I just returned from NAB 2013 and got the information straight from Adobe staffers, and in particular a staffer who has been an Adobe user for 20 years. While PP is great to work with, along with roundtripping from Photoshop, AE and Audition, and any other program that the project calls for, the bottleneck or albatross by Adobe's admission is in the graphics card. When purchasing a system(in my case Mac), I go for the best CPU, RAM for the buck. I also upgraded to an Nvidia card to handle my dual Apple displays. I have a Blackmagic Design to handle previews on my NTSC BlueGun monitor. For PP the Blackmagic handles previews in PP. Everything is good. I also have a laptop system that was upgraded from a G4 Powerbook(remember those?) that I used when I had to shoot and edit with Final Cut Pro 6 on location that was secure. Used AE for comps and all rendered out using DVD Studio Pro with no problem and on time.
Have a powerful MacBookPro(Intel) that has handled everyting thrown at it. Watched Adobe demos using the same. Graphics cards(GPU) can't be upgraded on those, whatever it comes with, you use that. No problem. Final Cut Pro 7 zooms through to the end. Doing projects in CS6 was pretty good. Going through Adobe Media Encoder or Encore is a no go. As one of the top Adobe staffers said, one needs a minium of 1GB of RAM on the graphics card to make it go. The recommended card for the Mac was the Nvidia Quadra 4000(about 900 bucks) and now they have the K5000(about 1900 bucks). Adobe was saying that is twice as good as the 4000, which now makes it half as bad.
So what does this information reveal? When you are done with your project in PP and it is time to make the movie/file/etc..unless you sprung for a very expensive graphics card that for most applications is used for what it is intended: to view: not numbers-crunch. But wait, Adobe says, "we have dedicated PP to use the GPU and not the CPU so you can do other things!" What??? After using the Creative Suite plus any other program to complete my project, I am done. I do not need the CPU for anything else. While rendering out the movie-file for DVD, I use that time to get my nutrients. I am ready to deliever the final product to the client. Instead of Adobe using all of the resources(CPU, cores, RAM, Blackmagic card)it chooses a GPU(and the one they like is via the sweetheart deal with Nvidia). This is is not a selling point. When they smile and say "you can do other things," they are covering up the fact that they blew it. Adobe, listen up...use alll of the resources on our computer systems to process the final file, not just the graphics card.
At the show, I met a couple of professional editors who have switched to FCP X because of the speed of the workflow, which was faster than Adobe. The Adobe professional had to install 2 Nvidia 4000 cards in his computer just to do his work Also if you have projects that are long, like mine, another editor who had the same issues, said to break it up into invidual 10 minute clips, as Adobe doesn't like long clips. Then bring it all in at the end in Encore. Whew, sounds like a lot of running around.
As suggested by Adobe staffers, I came home to use Project Manager to Collect Files(about 15 GB) and just when it gets to the end, it encounters an error and says "try again." After numerous times, I came back to the forum and say quite a few others had the same results. All with different systems. Using Finder will be a slow and tedious method when I get it to my bigger machine. Needless to say Adobe has to fix this problem instead of trying to market the upgrades on the next version.
I do realize that only a small minority of users actually write into forums, what maybe up to 5 per cent? Just letting prospective buyers know that before getting into Adobe Premiere Pro, that there are still a lot of issues to work out.
Adobe needs to fix the above issues before we can give it a thumbs up.