast. Could also think about doing a Raid 0 setup with two SSDs.

Another one would be to overclock your CPU. That would decrease the time it would take. Do you have an aftermarket cooler for it, or are you using the one it came with? I would recommend a Coolmaster hyper 212+, if your case can fit it.


----------



## Ownaholic

claptonman said:


> If  you have RAM still available, then it's using all the available RAM it can use. If it was using all of it, you would be at 100% RAM usage. I would recommend 2 options.
> 
> An SSD will increase your performance. Get one big enough so it can fit Vega Pro and any other programs you want to load fast. Could also think about doing a Raid 0 setup with two SSDs.
> 
> Another one would be to overclock your CPU. That would decrease the time it would take. Do you have an aftermarket cooler for it, or are you using the one it came with? I would recommend a Coolmaster hyper 212+, if your case can fit it.



Whelps, I don't have any problems actually loading the programs themselves; that's almost instantaneous. It's the rendering of the videos that I would like to improve. (Again, it's not even slow, just looking for even faster rendering times)

I did OC my CPU in the past, but I decided to reset it after I began to get some weird errors here and there. What speed would you recommend clocking it to? And no, unfortunately I'm only using the factory CPU fan.


----------



## mx344

^uhm 4ghz should be quite easy with that chip.

16 gigs might help a little, but it won't affect that much, definitely won't your rendering time in half...


----------



## Ownaholic

I went ahead and OCed to 4.0ghz; it seems to be running pretty stable. My core temps are running between 67-72 degrees at the moment. If it stays that way, I think we'll have a keeper on our hands. What temperatures would qualify being concerned?

I'm not entirely sure, but I believe it has helped my rendering speeds a bit as well. But I still would like to improve it further. Any ideas guys?


----------



## claptonman

67-72 degrees would concern me, yes. If that is an idle temp. I would get an aftermarket cooler if going that high.


----------



## Benny Boy

http://memory.dataram.com/__documents/file/Dataram_User_Manual_35.pdf

http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk

http://download.techworld.com/3248759/dataram-ramdisk-35/


----------



## Ownaholic

claptonman said:


> 67-72 degrees would concern me, yes. If that is an idle temp. I would get an aftermarket cooler if going that high.



Oh no no, those weren't idle temps. Those were during rendering temps. (That's the hardest I push my comp)

My idle temps are still low, I haven't seen it go over 40 degrees while idle, even with the OC.

*edit*
@Benny Boy
Those are interesting links...but I'm a little wary as to how using RAM as Hard drive space would improve rendering times. That just seems like the two =/= each other.


----------



## Benny Boy

I agree with this:


claptonman said:


> I would get an aftermarket cooler if going that high.


Because...


Ownaholic said:


> Those were during rendering temps.


...doesn't rendering take a while? And I believe it's already been mentioned that a stable correct oc will net you better rendering performance.
As far as the ramdisk, a program or data that is on memory's full bandwidth would be faster.
What about this. 
Try a ramdisk (free up to 4GB)of the size needed to hold your finished video,. Then render from the hdd > to > the ramdisk. This way the hdd isn't doing both reading and writing. Either way, you may want more ram since 7 will always keep a reserve in case it needs it. 
With enough memory, you could potentially have a disk big enough for the rendering software and the before/after video.
SSD could be an option albeit the MTBF would be sooner because of all the contoller read/writes.

Get a HSF and a stable oc.
Sounds like you'll need more space. With a second hdd you could point the finished video to the other hdd, again spitting up the work.

Thoughts?


----------



## Ownaholic

Benny Boy said:


> I agree with this:
> Because...
> ...doesn't rendering take a while? And I believe it's already been mentioned that a stable correct oc will net you better rendering performance.
> As far as the ramdisk, a program or data that is on memory's full bandwidth would be faster.
> What about this.
> Try a ramdisk (free up to 4GB)of the size needed to hold your finished video,. Then render from the hdd > to > the ramdisk. This way the hdd isn't doing both reading and writing. Either way, you may want more ram since 7 will always keep a reserve in case it needs it.
> With enough memory, you could potentially have a disk big enough for the rendering software and the before/after video.
> SSD could be an option albeit the MTBF would be sooner because of all the contoller read/writes.
> 
> Get a HSF and a stable oc.
> Sounds like you'll need more space. With a second hdd you could point the finished video to the other hdd, again spitting up the work.
> 
> Thoughts?



Those sound like pretty solid options to me. 
What do you think about this HSF? (Sockets match, seems like a cheap but viable option)

My biggest concern here is applying the thermal paste; I've never done that before, and do not know the proper "technique".

I'm thinking of picking up that fan, this RAM (the same exact RAM I have now), and one of these HDDs.

Of course, with the new fan, I would probably try OC'ing as close to 5.0ghz as possible. 
What are the temperatures I should aim for with both idle and under full load?

I could have FRAPs and my Hauppauge HD PVR record directly to the second HDD, and then I could reinstall Sony Vegas Pro onto either the second hard drive or a ramdisk partition, and then finally render the videos directly to either the second HDD or the ramdisk partition. 
Which method do you think would reel in the best results?

Thanks a bunch for your help by the way!


----------



## claptonman

Always recommend this cooler:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103065

It's huge, though, but get great temps. With this or any large heatsink, you'll need a bracket on the other side of your motherboard so it doesn't bend the board, and that's the only way to install it. Does your case have a CPU cutout in back? You also will need two people for installing it. It's hard, but worth it.

As for the thermal paste, if you place a rice-size grain in the midde of the PC and place the cooler on, the cooler will naturally spread itself and get better performance because of no air bubbles.


----------



## Ownaholic

claptonman said:


> Always recommend this cooler:
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103065
> 
> It's huge, though, but get great temps. With this or any large heatsink, you'll need a bracket on the other side of your motherboard so it doesn't bend the board, and that's the only way to install it. Does your case have a CPU cutout in back? You also will need two people for installing it. It's hard, but worth it.
> 
> As for the thermal paste, if you place a rice-size grain in the midde of the PC and place the cooler on, the cooler will naturally spread itself and get better performance because of no air bubbles.



No CPU cutout, unfortunately. I have the NZXT Apollo.

That HSF doesn't seem THAT big to me, based on the video and images. It seems just a bit larger than the one I was looking at. Can you explain the whole "bracket" thing to me? I'm unfamiliar with that.

*edit*
In theory, obviously I know what you mean haha. But I don't know the exact process when considering installing a HSF.


----------



## claptonman

If you look at the last pic in the newegg, there's the bracket in the middle. You have that in back of the motherboard, and there are two nuts and bolts type things. You screw those with the bracket in back. One of the bolts have screwholes in them. See the other metal piece to the left? You place that in between the heating pipes on the heatsink. You then screw that down so the pressure of the metal piece holds down the cooler. You will need to take your motherboard out in order to install it. It's hard to explain over the internet, but that's the best I could do.


----------



## Ownaholic

claptonman said:


> If you look at the last pic in the newegg, there's the bracket in the middle. You have that in back of the motherboard, and there are two nuts and bolts type things. You screw those with the bracket in back. One of the bolts have screwholes in them. See the other metal piece to the left? You place that in between the heating pipes on the heatsink. You then screw that down so the pressure of the metal piece holds down the cooler. You will need to take your motherboard out in order to install it. It's hard to explain over the internet, but that's the best I could do.




Ooooh I see. That actually was a good description. (I think, haha)
I think I'd rather stick with the one I picked out though; it might not perform nearly as well, but it will be a lot less work to get in. I don't even have to take out the mobo for that one. =]
My motherboard was a BITCH to get in the first time; I don't want to have to go through that again haha.


----------



## Benny Boy

Ownaholic said:


> I'm thinking of picking up that fan, this RAM (the same exact RAM I have now), and one of these HDDs.
> 
> I could have FRAPs and my Hauppauge HD PVR record directly to the second HDD, and then I could reinstall Sony Vegas Pro onto either the second hard drive or a ramdisk partition, and then finally render the videos directly to either the second HDD or the ramdisk partition.
> Which method do you think would reel in the best results?


Yep. Exact same ram is best. The hdd is good too.

You could do a little testing? Make a small 1 or 2 gb ramdisk and send the finished video to that? See what improvement you have? Or load whats to be edited to the disk and the finished to hdd?


----------



## Ownaholic

Benny Boy said:


> Yep. Exact same ram is best. The hdd is good too.
> 
> You could do a little testing? Make a small 1 or 2 gb ramdisk and send the finished video to that? See what improvement you have? Or load whats to be edited to the disk and the finished to hdd?



That's a good idea; I could just fool around with the settings for awhile like you said, until I get it right. 

Do you think it would be better to have Sony Vegas Pro installed on my normal hard drive, or should I install it to my second hard drive? Oooor should I install it to the RAMdisk? 
If I install it to the RAMDisk, does that mean I _shouldn't_ render the videos to the same RAMDisk? (As isn't that defeating the purpose of making a RAMDisk to begin with? -- To separate the program from the output destination?)


----------



## Motoxrdude

Scrap your processor and get something better. More ram and a faster hdd won't make much of a difference rendering, it's almost all the CPU doing the work.


----------



## Ownaholic

I actually just came up with another question.

Do you think my bitrate has anything to do with it? I have it set to 20,000,000 at the moment simply for quality. Is that even really worth it for Youtube viewing? Granted, I'm aiming for the absolute highest quality possible, but if it isn't going to be a significant decrease in quality by reducing it to, say, 10,000,000 or lower instead, then I'm game if it will reduce rendering times.

Your thoughts?


----------



## mx344

I can't remember when really if it takes off some of the load, but it will render alot faster, I know that...


----------



## Benny Boy

Ownaholic said:


> Do you think it would be better to have Sony Vegas Pro installed on my normal hard drive, or should I install it to my second hard drive? Oooor should I install it to the RAMdisk?
> If I install it to the RAMDisk, does that mean I _shouldn't_ render the videos to the same RAMDisk? (As isn't that defeating the purpose of making a RAMDisk to begin with? -- To separate the program from the output destination?)


A ramdisk acts like drive space. Putting the scratch file on it will help speed things up. With 2 hdd's and a potencial ram drive you'd have 3 to work with.
I don't know how it will work best but I'm pretty sure splitting the work, ie, the program, the video, and the finished product, to 2 or 3 drives will be noticably faster. I'd have to do a little research to see what how to use a ram drive for that. But I'd probly put the program the video and the scratch file on it, and send the finished to a hdd, just to see.  If you put the finished file on ram, you'll have to move it to hdd anyways. Remember, when/if power is lost all data in ram will be lost.


----------



## User0one

My experience with Video editing is the CPU makes the real difference. 

I have 3 Video editing Rigs. Two have slower CPUs but more Ram.

One has Faster CPU and less Ram, but this Rig cuts the project times down by huge amount.


----------



## Ownaholic

Hmm...Now I'm considering getting the i7 and just trying to sell my i5.

But realistically, if I just OC my i5 with the HSF that I posted, I should gain relatively similar results.

Obviously, I can OC the i7 as well, but I feel like at this point, the difference in performance would only be like a 2 minute difference.

And I suppose in theory, the i7 is more future-proof, but is it _really_ when considering the fact that no real application other than video editing and photoshop/3dmax will be able to utilize the hyper threading technology within the next 5 years; after which point I will probably be building a new computer anyway?

@Benny
That's a good point, I forgot about the memory dump on power loss. I'll just point the rendered video to there instead, and just move it immediately over.

*edit*
Just as a side-note, I'm OC'ed to 4.0ghz right now, and it is still taking me around 34 minutes to render. And that was after reducing the bit rate from 20 million to 10 million. 

From someone who has an i7: What are your regular rendering speeds for a video that is about 13 minutes long, with Sony's mp4, 1080p, 1920x1080 resolution? I think this would really better-answer the question, because it would actually compare direct results rather than us rambling on about theory.


----------

