scw wrote:Upgrading the RAM is cheap and simple but it probably won't make any difference to your video editing efforts.
Actually, it may well - at least up to a point. Not so much due to the nature of the work being done but more from the availability of very fast working space. Video editing gulps memory and CPU power. On 64-bit operating systems especially the availability of larger RAM will reduce the amount of file I/O.
This doesn't scale performance-wise indefinitely for video but I would be surprised if increasing from 6Gb RAM to, say, 12Gb doesn't make some difference. This is a 'diminishing returns' thing, but every little helps, especially on a system with modest specs.
SSD storage would almost certainly make a difference too, but I think that's outside the available budget in this case.
scw wrote:Graphics card, CPU and the type of video files (SD/HD/4K codecs etc) will all impact much more on your efforts.
Some (most, these days?) video editing software will take advantage of the processing power in the graphics card where possible for certain things but CPU is really the 'meat and potatoes' of the process.
A dual core CPU (as cited by Garrettendi) is going to be a bottleneck, but with a clock speed of 3.xGhz it is hardly unusable and should be up to the task for the necessary basics when it comes to editing, albeit with limited capability for previewing effects in realtime. Rendering may take a while but that's what kettles are for ;-)
scw wrote:My advice would be to reduce the video resolution and see if it makes a difference before spending any money.
This is good advice, as long as the resulting video meets the required standards for whatever the project is. Many people equate resolution with quality and while there is much truth in that, a good camera with decent optics and capable firmware can produce better quality output at lower resolutions than some people might think.