Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have a copy of Adobe Premiere Pro CS 4 that has trouble playing back 1080p HD H.264 when I'm editing it on my C2Q Q8200 / 8GB RAM machine. It's really hard to work with video when you can't even play it back without it lagging and jumping.

Anyway, I want to upgrade to a Core i5 2500k or i7 2600k to add more decoding power so that playback is in real-time. (I don't really care which can encode the finished video faster). However, only the i7 2600k supports Hyper-threading.

So my question is, does the hyper-threading on the 2600k make it a much better choice than the 2500k for video editing? Can Adobe CS 4 (or CS 5.5 if I upgrade) even use the hyper-threading to improve playback - or would it just slow things down?

share|improve this question
You are going to have to provide specifications on the C2Q Q8200 chip. Hyper-threading is not going to make a huge difference. The Core i7 chip is better for other reasons though. – Ramhound Mar 2 '12 at 17:09
Hyperthreading does not add real cores of processing. I have tested many of the "pro" video programs and much to my dismay premiere (my fav) has not fixed some of thier major bugs from 3 versions ago, they beloted thier program again , and had a terrible time working with 2xHD in realtime. After much research I found out it was not just me, and "replacing all my hardware" :-) again , was not the solution. Vegas for example, can stay up to speed, but the visuals are degraded . Edius from grass valley, does duel stream HD Quality like a walk in the park. If you got the time test it. – Psycogeek Mar 2 '12 at 17:11
@Ramhound, There is only one Q8200 chip so I'm not sure what you are talking about. At any rate, it's not important since it can't do the job. I want to know whether new CPU's w/HT are important for this kind of work. – Xeoncross Mar 2 '12 at 17:15
@Psycogeek, have you tried Premiere CS 5+. If you have a CUDA graphics card a lot of the calculations run many times faster since they can use the power of the graphics card. However, CUDA only works with some plugins and parts of the programs. Thanks for the recommendation, Edius 6 looks like it really does have performance in mind. – Xeoncross Mar 2 '12 at 17:16
Myself i was trying to avoid some of the problems they have had before of "switching" out to GPU, then back to CPU, little tiny jumps in anything (color ,sharpness,alising,contrast) these jumps do not mater when making a movie, but drive me up the wall for long form event editing, when things change by tiny ammounts. . I thought this demo was being real "smarty pants" , then there I am playing 2 streams, and started adjusting things, and it is still playing :-) – Psycogeek Mar 2 '12 at 17:34

The short answer is that HT almost never makes a significant performance impact. Intel claims 15% performance increases under ideal conditions. Compared to the difference between a modern Core i5 or Core i7 and an ancient Q8200, 15% is not worth worrying about. The i5-2500K has about twice the performance of the Q8200. The i7-2600K has almost three times the performance.

share|improve this answer
I'm not really interested in the difference between the C2Q and the Core i5/i7. What I really want to know is the difference between the i5 w/o HT and the i7 w/HT when using Adobe Premiere. – Xeoncross Mar 2 '12 at 18:33
Some of the web info suggests 7% increase from hyper, this using benches for encoding . <-- this sort of shows similar results that I got from premiere , notice how even without the gpu, the cpus are not fully utalised except when he had multiple things going on at the same time. For the $100 extra for the I7 I would concider any increased on cpu memory (data and instruction caches) as having some value, and could account for some of the differences beyond hyper threading itself.. – Psycogeek Mar 2 '12 at 19:01
The i2-2600K is about 40% faster than the i5-2500K. – David Schwartz Mar 2 '12 at 19:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .