Take the 2-minute tour ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am planning to buy a used computer for video editing, now I have found one with 2x E5310 CPU for a decent price.
And I havn't found any information which is better for video editing (Sony Vegas, Adobe Premiere apps): Less cores with higher clock rate, or more cores with lower clock rate?
This CPU is the second (2x 4 cores with 1.6GHz)

Any advice welcome!

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by DragonLord, 8088, Synetech, BBlake, Ƭᴇcʜιᴇ007 Nov 30 '12 at 18:06

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

2 Answers 2

Its all dependent on software and OS you are using. Some software better working with multicores some with higher frequency. AFAIK best option would be to get quad core. I cant tell if that will work for video editing, but that worked well with 3d graphics(2x3.1ghz => 4x2.2) In your case i wouldnt exchange for E5310, because that cpu is very old, and might not support some features, that would increase speed of rendering your video.

share|improve this answer

The big question regarding core count vs raw frequency is a question as to whether the apps are multithreaded, and whether the main operation the app can perform is multithreadable. A single thread app will only run faster if you increase teh frequency, but if the task is broken into multiple threads then more cores is better.

in your case, those apps are all multithreadable, but the act of rendering is often a single thread, so frequency is very important. Having the right instruction set is also critical for this kind of task (SSE4 for instance).

in the end, you are not doing a trival task, so I would look for a quad core at > 3GHZ, preferably with hyperthreading (giving you 8-threads of seemingly-simultaneous processing). I recommend the I7 2600 (4x 3.4GHZ HT).

share|improve this answer
    
Exactly. It depends on the exact application - namely how well it utilizes multiple threads/parallel processing. If it doesn't properly utilize the extra cores, it doesn't matter how many of them there are...if it does the individual speed of them may not be a bottleneck. (I might disagree with recommending a 2xxx series over a 3xxx series, though...why not an i7 3770?) –  Shinrai Nov 30 '12 at 16:15
    
only because I've not worked with one of those so I don;t know the specs as well. I'm sure they are quite capable chips though. the core of my recommendation (pardon the pun) is a multi-core chip with a frequency > 3GHZ and SSE4. –  Frank Thomas Nov 30 '12 at 16:20
    
Ivy Bridge chips are superior to Sandy Bridge chips in pretty much every respect except possibly overclockability (they run hotter under high voltages). –  Shinrai Nov 30 '12 at 16:35
    
This sys mentioned is for sale for $230, so it's okay that i7 is better but much more expensive than an older E5310 –  netmano Dec 1 '12 at 15:41

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.