AFX video editing: HDD vs. SDD vs. RAM

Krios

Krios

Here's a little experiment to figure out the speed of various storage options for video editing.
The tests were done on a Win7 rig, running After Effects (AFX). The virtual RAM drive was set up with ImDisk (free).

Storage options: 1. HDD (regular storage) | 2. SSD (Force GT) | 3. RAM (virtual drive)

The 1st test: loading a 50 sec. preview into RAM - 1920x1080 sequential JPG files

  • HDD - 28 sec.
  • SSD - 27 sec.
  • RAM - 27 sec.

Loading sequential JPGs did not make much difference.
For the 2nd test, the sequential JPGs were exported from AFX into an uncompressed AVI (7GB/minute, 1080p)

  • HDD - 66 sec.
  • SSD - 31 sec.
  • RAM - 10 sec.

Loading a preview of the AVI definitely made a difference! Also, previewing the footage real-time (w/space bar) was noticeably smoother from RAM. So if you have a few GBs of RAM to spare, you could speed up your workflow considerably with a virtual HD. But if you're editing on a budget (w/HDD), converting large video files to sequential JPGs might be something worth considering.

Happy editing!
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
SDD or SSD (Solid State Drive)?

SD Cards and micro SD Cards are coming a long way. There are 512 Gig SD Cards that are getting faster and faster. 1 TB SD Cards are around the corner.

The first 512 Gig micro SD Card will be coming out this July. Right now, 512 Gigs are only available in full size SD Cards.

Computers are coming up to a road block barrior for processing power. The next generation of computers, Quantum computers, are in development to set new boundaries not just for computing, but for artificial intelligence development as well. Intel's new 5G network is now in development for "learning machines" and self-driving automobiles.

A good test of processing power is a multi layered special effect to render. The more layers, the more time it takes to render.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top