3D effects not optimized for P4?

RichR wrote on 4/24/2002, 11:01 PM
I have the 3D effects on three different computers.
(1) Athlon 900mhz w/256 ram
(2) Dual P3 450's w/768 ram
(3) P4 1.8 ghz w/512 ram
The Athlon is my home computer, the other two I edit with. They have separate drives for video and audio they both have raid arrays putting out 40gigs per second.
The effects run slowest on the P4. Why would this be?

Comments

InformationSponge wrote on 4/25/2002, 7:09 AM
What kind of vid card do you have in the P4? That can impact previews.
RichR wrote on 4/25/2002, 4:22 PM
I'm talking about render times. The video card has nothing to do with this.
bjornkn wrote on 4/26/2002, 2:40 AM
When I bought my new system about 9 months ago I read a lot of bad reviews, tests and reports on the P4. So much in fact that for the first time I decided to leave the Intel CPUs and go for an Athlon 1.33GHz with DDR RAM instead. So far I'm very happy with the choice. My impression is that P4 may score high on lab tests, but it has problems in "real life".
But, of course, it could be that some BIOS (or other) settings are not optimized?
RichR wrote on 4/26/2002, 8:16 AM
I do use this system for real time non compressed editing with the Video Toaster NT. Which is a software based editor. So it is set up fine. Also this system has a 400mhz FSB, so the throughput is good.
I wish someone from SF could confirm whether or not this (not optimized for P4) is the case.
SonyEPM wrote on 4/26/2002, 9:33 AM
The new plug-ins are not P4 optimized and are processor intensive no matter what you use.
Cheesehole wrote on 4/27/2002, 11:56 PM
RichR, different processor architectures will handle software very differently. even if the software is not optimized for any specific processor, MHz will not translate to performance directly. www.tomshardware.com has a lot of information about this type of stuff including benchmarks. you really need to take a processor architecture course to understand it though.

I still wouldn't expect a 1.8Ghz P4 to perform slower than a 900Mhz Athalon, except in extreme circumstances where the software was optimized for the Athalon.

if you can come up with some benchmarks where all the PC's use the same hardware where possible, it might do some good to post them and see if other people have similar results?
InformationSponge wrote on 4/28/2002, 9:18 AM
>>I'm talking about render times. The video card has nothing to do with this. <<

Sorrrrry.... Your post didn't mention render times... it just said that it "ran slow". I have a 1.8 box and it seems pretty speedy on the renders, although I only use a few of them in my videos (looks to hookey to use them throughout as I'm just a cut/fade type of guy). I've never timed the renders since I've been happy with what I've seen (used it on 2000 and XP, never tried on 9x/Me). Are all of your systems using the same OS? Also, do you have any background virus scanners loaded onto the P4 machine. I've found that when background monitoring it on, it tends to kill drive performance in video editors.