My system specs are: Dell Precision 670, single Xeon 3.2gHz (1MB L2 Cache), 2GB DDR2 SDRAM memory, nVidia Quadro FX 1300 (128MB) graphics card, 2 internal hard drives (160GB and 400GB SATA non-raid).

I'm running Xpress Pro 5.8 right now, but am considering the upgrade to AMC. Here's the issue -

can my single processor (xeon 3.2gHz is fairly fast) handle it if i upgrade to media composer, or do i have to go to dual processors..? 

Also worth mentioning - i'm mostly going to be editing HD (720/24p native).

I know i can improve performance of the system by upgrading my RAM to 4GB and upgrading my graphics card, but i can't go to dual processors without having to swap out the chipset and motherboard (which basically means getting a new computer).

THANKS for any suggestions and input

You can run it on one proc but you may not get the performance you may expect - especially for CPU intensive tasks like HDV, DVC Pro HD and RT FX.

I'm interested in this as well...what about the new MC 3.0?  I know there is an HP system guide, but that is too general and kinda useless for me. 

Real world:  I'm on a Dell 690 with a single 3.2GHz dual core Xeon processor.  Have an nVidia 3500 and 4GB RAM (with 1GB doing nothing).  =|

Do I spend money to add another 3.2GHz dual core processor to this workstation and get MC 3.0 or do I ditch this girl and get a brand new system?  If I can just do a processor and be okay then great, but I don't want a dragging system. 

jasperfdo:

I know there is an HP system guide, but that is too general and kinda useless for me.

Actually it is very helpful if you examine the details carefully. You will notice that certain configuration does not support DNxHD capture with Mojo DX. This is because DNxHD capture is software based unlike Nitris DX. With older systems (aka 4 cores) you will not have enough CPU power to do DNxHD.

 Like I said, MC does not need 2 CPU to use. But if you want the performance outlined by Avid just remember that this is based on qualified machines. Go less and expect less.

Yeah, you're right....so all the hardware rush with MC 3.0 is based on DNxHD?  I mean...those same demands didn't exist for DNxHD with the current MC.  So I'm just wondering what else has changed.  In fact, the new version is supposed to be multi-threaded all the way through.  So technically that should get more performance out of the same hardware I have over XPress Pro or the older MC 2.x.

So that is what doesn't make sense - new version and higher processor demands to do the same thing.  It isn't a complaint - I just want to know the facts.  What has changed from 2.8 to 3.0 to push everything up - it isn't DNxHD.

jasperfdo:

I mean...those same demands didn't exist for DNxHD with the current MC. 

Well last time DNxHD capture was through Adrenaline hardware. That has been replaced with Nitris DX and Mojo DX. But Mojo DX does not have the DNxHD codec hardware based - thus increased CPU requirement.

jasperfdo:

So that is what doesn't make sense - new version and higher processor demands to do the same thing.

Which has always been the truth in software engineering. When is the last time you got one software that required less from previous version?

The increased requirement is actually due to the fact that the software can do things it can't previously without expensive hardware (like compressing an HD signal in real time). Remember there are other new CPU intensive features Subcap (real time open caption tool) and timecode generator (real time multi window TC generator).

These software complex with many features. It would be silly for Avid to make some kind of matrix requirement that outlines what CPU you need just based on what features you will use.

And don't forget, the playback and render engine has been heavily tweaked. It is supposedly more efficient in using multi-core/proc systems.

jasperfdo:

it isn't DNxHD.

I would say largely it is. Older systems with Adrenaline and Mojo hardware (HP 8200 and 8400) but with new software are STILL qualified to use.

Dom Q. Silverio:

And don't forget, the playback and render engine has been heavily tweaked. It is supposedly more efficient in using multi-core/proc systems.

and that is exactly why i don't understand why MC 3.0 on my current system would not run better than 2.8 currently can.  sure...i know if you are Microsoft the next version of Office is going to inhale more hardware.  but if we are jumping from an application that was not multi-threaded to one that is now multi-threaded, it should not require bigger hardware.   it should run faster on your existing setup (if you have multiple cores obviously). and if it cannot....oh, that is way not good.

and it does make sense to include some detail on purpose for hardware.  the last two features i have cut have been shot on film and I didn't touch any HD codecs.  in fact, i haven't used DNxHD yet as an editor.  so i need Avid to be specific and say "if you are not cutting HD" then here is an idea on specs.  I don't have money to buy a new $6K Mac just to use MC 3.0.

oh, and btw Dom - sweet locations in New York.  I looked at your website.  Nice!

jasperfdo:

and that is exactly why i don't understand why MC 3.0 on my current system would not run better than 2.8 currently can. 

Oh - I may have confused you. I am not saying MC 3.0 would not run better. I am just saying new features may not run the way you want it if you are under spec'd.

If you are in NYC, visit. I will give you a tour of the bldg. :D