Building the ultimate up-to-date editing machine.

[wiserd]

Building the ultimate video editing machine.

Like a lot of people here, I'm looking to build the best video editing machine that money can buy. While I used to be pretty good with hardware, I'm not up to date on the best places to buy, newest
cards, etc. So I've gone through the boards and collected some data on building the ultimate machine for editing video as of April 2nd 2006 and done my best to sum it up here in a fashion which would be accessible to users of all levels. I'll probably keep my spending to ~$3000 though I might go higher if the value is significant.

Could those with more knowhow than myself correct or update whatever errors I make or offer advice to those like me who are looking to build the ultimate machine?

1. Dual core, dual chip AMD Opteron. The Opteron is usually used for servers, and is a 'high end' chip.
AMD chips deliver considerably more power per clock cycle than Intel chips. (Intel is optimized
for some video encoding tasks.)

Hyperthreading is just a buzzword and in reality you want true-multiprocessing with two indepedent cores, and ideally two independant chips with two cores each. Hyperthreading is nice in theory, but is just a stepping stone to multi-processing.

Can a motherboard that can run a Athlon 64 (or FX) processor also support a Athlon 64x2 processor?

If it's Socket 754, then no.

If it's Socket 939, then you should be able to run an X2 with only a BIOS upgrade (if that).

Additionally, there's been some concern re: pentium's support of DRM though they don't seem to be including it in their current products.

As for dual*cores* which just came out. All you need to do is upgrade your BIOS on your motherboard and the operating system will recognize the chip in a similar way as a dual processor set-up.

The AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Toledo 1GHz FSB has also been suggested as a good chip.

2. Hard drives and RAID arrays

The advantage of using RAID1 or RAID2 is that if a single disk fails you can use the other disk and no data is lost, also, because 2 disks are being used at the same time the through put is doubled, resulting in a highly noticeable decrease in access times for the disks which greatly adds to performance of the system.

In short, you're losing disk space and gaining disk read speed with RAID. You're also gaining some protection against disk failures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundant_ ... dent_disks

While most technical documentation doesn't say that RAID reduces write speed, one user has made this assertion.
Generally speaking, faster RPMs (7200 upgraded to 10,000) are considered less of a good investment than processor speed first and RAM second. At what point would hard disk write speed start to become a bottleneck? What about read speed? Are they really not significant? I have a 500 GB external USB 2.0 harddrive and could easily purchase another, but I want my main computer to be fast. Likewise, are two 250 GB USB drives with 8 MB cache faster than one drive with 16 MB cache? Cache on a hard drive is only good for transfer of smaller files, right? What's the limiting factor on a USB hard drive? Is it drive/seek speed? The transfer rate of the USB cable?

Today, SATA is somewhat faster than the equivalent PATA drive although hard drive tech still has a tough time saturating the PATA-100/133 interface, let alone the SATA-150 interface. And NO, 10,000 RPM drives aren't worth it. Especially since
you can get 500GB 7200 RPM, worth of storage for the same price as a 150GB 10,000 RPM drive ($300).



Memory - Min 1 gig in RAM. You're better off with two paired RAM chips than one big one, as the two can be accessed simultaneously (dual channel feature.)

DDr memory is the way to go for amd boards, you need to run two sticks to utilize the dual channel feature of the amd onboard memory controler. The onboard controler is why the amd can make such fast use of the memory. Most of the motherboard manufacturers have recomended memory brands, most of the good name brands work fine but some boards are fussy.


ECC - Some memory has error correction code. Avoid it. This is for computers which are mission critical, and it makes your RAM run slower.

DVD burner - Should work with + and - disks. At least x48 read speed.

OS - Windows XP Professional (not home) or Linux to make sure your multiple cores are supported. (Is windows XP 64 better if processor is 64 bit?

Software - Premiere (version?) or Vegas Video 6 and up support multithreading. (what about 64 bit processing) .
Adobe Premiere is a multi-threaded program and thus every other frame, in theory, is rendered by a different processor.
Also if I wanna do something else like play a game.
Since Windows XP also supports dual processors (look at the task manager and set CPU affinities),you can set the render job to CPU0 and then go do something else with CPU1.

Video cards - If you're just looking to rip video from DVDs and not capture it, a powerful video card is not needed.
However programs (which ones, which versions) are increasingly dumping some of their processing load onto the GPU's
system resources, so a video card with onboard processor can still be helpful. ATI all in wonder cards are frequently reccomended. This is one thing I know little about. I also want to do 3D video editing, so I need a card which supports
that function as well. PCI-E is 16x (twice the speed of an AGP card)

For video cards that will do good VIVO (video-in/video-out) almost everyone will recommend ATI.

Nvidea 32 -or- 64 are very good cards that do not cost much and handle 3D.

You don't need a good video card for AMVs, but you'll appreciate graphics processing horsepower. More and more applications are starting to experiment with moving computationally expensive processes onto GPUs.
Additionally, higher-end video cards tend to have quite fast 2D, and some bundle features to accelerate video playback.

you need a graphics card that has outputs your monitors can take. If you've got two CRTs, then you need a card with two D-SUB (VGA 15-pin) outputs.

The ATI all in wonder cards support dual monitors, you would need a DVI-VGA adapter plug for the dvi output if you have two vga monitors. If you get an SLI motherboard you can run two video cards separately and run four monitors. The 1800X AIW by ati should be fast enough for almost any gaming.

That being said, the pci-e slots for video cards are 16x slots. When used in sli mode they work as 8x slots. Gigabyte just came out with a board that runs both sli slots at 16x.

Places to buy;

www.cclcomputers.co.uk or
Ebuyer
buy.com
newegg.com
tigerdirect.com


Memory Express' Online Quote actually helps to do that part for me, negating the boards that do not work with the processor you choose. But I'll be sure to double check everything when I make my mobo choice. Thanks.

Motherboard- make sure your motherboard supports SATAII even if you don't get this type of hard drive, as SATAII will be eventually worthwhile. Your motherboard selection will be determined primarily by processor selection.
Make sure your motherboard supports dual channel memor usage. Any other advice or warnings?

Pick your proc, know your socket. Know your socket, pick your mobo. Pick your mobo, know your max RAM speed. Know your max speed, pick your RAM.

There are AMV wikis on hardware at
http://www.amvwiki.org/index.php/Category:Hardware

[Kariudo]

well...I recently built a computer of my own (first build) with editing in mind (sort of)

first, I'd wait until socket M2 comes out (should be pretty soon I think...I think I read that it comes out in the second quarter of this year)
It will require DDR2 (which has higher speed, as well as higher latency)

I'd suggest getting a motherboard by Abit, Asus, DFI or Gigabyte (there are a few others, but these are the names I remember)
DFI is known for putting out good boards (especially for those who are into lanparties)
I'm sure that at least one motherboard will come with this so I'll just reccomend it right now. Look for heatpipe cooling on the northbridge/southbridge chipset (good cooling with no fans )

For the processor, you have the right idea (going with AMD that is)
once again I'd suggest waiting for socket M2 to come out
from what I've read, I think that the amd x2 4400 gives you the most bang for your buck when it comes to rendering (and activities like rendering)
Opterons are good for overclocking, which might help.
I believe that they also do well with rendering
given the current trend, I'd go with the mid-level x2 processor for M2
(dangerous assumption, might want to wait for reviews to come out)

the dual-core fx processors seem nuts. they [the fx models] also did very well with rendering

For memory, make sure that you get some good dual channel sticks.
2GB should be more than enough (2 x 1GB)
good names are Crucial, OCZ, Corsair, Kingston and Geil (maybe PNY as well)
ecc may save you some trouble in some instances, but it slows down the memory, if you don't absolutely need it don't get ecc.

Sata is indeed your friend. I've heard mixed reviews, but personally I'd go with hard drives with a spindle speed of 10K rpm
the difference is amazing (imo)
avg read/write spinning at 7200 rpm (in milliseconds): 8.9/10.9 repectively
avg read/write spinning at 10,000 rpm (in milliseconds): 4.5/5.9 repectively
it can really add up.
As for raid arrays, definately worth it...no questions asked.
the most popular levels are 0,1 and 5 (but 5 is more for businesses)
0 gives you speed...lots of it
1 gives you data protection (and a bit of speed)
I'd look into a mixed array (1+0 and 0+1 would probably be what you want...these require a minimum of 4 drives)

Since Vista is still a way off I'd go with xp pro
if you want to fully take advantage of your 64-bit processor you should get the 64-bit version of xp pro.

For the video card, I'd go with pci-e.
Look for something with gddr3 memory. Even if the card has 1 d-sub and one dvi, most come with a dvi to vga adapter (I think...at least my GeForce 6600 did)
256MB should be enough (512 gets expensive...and after the processor/motherboard it might be better to look away from the 512MB cards.
You probably don't need sli or crossfire
if you want a quiet system you should look for a video card with a heatsink, but no fan

I'd spend a few bucks getting a good cpu heatink/fan
Thermaltake is good in this area. (I want one of the heatpipe ones...the blue orb 2 also has good reviews)

Make sure that you get a good power supply (and one that can hand plenty of power to your components)
450/500W should do the trick. (modular cabling is the hot thing right now, and seems like a good idea. you only connect what you need, so there aren't any extra cables hanging around in your case)

and as a final suggestion, get a nice case to put it all in...maybe one with a clear side so you can see all the nice parts that you put into it.

whatever you get, make sure to read reviews that others leave (newegg.com and to a lesser extent tigerdirect.com) these are often good for finding little quirks or bugs.

one more thing...get a floppy drive (it's cheap anyway)
I ended up needing one to get windows on my raid array
hope this helps

(My system)
Asus a8n sli-delux
AMD 64x2 3800
Evga GeForce 6600
Corsair value select pc3200 dual channel ddr (2 x 512)
2x Western Digital Raptor 36GB (set up in raid 0)(sata150)
some generic 250GB sata150 HD
X-Finity 500W psu (flex force cables are nice...make sure you have enough connectors to power your sata disks)

all for about...$1050 (hooray for ebay)

[Corran]

From personal experience:

You don't need to spend $3000 to have a kick ass system for editing if you choose not to buy bleeding edge hardware. Stuff drops in price so quickly these days that I recommend getting a second or third generation product. It will still be very good.

Large monitors > average sized dual monitors. I upgraded my dual 17" monitors to a single 24" widescreen. I don't intend to go back. Even if I had another 24" to use, the line down the center of the screens is annoying. However... a single 24" will likely set you back more than some cheaper models in dual...

Audiophiles will want some nice headphones or a nice sound system. My headphones cost more than than my 5.1 sorround sound and it is what I edit with.

Monitors and sound systems are personal preference I guess but if I'm going to make or watch something, or play a game, or experience anything digitally, these are the two areas I wouldn't scimp on.

[wiserd]

Thanks for the advice!

[Willen]

I'd only wait for Socket M2 if I'd upgrade that M2 processor again in the near future. The first Socket M2 chips aren't likely to be that much faster than the current Socket 939 AMD CPUs. Especially since DDR2 has higher latencies that take away some of the speed advantages of the memory type compared to DDR.

My current system:
ASUS A8N-E nForce4 Ultra motherboard
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+
2GB Generic DDR RAM (1GB x 2 in dual-channel configuration)
PNY nVidia GeForce 6600 256MB video card
Creative SoundBlaster Audigy2 ZS Platinum
250GB Hitachi Deskstar 7K250 SATA HDD (I should have gotten 2 for RAID-0)
Sony DRU-720A DVD Recorder
Sony DDU-1622 DVD-ROM (crap except for CD ripping)
5-in-1 card reader/floppy disk combo drive
Cooler Master Praetorian aluminum computer case (expensive!)
Antec NeoPower 480 power supply

All-in-all, I paid about $1800 for this system (yes, I overpaid for some items) and it's wicked fast, especially compared to my old computer.

[Beefy_Suavo]

Just a few RAM questions:

Is dual channel RAM different than single channel, or is it just single channel sticks installed in pairs?

How much of a speed difference can be noticed by using ECC instead of non-ECC?

Can ECC and non-ECC be mixed? If yes, will the non-ECC drop down to the speed of the ECC, or will it keep its faster speed?

[Kariudo]

dual channel ram is designed so that modules of memory (across sticks) can be accessed simultaneously.
It also allows you to run both stick of ram at their listed speeds (single channel runs slower after the first stick)
this is aimed to reduce bottlenecks in transfering data (to/from cpu/ram)
only get dual channel ram if your motherboard supports it

ecc runs slower than non-ecc because ecc ram must add more information to the stream that it's recieving. (at least that's the article on wikipedia)
the way I read about was that it goes over the stream and searches for errors, which slows it down. I can't give time differences (but if it helps, it adds 1 bit per cycle)
i'd suggest staying away from ecc if you don't aboslutely need it (like buffered ram, registered ecc is oriented more twords business application)

as an educated guess, I don't think you can mix ecc and non-ecc ram

[Willen]

Just a few RAM questions:

Is dual channel RAM different than single channel, or is it just single channel sticks installed in pairs?

How much of a speed difference can be noticed by using ECC instead of non-ECC?

Can ECC and non-ECC be mixed? If yes, will the non-ECC drop down to the speed of the ECC, or will it keep its faster speed?

Dual-channel refers to the way the RAM is accessed. The memory modules are the same, but you use at least 2 of them installed as pairs. Each 64-bit channel is accessed by the CPU separately, if you double the channels, you can double the bandwidth (64 x2). More bandwidth means more speed.

According to Crucial Technology, ECC is about 2 percent slower than non-ECC and you cannot mix the two. Although, I believe you can mix ECC with non-ECC memory, it will depend on your motherboard and how it accepts ECC memory. I'm not sure if ECC can run at non-ECC speeds if ECC functionality is not used, but I'm assuming that it will always be slower. If you mix the two types, I think that the non-ECC will run at the ECC speeds.

Since ECC memory is slower and usually more expensive, unless you are using it in a mission critical server, it isn't worth it. So generally you won't even run into the mixing issue.

[Zero1]

Check out hardforum and see what other people seem to be going for. You will also pick up on any problems that people seem to be having, so you will know what to avoid.