I am embarking on an early Xmas present for myself - I would like to build a new system without breaking the bank. I have been rendering a lot lately and the times are ridiculous - 3-4+ hours for videos. I would like to cut that down to a reasonable amount.

Right now, I am using an Intel dual core 3.0 (not core2duo) with a with an mid-range motherboard and 2gigs of RAM (DDR2 667) under XP with a SATA drive.

Again, I would really like to move to the Quad core, but I don't think I can afford it right now. I want to increase the speed, but without having to dip too far into the Xmas fund.

Any suggestions would be most helpful - and if you see something on sale somewhere, that would work too!

Why not try AMD? Especially the new Phenom II?

Ok, that is no problem. Any good prices anywhere? What other parts should I consider?

I think there at America you have the PRICEWATCH :: Price Comparison Tool - Find the lowest prices on computer parts, electronics and more before you buy (http://www.pricewatch.com) to watch and compare for prices.

Make a search about "AMD PHENOM II" to read some stuff. If you can't wait for it look other PHENOM. Make a search for "AMD PHENOM QUAD-CORE". It's cheaper than INTEL. I had back at 1990 intel then later i choose the AMD family because it is much cheaper. I had no problems. Right now i have one AMD 4200+ 64X2 with 4gb of 800MHZ ram [CORSAIR XMS2 DHX DDR2 4GB (2X2GB) PC2-6400 (800MHZ) CL4 DUAL CHANNEL KIT] (Try for corsair if you want). No problems either. The new ati cards (and nvidia also) have HD chips which i think help the rendering. I also here choose the ati because it is cheaper than nvidia and have smaller size and power consumption. I have the ATI 256mb 2600pro chip. For the HD part choose the SATA type. If you can afford it look for the WD Velociraptor (10.000rpm). If not look for the ABYS model WD. They are 24/7 drives enterprise character. They are hot but not a worry. Also if you make a new pc buy a good PSU with many years warranty. It's the powerhouse of the pc. Look for corsair if you want (Here in Greece have 5years warranty).
Hope it helps.

I switched to a dual core 3.2 with 2 gb ram and it renders my projects in under real time. You can get everything you need, cheap, just add some storage space for your projects. I deal regularly with Tiger Direct. TigerDirect.com - Computers, Computer Parts, Computer Components & Electronics (http://www.tigerdirect.com)

For the last few years, the Intel processors, particularly the new "i7", are running circles around anything that AMD has to offer. Also, the only truly "Intel Compatible" processor IS an Intel processor.

Secondly, the speed of the video card has nothing to do with the speed of a Vegas render. Vegas does not currently take advantage of the video card's GPU.

Lastly, most renders are bound by the processor and RAM, a 10,000 RPM hard drive isn't going to speed up the renders by much, if at all.

There are only two things that will speed up renders in Vegas, a faster processor and more RAM. (Although Windows XP can only address just over 3GB of RAM. Since Vegas in WinXP is a 32-bit application, it can only use 2GB of memory address space.) If your projects are relatively complex, you might consider going with Vista64 and the new 64-bit Vegas v8.1. Vista64 and Vegas v8.1 can take advantage of as much RAM as you can throw at them.

this has all the details of my set up.. back when I had only Platinum pro 9 and a SR11. AVCHD is harder to render anyway...

YouTube - AVCHD Sony Vegas (64 bit Vista) Edit Bay (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl_IHmzE7fI)

I did switch to Vegas pro 8.1 when I got the XDcam ex, the plus being it supports 64bit operating systems. I noticed a difference right away... nice.

Harry Settle,

Are you saying the DUAL CORE or the Core2Dual is fast? I have the Pentium D 3Ghz Dual Core and there is no way it renders for me in real time. That is interesting. I am guessing since my chipset is older, maybe you have a newer one.
I am still rendering normal Mini DV ,so nothing spectacular, but the render times are a killer.

Cheapest: update your BIOS, chipset and other drivers. You'd be surprised.

Relatively cheap: You didn't mention the motherboard socket, but perhaps a CPU upgrade might be appropriate. Look at tomshardware.com cpu charts, see if price/performance metrics makes sense for you.

I'll disagree with the statement "only truly "Intel Compatible" processor IS an Intel processor." AMD makes a fine CPU, especially if you have a tight budget and is quite compatible. However, the performance metrics generally (not an absolute statement here), have shifted to Intel and the only thing AMD can compete on is price.

Budget upgrade:
I would also question the efficacy of replacing a mobo, ram and cpu with what may prove to be a dead end AMD path. You should be able to get reasonable life out of a LGA775 mobo, even using a budget CPU now, upgrading later. My understanding is Intel will have a few more LGA775 CPU models.

BTW: I am not a fanboy of either brand, as I am presently rendering HDV on a socket 939 AMD.

My research indicates motherboard itself, and RAM speed (DDR 800, 1000, 1333, etc) are not a major factors, as the whole PC is slowed down by other factors, so recommend buying a LGA775 motherboard that can handle minimum 8GB DDR2 800 RAM for "budget" platform. Processor and RAM are the focal points. Most cost effective allocation of dollars is to get the "slower" RAM and faster processor.

Serious Upgrade:
The Core I7 CPU would be the way to go on new system build, as the CPU can "talk" directly to RAM, (there is no northbridge) and the bandwidth is exceptional. This really pays off in Vegas, as even the low end "I7 920" core beats most all the LGA775 quad-cores. Incidentally, a memory controller built into the CPU die AND the ability to do a CPU process on leading and trailing edge of a clock cycle is something AMD implemented awhile ago, but sadly, didn't keep up in other areas. I7 920 CPU is about $300, 3 sticks (6gb) RAM $250, mobo $300 (ouch). So likely out of your reach presently.

Here's some benchmarks:
AnandTech: The Dark Knight: Intel's Core i7 (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=18)
bit-tech.net | Review - Intel's Core i7 920, 945 & 965 processors (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/8)

I'd also suggest if you are doing a new build (vs upgrade) going to 64-bit OS and Vegas 8.1 to allow for more RAM to be used in renders. There is no reason you cannot install a Win32 OS first, then a Win64 OS, using a partitioned HDD, to ease yourself through the inevitable incompatibilities a 64 bit OS brings.

If it were me, I'd try to get along until you can afford the core i7, even if this means OC'ing current CPU or replacing for now. IMO i7 is a very significant step up.

OK, I suppose that I should have expanded on my "Intel Compatible" processor statement. Yes, AMD makes perfectly fine CPUs and I've used both AMD and Intel CPUs over the years. My problems with AMD CPUs have been more with the supporting Northbridge/Southbridge chipsets. In general, I've had no compatibility issues using Intel processors and Intel chipsets. I built my first quad-core machine using an EVGA motherboard with the nVidia 680 chipset and it was a totally unrelaible disaster.

After the nVidia 680 debacle, I built a few more machines with Intel motherboards, chipsets and quad-core CPUs and they have been astonishingly stable and reliable for close to two years now. I'm about to build some new machines with i7 processors and, based on my experience, will again use Intel motherboards with Intel chipsets. I haven't finalized the specs yet, but here are the specs of my current machines:

John Cline's Quad-Core System Specs (http://www.johncline.com/quad.htm)

David, I built my quad-core system around the specs John Cline has on his site and remain very happy with it.
If you have a local computer builder you trust, give him John's specs and see what he'd charge.
My price was around $4K Cdn. but this was almost 2 yrs. ago so I know you can get it for a LOT less.
I guarantee that you won't be disappointed.

The QX6700 chipset alone it way to much for me! I will have to pick up a 3rd and 4th job ;)
I am going to have to continue the research and find something a little less powerful but more in my price range.
I don't mind the AMD - I have AMD Black Edition 5000+ (overclocked) right now. Both machines are too low for rendering large projects though so I will have to upgrade one or the other.

I have already updated all bios and drivers for my system, thanks for that though.

The motherboard socket is an LGA775 motherboard. The RAM is DDR2 667.

I was thinking of overclocking my CPU, but I am not sure if it has the capabilities right now. Again, I was hoping to upgrade to a better mobo and CPU but was worried about the price - meaning, I didn't want to go cheap only to regret it, but I didn't want to break the bank either.

I am embarking on an early Xmas present for myself - I would like to build a new system without breaking the bank. I have been rendering a lot lately and the times are ridiculous - 3-4+ hours for videos. I would like to cut that down to a reasonable amount.

Right now, I am using an Intel dual core 3.0 (not core2duo) with a with an mid-range motherboard and 2gigs of RAM (DDR2 667) under XP with a SATA drive.

Again, I would really like to move to the Quad core, but I don't think I can afford it right now. I want to increase the speed, but without having to dip too far into the Xmas fund.

Any suggestions would be most helpful - and if you see something on sale somewhere, that would work too!

I think that David want's something fast and cheap, not thunderspeed and sold out. That's the reason to move to AMD.

John Cline said
"Secondly, the speed of the video card has nothing to do with the speed of a Vegas render. Vegas does not currently take advantage of the video card's GPU.

Lastly, most renders are bound by the processor and RAM, a 10,000 RPM hard drive isn't going to speed up the renders by much, if at all."

I didn't know that sony vegas don't use the GPU for rendering.
I have right now on pc one IDE and one SATA drive. It's about six months between them. When i used the IDE for split-join and re-rendering and later the sata, the sata was very faster to IDE. I think that the 10.000rpm SATA would be more faster. That's my opinion anyway. Sure the more faster the CPU and the more and faster the ram the better. But there's the price.

I forgot to mention that the gigabyte mobo's can work with 16gb ram(4 slots) and the newer with 6slots up to 24gb ram. I think that out there you can find other brands with lot ram slots.

I was thinking I should upgrade the motherboard sooner then later, but I wanted to do it all at once.
What would be the next logical step up from the Pentium D 3.0 Dual Core chip set?
What would be a decent motherboard for this step up?

Kostas, you are right I do want fast and cheaper - that should keep me happy for a while. Heck, I have been using the Pentium D 3.0 for the last 2-3 years!

BTW my whole system was less than a 1000 bucks. I had the monitors already. Works great. Render time for a 10 minute 1280x720x30p WMV (found WMV to be one of the longest renders) is about 40/50 minutes. 1920x1080x30p mxf file renders very fast, maybe 15/20 minutes for every 8/10 minutes of video.

AVCHD is about the same... WMV and quicktime are the formats which take me the longest to render.

Gateway DX4710-UB002A got it at Fry's.

I use a dual core 3.2 gig with 2 gigs of ram, never been happy with it, but I thinks its this particular computer, and definetely not enough ram, My friend has quad cores, 4 gigs of ram, seems to work, I believe one the most important things is the ram, with vegas 8 and if you need realtime etc, you need a min of 4 of ram. that most important, and if you use the computer for anything else, your daily stuff, and you have alot of other programs on it, the more ram the better. if its just a work station for vegas only, which most of us don't do, then thats different, I have always had mine built, then you can put in exactly what you want. you want a motherboard with plenty of slots. I would also look at a power supply of maybe 1000 watts, and if you have it built make sure the builder flashes the bios with the latest update.

I am going to look at the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 / 2.4 GHz - that seems like a good idea. I am trying to get a motherboard/cpu combo at :

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/search.asp?keywords=%20Intel%20Core%202%20Quad%20Q6600%20/%202.4%20GHz%20&image12.x=8&image12.y=16&sort=Price%20asc

There seems to be some good deals there for combo under $400.00.

I have the other computer with 3gig of ram that is the AMD BE 5000+ - it is still not fast enough. Again, I heard the motherboard has something to do with the speed as well, but I am not sure when it comes to rendering if it makes that much of a difference.

I just upgraded my MOBO, and I'm so sorry I did not see the release if the i7 processor coming. If you have any way of going with the i7, that is the move to make. Everything else under $500 became obsolete in the last week with the release of that new chip, and they are only $500 at newegg.

They chew up video and spit it out. They are absolutely perfect for Vegas, it is almost as if the i7 was designed for Vegas.

You'll pay more for Ram (DDR3 is required) but what a way to go.

Anyway, good luck. My q6600 is running just fine and is pretty fast, and if that is the route you go you'll be fine.

Thanks Jeff,
I think I am going with the Q6600 just because of the price. I know the new intel chips are going to change everything, but unfortunately they are not changing my meager paycheque.

David, you'll be quite happy with the Q6600.
When I built my machine, I decided to go with the QX6700 because it was the best available at the time.
Needless to say, I took out a 2nd mortgage to pay for it too :-)

Having built many systems over the years for myself as well as clients I can second most of what John has already said..

a few facts as I see it..

- Vegas does not care much about hard drive speed and really doesn't care about the GPU (unfortunately).

- Intel based systems run circles around AMD systems. You should not be in the market for a Phenom despite their price points which are not that much cheaper than Core 2 Duo 3.0Ghz chips which, frankly, are probably faster anyway. Stick with Intel. I'm not a fanboy either, I just call it like I see it..

- You are definately better off building the system complete rather than either upgrading or piecing it together. It would have helped to hear more about what you consider a budget. A price guide along with your existing system would be a plus.

- WinXp will only see about 3Gb of RAM, you should consider moving to Vegas 64-bit and I think 4Gb of RAM is about the minimum consideirng the cost for decent PC6400 (800Mhz) DDR2 Ram is about $60.

The Q6600 is a nice chip, very popular and been out for awhile. If you can swing this on a P35 based motherboard with 4Gb of RAM, you should be able to easily get those three main components for under $400 delivered. Throw another $200-$300 to cover maybe a new hard drive, possibly a case, quality power supply, and maybe even a $60 video card (8600GT is a good one, so is the AMD 4350 series).

I realize a build like this probably gets out of range for your budget but frankly, you're better off probably doing it right than doing it at all. You joked about having to get a 2nd job, but as crazy as that sounds, why not? You could probably pick up some temp job for a week or two - even at a low wage - and walk away with enough $$ to pay for the entire thing. How hard is it really to earn $700 - $900 when you really think about it? Sometimes earning your way into something you want feels a lot better than saving your way into it. Just a personal opinion there..

Jon

- Vegas does not care much about hard drive speed...(unfortunately)Jon

Video editors who demand performance always use the fastest hard drive they can get.

Technically your statement is true, Jon. But if you are editing a video with Vegas (or any NLE) and the foootage resides on a slow drive your editing experience will not be the same as it would be if the footage was on a much faster drive. You could also say that Vista doesn't care about hard drive speed and that would be true as well. But if you run with a slow drive vs a fast drive you will know it immediately. I sold an old P4 pentium computer with a 15K SCSI hard drive to a friend the other day and he cannot believe how it flies. Programs load incredibly fast. Of course it is still a P4 and cannot perform miracles, but it handles Vegas 7 just fine.

Have used RAID 0, non-RAID, 1TB WD Blacks, Raptors (every variety of Raptor drive available including the newest 150GB version and all of the old versions) the 1TB Samsungs, 15K RPM SCSI in RAID, etc., etc., and there is a noticable difference in the editing experience from one configuration to the next.

The difference begins when bringing in new footage. Peak-building can take 3-4 times as long on a slow drive, and with ten to twelve hours of footage or more that can be a lot.

Performance on the timeline is also much better with the faster drives. A slow drive will also contribute to a choppy preview experience.

Many professional editors run only the fastest drives in a raid 0 configuration and for good reason. Fast drives and video go hand in hand. To me the hard drive and hard drive controller I use are as important as the processor.

If the video editor is a hobbyist all of the above may not matter. Heck, there are plenty of small-timers like me who will live with a slow hard drive rather than part with the dollars required for better performance. That is fine for them. I say who cares? To each his own.

In addition there are plenty of folks for whom fast does not mean anything. But if you are looking for performance, the hard drive cannot be overlooked.

Video editors who demand performance always use the fastest hard drive they can get.

... But if you are editing a video with Vegas (or any NLE) and the foootage resides on a slow drive your editing experience will not be the same as it would be if the footage was on a much faster drive.....

..... Fast drive and video go hand in hand.

Happy :) to hear it from another user.

Disregard this post, it was completely pointless and I just edited it out.

Okay, yes, I tried to hedge my comment there a little by saying hard drive performance doesn't mean 'much' but your point Jeff is well taken and for that matter, I edit on a RAID 0 setup with a Raptor drive as my system drive and I do notice a differnece, however a few points..

The guy in this post is in the mood for a 'budget' build and all things considered, CPU & RAM are really the biggest 1-2 punch in terms of performance. He also mentioned in his post frustration with rendering times being the main issue he wanted to upgrade. There, again, CPU & RAM are going to be his big players, hard drive speed in terms of rendering performance is not going to matter a whole lot..

That being said, timeline performance I believe is faster while reading off a RAID 0 set or a faster drive, but the performance improvement, while noticeable I still suspect is fairly neglible. I am kinda moving on the assumption that the user will at least have a decent 7200rpm SATA-2 drive with a fair amount of available space.

So, it is true, hard drive performance can and does make a difference.. I just don't think in this particular forum it's an area he should spend much $$ on.

Jon

A faster system hard drive will make Vegas load slightly faster, but once it's loaded, Vegas isn't going to run any faster.

DV and HDV files require just under 4 megabytes/second and even the slowest modern hard drive, including external USB and Firewire, can maintain a sustained data rate of 30 MB/s. The new Seagate 1.5 terabyte drives (available for about $120) can hit sustained speeds of 120 megabytes/sec. Rendering video is bound almost 100% by CPU and memory speed if it is actually having to render the video due to the application of filters, adding titles or modifying the original video in any way. If the video hasn't been modified, then Vegas will just copy the file and that's where hard drive speed can come into play. Also, Vegas (or any other program) can copy data much faster when going from one physical hard drive to another. If you're dealing with uncompressed intermediate files, then simply copying huge files can be a time consuming task, even at 100 megabytes/second.

Nevertheless, hard drive speed is a relatively minor factor when truly rendering files. Generally speaking, Vegas will be more productive and responsive with a faster CPU and memory.

John, I did not mention rendering peformance relative to hard drive speed. I was talking primarily about scratch drives and overall responsiveness, I thought that was clear.

Before disputing this further we should swap out our 10K rpm drives with 5400 rpm IDE drives and then make our recommendations based on those results.

John, I did not mention rendering peformance relative to hard drive speed. I was talking primarily about scratch drives and overall responsiveness, I thought that was clear.

Before disputing this further we should swap out our 10K rpm drives with 5400 rpm IDE drives and then make our recommendations based on those results.

While you didn't mention rendering performance, the question that started this thread was entirely about rendering performance. David Delaney said, "I have been rendering a lot lately and the times are ridiculous - 3-4+ hours for videos. I would like to cut that down to a reasonable amount."

Basically, David was asking what the most cost effective way would be to speed up his renders as he didn't want to dip too far into his Christmas fund. A 10k hard drive is not going to speed up rendering by any significant amount, a faster CPU and memory will. A single 10k rpm 300 GB drive is about $200, whereas a 7200 rpm 1.5 TB drive is about $120. The savings could be spent on a faster CPU and more RAM (and he'd get an extra 1.2 GB of drive space.)

BTW, your statement about swapping 10k drive for 5400 rpm drives had a sarcastic, if not outright condescending, tone to it.

You're right, my statement did appear sarcastic, and I apologize for it. I was obviously off track from the purpose of the thread, and again, my apologies to all.

You're right, my statement did appear sarcastic, and I apologize for it. I was obviously off track from the purpose of the thread, and again, my apologies to all.

hehe

No need to apologize, I thought it was actually kinda funny... I say so because I was working on a my laptop last night, sitting in the kids room and frustrated as can be looking down at this machine waiting for it to do just about anything. Of course, it's a perfectly capable dual core machine with 2 or 3Gb of RAM, but I knew all too well it was the stupid 5400rpm hard drive in there that was the real cause of my frustrations...

In the end here, John you are right and you have a good point too Jeff because when looking at overall system performance, the hard drive has a tendency to be the weakest link just in general computing and no 'solid' build should be without a good drive..

Jon

Actually it is interesting thast you mention your laptop, because it was working on laptops (with the slow drives they tend to have) I was thinking of at the time I mentioned 5400 RPM drives. Dreadful working with them after being used to the desktop unit.

On the other hand you previously made the point you that most of us are using 7200 RPM drives and for most purposes they will suffice. And they will.

On the other hand there is a point of diminishing returns. I notice little difference running the new Velociraptors in RAID 0 vs non-Raid and I don't even run RAID any longer so as to have the additonal storage space. Additionally, the RAID controllers on my MOBO seem to be full of issues. I never experienced problems with RAID until I moved to integrated controllers during my last two PCs.

I have a few laptops and each of them has relatively zippy 7200 rpm drives. However, with the advent of perpendicular recording on new hard drives, which seriously increases the areal density and how much data is moving under the heads at a given rpm, even 5400 rpm drives these days can be significantly faster than an old longitudinal technology drive. There is also the whole issue of access time, which is where the Raptor, Velicoraptor and certain SCSI drives really excel. They can initially get to the data fast and, from that point, sustain a fairly high data rate. The Seagate 1.5TB drive has a higher sustained transfer rate than virtually anyting else available, due to its higher areal density, but its access times don't come anywhere near a WD Velicoraptor.

I am thinking about the Q8200 now because it is on sale. Most are saying it is the little brother to the Q6600, but I wonder for video editing (which I won't be OC'ing) if the price is right for the job?

David, you don't mention what the job is. If you are editing only SD, it should be fine, but if you have any plans to move into HD it would be an unwise expenditure, IMO.

If your MOBO would accomodate a quad core chip I see them on sale for under $200, which would not be a bad deal, but again if you're moving into HD I would hold off for the newer chips.

BTW, the links in your signature are not functioning this morning.

Right now I have a Asus p5Q-E motherboard with 8 gig of RAM ready for a processor. I have used HD with my old 5000+ BE AMD without any problems so I am assuming it can only get better.
I will be continuing to use HD and DV in the future, depending on the project. I honestly hate the render times more than anything else.
When I have researched the Q6600, most people were using it for GAMES and therefore there opinion was based on that. I did see a comparison of the Q8200 and the Q6600 and most people were complaining that the Q8200 didn't overclock as well - but again that was for games.
I will be using Vegas and some visual effects programs like AE in the future. I don't want to go the DDR3 route considering I have some much of DDR2 to be used. The i7 looks nice, but I think when building that system , I won't be able to cannibalize the parts I already have...

Your right, with the i7 you'd need a processor, MOBO and Ram, and possibly new PSU you (should have about 700-900w PSU) It is expensive...at least I found it so.

i7 renders a 60 minute project in about 12-14 minutes, and HD renders to 16:9 SD in about 50% of the length of the project, which is main reason I bought it.

The Q6600 renders 60 minute SD project in less than 30 minutes, so for SD the Q6600 is a great deal, but for HD still inadequate if you have to turn out videos quickly. If you don't have a lot of tight deadlines, the q6600 would be good even for HD, especially if you used Gearshift or NeoScene.

It's tough balancing needs/want vs checkbook, isn't it? I'm still feeling the sting of the cost of my upgrade.

Something I haven't touched on is FSB & L2 cache- how is that going to factor in? I know on the Q6700 and the Q6600 have 1066mhz with 8meg L2 cache while the Q8200 has 1333mhz but with only 4MB of L2 cache.
Part of the issue is that I am going to be using this computer for editing HD with Vegas, but I am also going to be doing some compositing software as well.
The Q8200 doesn't burn as hot either and is cheaper, but with that, am I getting what I pay for?

David,


Right now costco has an HP with a I7 920 processor, and two hot swapable bays for around 1100 dollars.

Wish I had seen it before I bought my Dell xps work station (which is now working perfectly, but was a pain for several weeks).

By the time you canibalize parts and all that, I wonder how much you will actually save, and then you are going to be yearning to upgrade way to soon!!

As Jeff pointed out it is kind of a trade offs situation.

If you are going to be doing compositing with after effects the I7 with 6 or more gigs of ram will be a huge asset!!

Thanks for that, but I think that is USD pricing - so that adds a huge amount to my budget. And since I have already purchased 8 gigs of DDR2 RAM, a P5Q motherboard, it would be throwing away 300+ dollars to get a complete upgrade. Yeah, I know, I should just bite the bullet, but putting money into computers is a lot harder in this economic climate...

David,

Here in Sask. At cosco it was 1400 dollars.

ignore this accident

Yeah, $1400 is a-l-o-t of money for me. I can't justify it right now.

Finally purchased the Q6600 CPU. All is working well, now just have to install VISTA on the system and see what the 8gig of RAM can do.
My idling temperature with the STOCK INTEL fan is 35, does that sound ok?