I'm contemplating splurging for a new editing computer. Previous computers have been mostly for Canopus Edius with Vegas running as an afterthought. Now, I'm shifting my focus to Vegas. Hmm. Better make that a 'limited' splurge--this computer has to have extremely high value rather than unlimited performance. I can only spend a max of $1k.

Sony doesn't seem to provide a lot of help in specifying a computer. What is really needed? I'm still using v9 (unless they have another sale on the upgrade...).

How many processor cores? How much ram? What kind of video card? (Do I really need a video card?) Which operating system?

At the moment, I'm contemplating a new Sandy Bridge i5. i7 just seems like it will be out of the question. I've never been an overclocker so I'm torn between a cheap H67--assuming the built-in video will be adequate and a 'real' P67--biting the bullet for an overclockable CPU and a cheap video card.

I do want to wait for Sandy Bridge so I've got some time to think and research this.

For comparison, I'm currently running an E6850 (dual core-no hyper, 3GHz) on an Asus P5k-e w. 2Gb ram and a Radeon x1950pro 256Mb.

Do I really need a video card?

If you want to see what you are doing, yes. Unless, of course, the video is incorporated on the motherboard (but then your motherboard also functions as your video card).

No, the question was more--how much video processing power do I need? Will the motherboard video provide an adequate solution? And is the cost saving worth the potential overclocking gains?

FYI, the H67 chipset allows on board video and no overclocking (h=home?) and the P67 requires a separate video card and allows overclocking with an appropriate CPU (p=pro?). However, ain't a whole lot of info out there since the mobo's ain't out yet... SATA problem with the chipset...

Its seems that some users here have some inside info sometimes and I was hoping for some of that!

most 'umphy' cpu + min 6gb ram (for 64bit) you can afford. mb with firewire (unless your cam is hd / card). cheap vid card with 2 dvi out (for dual monitors). your good to go.

Will the motherboard video provide an adequate solution?

It is hard to tell without knowing further details. You can try it and see if it works. If it does, fine. If not, add a video card.

That said, I would not put much trust in motherboard video. Then again, I do not even trust motherboard audio.

And with good reason!

Here is the recommended $2000 system from Toms Hardware
System Builder Marathon, Sept. 2010: $2000 Performance PC : The Quest For Six-Core Value (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclock-cpu-build-a-pc,2700.html)

By now, 5 mo later, the components should be much less than $1500 - for value vs Performance it seems AMD is the better choice.

I wouldn't recommend saving money on the graphics card, more and more applications/filters/FX are now offloading to GPU processing, nVidia CUDA, so try a 9500GT CUDA-enabled card, available from $50

Some more reading from speed geeks, basically he's saying the the rest of the components have to be high-end to keep up the the faster i7/sandy bridge CPU's , else you get no speed gains...

I think this definitely suggests that, if you're getting a much faster CPU (Core i7 980X, the forthcoming "Sandy Bridge" chips.. Intel's announcing that official at CES in January), you will probably need multiple drives, an SSD, and/or a RAID to keep the CPU well fed, at least from intermediate-class video files (native MPEG-2 or AVC will hit the CPU harder, the disc softer). I think some folks here have already seen high end i7 systems not running at full CPU, depending on the project.

Vegas 10... slow? And other benchmarks : Sony Vegas (http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/24/919135)

/magnus

I wouldn't recommend saving money on the graphics card, more and more applications/filters/FX are now offloading to GPU processing, nVidia CUDA, so try a 9500GT CUDA-enabled card, available from $50


This is the kind of info I'm looking for: but which applications/filters/fx will benefit? The Vegas requirements say nothing about this!

And why do things have to be difficult. nVidia says that virtually all of their chipsets have CUDA but Newegg only lists the Quadro cards with that spec... Confusing.

Yeah, because of the overclocking issue, I think I'll be going with a 'P' motherboard. We'll see what the prices are when they come out...

For a list of CUDA-enabled cards look at
CUDA GPUs (http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_gpus.html)

It's a trend, today Vegas 10 can render AVC/H.264 using the Sony codec with GPU-acceleration, more applications move to gpu-processing every day... vegas11 could possibly have gpu-accelerated preview, somehow they need to motivate those upgrades, i don't thing 3D-features is really the thing ;)

It's a trend, today Vegas 10 can render AVC/H.264 using the Sony codec with GPU-acceleration, more applications move to gpu-processing every day... vegas11 could possibly have gpu-accelerated preview, somehow they need to motivate those upgrades, i don't thing 3D-features is really the thing ;)

NA NA NA NA Not listening! (sigh) I can't spend that much money! I can either upgrade Vegas--which 9 already runs slow on my computer or really splurge and buy this computer. But adding Vegas upgrade will push me over the $1k limit I set for myself.

I really should wait until I can afford an i7 and upgrades to Vegas. But who knows when that will be... I am willing to accept donations...

Just not a fan of AMD. Intel guy here.

With Vegas 9, it doesn't matter what video card you use. Vegas 9 won't use any of the special features of video cards.

With Vegas 10 (both Pro and Movie Studio), it will use CUDA support on some renders (i.e. Sony AVC).

Who knows what the future will hold.

You could buy a non-i7 quad core - they are quite a bit cheaper. I use a Q9550, 2.83 GHz intel Core 2 Guad processor with 8 gigs of ram and 64 bit vista (which will be replaced by windows 7 soon). Running Vegas 9. I noticed a huge difference when I upgraded from Vegas 6 on my old hyperlink PC. The rendering times have improved significantly and I have done audio mixes of over 24 tracks without any issues whatsoever.

Vista which will be replaced by Win 7 soon???? When did this information come from? Win 7 has been out for quite some time now and is strongly recommended over Vista.

Vista which will be replaced by Win 7 soon???? When did this information come from?

Information? I thought he was saying his computer was running Vista and he was going to replace it with Windows 7 soon.

Information? I thought he was saying his computer was running Vista and he was going to replace it with Windows 7 soon.

That is what I took it as: His system is currently running Vista, but will be upgrading to Windows 7 soon.

Also, the current LGA 775 quad-cores are now way overpriced new (if they're even available at all any longer): The Q9650 still costs a whopping $250. As such I cannot recommend spending that much money for a processor that uses an already obsolete socket.

In fact, if you're spending anywhere close to $200 for just a CPU, you're better off with a quad-core i5. (Though i5 will still lag behind an i7 in video editing performance because the quad-core i5's lack HyperThreading, and the NLEs do take significant advantage of HT.)

Information? I thought he was saying his computer was running Vista and he was going to replace it with Windows 7 soon.

Ahh... I read it as he was wanting to buy a new computer and you wouldn't want to bring Vista in on that discussion - my mistake.

Yep, that is what I meant (on my computer) - sorry if I wasn't clear. I built my latest almost two years ago now (i7 had just come on the market). If those older quads are atill two hundred and fifty bucks - i5 does sound like a better bet!

In fact, if you're spending anywhere close to $200 for just a CPU, you're better off with a quad-core i5. (Though i5 will still lag behind an i7 in video editing performance because the quad-core i5's lack HyperThreading, and the NLEs do take significant advantage of HT.)

You're talkin' Sandy Bridge or Pre-SB?

The simple math seems to be pre/post sandy bridge processors will be very close in price with a significant performance jump? Is that a true statement? (I'm asking--not proclaiming anything--have no knowledge of any 'o this stuff.)

You're talkin' Sandy Bridge or Pre-SB?

I'm talking about either. The earlier i5-7xx series CPUs are a tad faster per clock than a Core 2 Quad. The SB ones are a sizable performance jump over the Lynndales.

One of the cheapest (and easiest) ways of improving performance is by adding more RAM to your computer. You wrote your current PC has 2 GB of RAM. Half of that is going to your OS, so Vegas is only working with 1 GB of RAM, not much for a video editor. While you save up for i7 and/or Vegas 10, I'd suggest adding 2 GB (more if you use 64 bit Windows).

Dude! Memory is almost free! 8 gig for $80? That's incredible!

I wouldn't even consider building a computer for Vegas Pro unless you're going i7. :)

I wouldn't say "skimp" on things like the graphics card or RAM, but I would definitely budget toward the fastest i7 proc you can, and let the rest of it fall into place from there.

If you are editing HD, I recommend a four disc Raid 0 for your scratch drive, or use raided SSD drives.

Why? I just switched to using this arrangement for my SD footage, and what a difference on the timeline. Preview performance has been improved more by this than anything since I went i7. Editing three camera project is like butter, it's like night and day.