Reccomend specifications for a new machine

JazzyDJ · Post by **JazzyDJ** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:53 am

I just recently ran into a problem where I am about half way to 2/3rds finished of my first video, but every time I go to load up Vegas now, it lags way behind and sometimes locks up. I'm also getting alot of virtual system memory too low messages.

So I think I'm going to have to put the video on hiatus (AGAIN

) until I can get a new computer system.

I am planning on going with the most memory on the market (4 GB), but there are some things I do not understand. Like what is the differense between quad core, SDRAM, DDR2RAM, etc and all the different variations?

Among other things I need you guys and girls help on figuring out is the processor and the video card. How important is the video card exactly to editing an AMV? What would be sufficiant to run smoothley for the next 5-6 years?

What I'm looking for there is a great balance between getting enough power to last a long time and run smoothly still after 6 years down the road and keep up with the increasing technology/system requirements, and balancing that with cost so I don't go over board.

What video card specs are most economecal and sufficiant to meet these goals for the purpose of video editing? Same question for the Processor? (2.0Ghz? 2.4Ghz? 2.66Ghz? 4MBcashe? 8mbcache?

...also what is the difference with all the cache specs I see listed under the processors? Like I see similar Ghz ratings, but the other one is way more expensive I guess due to it being a different duel core or core duo or whatever with a different size cache.

This is all unfamiliar stuff to me (I'm living on a 6 year old 1.5Ghz 256MB RAM HP) as I haven't kept up with the latest technology. Can you guys please explain these things and give me your reccomendations for a good new editing rig that will run smoothly so I can actually finish my video in reasonable time?

I was also wondering... what specs on your machines do you guys use to edit your videos?

Minion · Post by **Minion** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:56 am

http://www.animemusicvideos.org/phpBB/v ... m.php?f=12

JazzyDJ · Post by **JazzyDJ** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:07 am

Minion wrote:http://www.animemusicvideos.org/phpBB/v ... m.php?f=12

Oops. Looks like I posted in the wrong forum. Sorry about that. I'll PM a mod about moving it.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:11 am

This thread should be moved to Video Hardware Help.

"Quad-core" means (more or less) "four processing units on a single die". (In the Intel dictionary, it means "two dual-core chips glued together".)

SDRAM is a memory technology. DDR SDRAM, DDR2 SDRAM, etc. describe variations on SDRAM which permit higher data transfer rates.

The video card, for "regular" video editing work, isn't crucial at all. However, some editing programs, such as the recent revisions of Premiere Pro, contain effects that can offload work onto capable video cards; these are designated in Premiere Pro as GPU effects. After Effects and other compositing programs can usually make use of whatever capabilities the video card may have to accelerate drawing, compositing, and so forth. If you're doing anything with 3D, the video card becomes very important.

So it depends on what you think you'll be doing.

For reference, I've been working with a GeForce FX 5500 (on my desktop) and an ATI Radeon Mobility X1600 (in my laptop), and while I'd like to have faster video for some stuff such as 3D modeling, it's really not been the biggest bottleneck in my workflow.

==

What I'm looking for there is a great balance between getting enough power to last a long time and run smoothly still after 6 years down the road and keep up with the increasing technology/system requirements, and balancing that with cost so I don't go over board.

Depending on your definition of "enough power" and what software you plan on using, your goal can be impossible to achieve in the personal computing world.

...also what is the difference with all the cache specs I see listed under the processors? Like I see similar Ghz ratings, but the other one is way more expensive I guess due to it being a different duel core or core duo or whatever with a different size cache.

Those numbers refer to the capacity of fast memory present on the CPU. The more you have of this, the faster your programs can potentially go, because more on-chip cache means you can keep a greater quantity of frequently-used data in memory which, in the end, helps speed program operations up. (I say potentially because there are many more factors affecting execution speed.)

Those cache numbers often refer to the size of what is called the L2 cache, although it's not uncommon to see numbers listed for L1 and L2 cache. Some high-end processors will also have numbers listed for L3 cache, which can also be present on the mainboard.

Cache memory is also quite expensive, which is why you'll often see substantial price differences between (say) a chip with 1MB L2 cache and a chip 512KB L2 cache, even if every other characteristic between them is similar.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:21 am

trythil wrote: For reference, I've been working with a GeForce FX 5500 (on my desktop) and an ATI Radeon Mobility X1600 (in my laptop), and while I'd like to have faster video for some stuff such as 3D modeling, it's really not been the biggest bottleneck in my workflow.

To elaborate on this, I've found my biggest hardware limitation to be storage space, and so I've probably sunk the most money into faster and larger mass storage. Currently, I've two SATA drives -- both of which are Seagate Barracudas -- and three ATA100 drives hooked up via USB2. One SATA drive is 160 GB and serves as the drive on which OSes and programs reside. The other SATA drive is a 300 GB drive and stores data.

I think there's something around 570 GB of storage hooked up via USB2. Those drives serve as archives and secondary storage.

I need to convert my setup to make use of a file server of some sort, like this bad boy. Having all these cables around is a mess, and my current setup is really bad (read: totally lacking) when it comes to redundancy, backup, and the like.

JazzyDJ · Post by **JazzyDJ** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:36 am

Thanks for the reply trythil!

trythil wrote:
What I'm looking for there is a great balance between getting enough power to last a long time and run smoothly still after 6 years down the road and keep up with the increasing technology/system requirements, and balancing that with cost so I don't go over board.
Depending on your definition of "enough power" and what software you plan on using, your goal can be impossible to achieve in the personal computing world.

Basically all I mean by having "enough power" is so that it doesn't lag a bunch on me in 6 years like the problem I'm having now. The idea I have is that I should get something that is high quality now, but down the road when technology increases it should be just adequate enough that it doesn't lag or lock up like the one I have now does.

I plan on going with Vegas or Premeire. Nothing too fancy really. My number one goal here is to just be able to finish a video (still after 6 years of system increased demands) with out any major complications. (Can you feel my frustration of the moment?

)

.

Those numbers refer to the capacity of fast memory present on the CPU. The more you have of this, the faster your programs can potentially go, because more on-chip cache means you can keep a greater quantity of frequently-used data in memory which, in the end, helps speed program operations up. (I say potentially because there are many more factors affecting execution speed.)

Those cache numbers often refer to the size of what is called the L2 cache, although it's not uncommon to see numbers listed for L1 and L2 cache. Some high-end processors will also have numbers listed for L3 cache, which can also be present on the mainboard.

Cache memory is also quite expensive, which is why you'll often see substantial price differences between (say) a chip with 1MB L2 cache and a chip 512KB L2 cache, even if every other characteristic between them is similar.

What is L1 and L2 exactly, though?

Also one more question. I like to keep alot of media on my machine, use alot of sotware programs, plus all the clips I need from ripping my DVDs for my videos. Do you think that getting a 500 gig HD would be enough or would you reccomend more? Also, what is the differences in hard drives like SATA with the other variations in that spec listing?

Again, thanks for your response!

JazzyDJ · Post by **JazzyDJ** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:39 am

Well you sort of beat me to that last question while I was typing.

BasharOfTheAges · Post by **BasharOfTheAges** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:24 am

JazzyDJ wrote:
trythil wrote:
What I'm looking for there is a great balance between getting enough power to last a long time and run smoothly still after 6 years down the road and keep up with the increasing technology/system requirements, and balancing that with cost so I don't go over board.
Depending on your definition of "enough power" and what software you plan on using, your goal can be impossible to achieve in the personal computing world.
Basically all I mean by having "enough power" is so that it doesn't lag a bunch on me in 6 years like the problem I'm having now. The idea I have is that I should get something that is high quality now, but down the road when technology increases it should be just adequate enough that it doesn't lag or lock up like the one I have now does.

You do realize that 18 months is the standard doubling cycle for technology, right? That means, 6 years down the road you'll be able to (if the theory holds true) buy something 16 times as powerful for the same price. If you don't upgrade hardware (given 6 years i can assure you something will probably break), don't bother upgrading software after 3 or 4 years either. System life is a matter of what you get used to in waiting time - your new system might not be any slower, but in 4 years when a buddy of yours has a new top-of-the-line machine your system will seem unbearably slow by comparison. If you never upgrade your software, it'll work just as well in 50 years (assuming things don't break down, but that's silly). Now, if you build a top of the line system (something roughly $2000 or so) you should expect it to hold it's own for a couple years, but don't delude yourself into thinking you'll like it all that much after 3 or 4.

What is L1 and L2 exactly, though?

L1 and L2 cache are on-chip memory designators. L1 is faster and closer to the heart of the CPU than L2. Both are housing space for instructions that are to be executed - When looking for a processor, more L2 cache is usually better (unless they somehow set up the cache poorly and it thrashes all the time). L1 and L2 Cache is ridiculously faster than RAM because it's on the CPU and therefore doesn't have to travel through the board and to the RAM to execute instructions. (actually, instructions on the RAM are brought into cache to facilitate faster execution - when the same instructions are used over and over, it saves even more time). Now this is just a basic explanation - I don't even pretend to know anything past the P6 in terms of architecture (looking at the flow diagrams makes my head hurt), but it should be enough to sate your curiosity.

NeoQuixotic · Post by **NeoQuixotic** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:11 pm

Here is an example of a system I intend for video editing and gaming. I don't have a monitor or OS listed because I already have them. And remember, this system is great for my needs, so a system for yours may differ greatly.

$280 - Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz (Mwave.com)
$20 - ARCTIC COOLING Freezer 7 Pro 92mm CPU Cooler (Ewiz.com)
$130 - GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3R LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Intel (NewEgg.com)
$125 - Crucial Ballistix 2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit (NewEgg.com)
$146 - (2x) 320GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS (Ewiz.com)
$30 - SAMSUNG 18X DVD±R DVD Burner Model SH-S182D/BEBE (NewEgg.com)
$18 - Sony NEC Optiarc Black IDE DVD-ROM Drive Model DDU1615/B2s (NewEgg.com)
$8 - SONY Black 1.44MB 3.5" Internal Floppy Drive (NewEgg.com)
$170 - SAPPHIRE 100186L Radeon X1950XT 256MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 VIVO HDCP (NewEgg.com)
$140 - Antec 900 Case (NewEgg.com)
$100 - Antec NeoPower NeoHE 550 ATX12V 550W Power Supply (NewEgg.com)
$20 - ARCTIC COOLING Accelero X2 Fluid Dynamic VGA Cooling Fan with Heatsink (NewEgg.com)
$33 - SYBA PCI 32-bit Firewire 1394b Controller Card Model SD-FWB-32B (NewEgg.com)

Total: $1,216
After MIRs: $1,111 (3 - $105)

I intend to overclock the processor to at least 3Ghz and later upgrade the video card once prices drop or newer cards come out. Getting 4Gb of RAM might be overkill unless you are going to go 64-bit, use Vista, or do heavy multitasking. In 32-bit, applications can't use more than 2Gb of RAM, this is where 64-bit is useful for 4Gb and necessary for 8Gb and beyond.

Of course you could always buy a pre-built retail computer. But you are limited in expandability and will spend more on a higher end tier system than building it yourself. A decent retail quad core rig is Gateway's GM5478 for about $1,050. But I recommend building it yourself. It can be a lot of fun and good for learning.

Just wish I had the money to build this right now. Still dreaming, sigh.....

JazzyDJ · Post by **JazzyDJ** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:55 pm

Thank You Bashar for the helpful explanations. I just learned alot.

Anubis, your needs sounds much like my own. I'll be using my computer for a multitude of tasks. I need it to be a jack of all trades. So the demands might seem high for it, which leads me to believe I'll need that top of the line type specs. Although I don't know the first thing about overclocking so I'm not even going to mess with trying to do so. I'd probably burn out the system trying to overclock. I'd rather just rely on the hardware itself as it was made.

I was actually thinking of going with that Intel Core2 Q6600 2.4Ghz. How does that perform for you? It's either that, or the L2 Core 2 4MB cache 2.66 Ghz. That's the decision I am pondering over as the best bang for my buck that I'll be able to afford. I like the 2.66Ghz rating better, but then the 2.4GHz is a quad so does that mean the 2.4GHz is actually better and faster despite the Ghz rating? I mean I would think 4 threads on a chip are better than 2.

The opperating system that you mentioned is another thing... I'm pretty content with Windows XP but I fear that it will be extinct in a year or 2. I'm worried all the new software that comes out will require Vista. So I'll probably be going with Vista , which has far more system demands.

What do you guys think about the arrival of Vista? Do you think it will take over, or do you think it will be like Windows NT etc and be a forgettable flash in time I.E. while Windows 98 remained in power until XP? Will XP remain the king of Windows or will Vista take over?

As for graphics card, I was looking at going with one of the best just to be safe, but you guys tell me if it's unnescessariy... is getting a Nvidia Geforce 8800 GSX overkill? Will something like a Geforce 7950 suffice?