Advice: how to upgrade my workstation

I'm looking for advice on how to upgrade my current workstation to be ready to edit 4k footage. I'll be gearing up for a project with a bunch of c300 mk II 4k footage, I believe some flavor of ProRes. I've edited a few projects with 4k Panasonic footage, and my system chugged a bit doing that. What do you think I should upgrade?

My system:
• Intel Core i7 4770K (3.50 GHz)
• 16 GB DDR3 RAM
• 1TB + 8GB SSHD HDD
• Windows 10
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 2GB
• Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250 GB (OS and program drive)
• 6tb Backup 7200 RPM HDD
• 4TB 7200 RPM Seagate project Drive
• 1 TB 7200 RPM empty drive
Adobe Creative Cloud Premiere Pro 2017

Based on a slightly upgraded Lenovo machine: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883265837

Where is my bottle neck? GPU? CPU? Storage needs serious upgrades (I think I'm dealing with 8-12 TB of footage), but I'm not sure what I need besides that. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
You're not gaming so why are you worried about bottlenecking? What you want to worry about is your processor speed. Ever thought of overclocking? 16 GB of RAM is more than enough to match your processing. Your rendering, however, you might want to upgrade your graphics card. Your storage for 4k seems okay, But raw uncompressed footage is spacey.
 
OK, graphics card. Yeah, I don't think I should overclock-- that processor runs very hot normally. When I've tried OC'ing, it got close to meltdown levels. What kind of graphics cards should I be thinking about? Will that help me to get better resolution in Premiere pro?
 
If you consider overclocking, you'll need to use water-cooling instead of an air heatsink. You're using Nvidia so look at one of their latest cards. It all depends on your budget range.
 
You're not gaming so why are you worried about bottlenecking?

That's meant to be a really crappy joke right? There's no reason to be deliberately mean to such a new user.

4k Panasonic footage, and my system chugged a bit doing that
What codec? h264? If so, it's not made to be an editing codec.

Where is my bottle neck? GPU? CPU?
You really need to work that out. Load up some resource monitor and work it out. Without your machine in front of me and knowing exactly what you're doing, you're going to need to answer that question.

At first glance, you'll be fine to handle that Prores 4k footage from a C300mk2. The video card may be a potential issue. You may need a card with more ram. Depending on what you're doing, you may need a better hard drive setup.

I'd suggest learning a proxy workflow and work at a lower resolution during the online edit. The majority of the machines I'm stuck working with are way less capable than the machine you're running with. Editing wise, they run like butter with the right workflow.
 
I agree with Sweetie that your video memory seems to be the only issue. 6 to 8 Gigs of video memory is better. A gaming computer is idea for 4K editing, packing the most punch. 18 core Intel processors are around the corner, if you can wait. The big problem for most will be the price tag of the new 18 core computers. An iMac now with 4 cores and 4K video is in the $1,300 to $2,000 price range. The 18 core Intel iMacs will run between $6,000 and $8,000. Can you afford it?

Also, 5K video VFX has been announced by ActionVFX.

These are things to consider.
 
18 core Intel processors are around the corner, if you can wait.

He's using Adobe. Did they change their core code in the latest update to take better advantage cores beyond the 4th? If not, why waste that much money when the benefits are so little, or even may give you worse performance?

It's one reason it's important to know what an editor is using, what codecs and resolution they'll be working at before giving unqualified advice.

16 GB DDR3 RAM
You'll probably get a large performance bump, depending on the length of your time lines.
 
Did they change their core code in the latest update to take better advantage cores beyond the 4th? If not, why waste that much money when the benefits are so little, or even may give you worse performance?

It's one reason it's important to know what an editor is using, what codecs and resolution they'll be working at before giving unqualified advice.

Right from Adobe's Forum. More memory and cores can work in some cases.

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1863125
 
i heard american television was requiring a minimum of 4.5k for broadcast
Someone said that on facebook I didn't research it's authenticity.
 
Here are multi-core test results with Premiere Pro.

Thanks for backing me up. I gather you don't know how to read this?

Just take the 6700k and 6850k on your list. You should be seeing about 30% performance boost, but you're losing half that benefit with the inefficiency of Adobe with the extra cores. With the 6950X, you should be seeing nearly a 100% boost, but it's only at about 40%. You're spending a lot of money with marginal benefits. The more cores you throw at it, the less benefit you get, especially when you're throwing weaker cores at the task. All you have to do is look at the dual 2690. A machine that should be 4 times faster than the 6700k only gets a 22% bump.

You're essentially suggesting the guy spends $6k+ to get a machine that is likely to run marginally better in PP as a cheap 7700k machine. Probably only about 20% faster than the machine s/he already has, which is likely to be good enough for the task at hand. Shame on you.
 
Thanks for backing me up. I gather you don't know how to read this?

Just take the 6700k and 6850k on your list. You should be seeing about 30% performance boost, but you're losing half that benefit with the inefficiency of Adobe with the extra cores. With the 6950X, you should be seeing nearly a 100% boost, but it's only at about 40%. You're spending a lot of money with marginal benefits. The more cores you throw at it, the less benefit you get, especially when you're throwing weaker cores at the task. All you have to do is look at the dual 2690. A machine that should be 4 times faster than the 6700k only gets a 22% bump.

You're essentially suggesting the guy spends $6k+ to get a machine that is likely to run marginally better in PP as a cheap 7700k machine. Probably only about 20% faster than the machine s/he already has, which is likely to be good enough for the task at hand. Shame on you.

Apparently, you didn't read through my post properly.

I did show a BIG price difference between 4 core and 18 core and talked about what his budget can afford.

Shame on you for not reading carefully.
 
I also talked about 5K VFx is around the corner, as announced by ActionVFX.

We have a member here interested in 18 core with a goal of editing 4K in real time. The loss of performance may not matter, if the 18 core is still better than before. People with the budgets to afford the latest in technology think about the near future as well as the here and the now. How long will it be before Adobe announces support for 18 cores? It will be out of the price range for most small businesses and entrepreneurs. But, there's still a market for it. That's why these new technologies are made with their initial high price tags.

I am just presenting additional options for those who can.
 
This is an example of what I'm talking about. I don't know why I'm surprised. You don't know what you don't know.

What we do know from the test results is for those members in this forum who have the luxury of not worrying about budgets because they have big studios to buy the equipment and software for them, they can invest in an $8,000 18 core iMac and edit 4K faster than someone with a $2,000 quad core iMac with 4K. Yes, there is performance waste without software support. But, hardware always will improve performance to some degree.
 
Yes, I know. It's abundantly clear. You still don't get it.

The penny may drop eventually, but it may be a little too advanced a topic for you to grasp. It's a little sad as it's not a complex topic to start with.
 
What we do know from the test results is for those members in this forum who have the luxury of not worrying about budgets because they have big studios to buy the equipment and software for them, they can invest in an $8,000 18 core iMac and edit 4K faster than someone with a $2,000 quad core iMac with 4K. Yes, there is performance waste without software support. But, hardware always will improve performance to some degree.


I've had a really long two days, I don't want to read those links.
But absolutely if you spend more money you can upgrade your tech better. :D:D:D

In my limited experience the GPU is the bottleneck of my postproduction that's where I'd turn my attention.

Upgrade a great GPU IMO
Even if you get a totally different computer in the future you can still put your great GPU inside that new computer.
 
Last edited:
In my limited experience the GPU is the bottleneck of my postproduction that's where I'd turn my attention.

Upgrade a great GPU IMO
Even if you get a totally different computer in the future you can still put your great GPU inside that new computer.

The circumstances where this is true are growing though it does depend if you're using gpu accelerated effects and/or codecs that utilize the GPU. A great majority of the time as a PP editor you'll find your GPU is never taxed and an upgrade is often a waste of money.

the one doing the insults loses the debate.
Modern, just stop. I do this for a living. You don't even use PP. You misunderstood an article in how it applies to current CPUs. You don't know you lost.
 
Back
Top