I just read an interesting article about Intel's new Core 2 Duo which is supposed to be the next step up from the Pentium platform. Real mean. Real bad. I know this means Pentium processor prices are going to drop like hot rocks but is this new processor something to get excited about yet? Anybody here know how to describe the Core 2 Duo processor in idiot terms for me?

YES! Even before the Conroe and Woodbridge processors where shipping it was clear that NLE performnace benfited from dual-cores. Earlier this year we did our DIY4 - Dual Core Face-Off AMD Athlon 64 X2 vs Intel Pentium D 900 http://www.videoguys.com/DIY4.html

The advantages of Dual Core processors for video editing are significant. The biggest is price / performance. Most video editing applications are written to take advantage of dual processors and hyperthreading, now with a single affordable chip, you can maximize this capability. Those of you who read our DIY3 article are aware of the troubles and tribulations we ran into building a dual Xeon workstation. With a Dual-Core processor the installation and set up of our DIY4 machines was very easy. As you will see from this article, you can build a killer dual core workstation for under $2,000 that will give you outstanding performance for all your editing and encoding needs.

Now the new Intel processors leap frog these machines in performance. We are busy now geting the pieces together for our DIY5 article. It will be a Conroe based workstation that will become my new home editing system.

Chips & motherboards are in tight supply. As a result prices are a bit inflated. These prices will come down quickly as availability increases. When this happens, you're going to want to jump in. I'm thinking early october.

Gary

Thanks! I will follow the info.

The Intel processors look great. I just popped an AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+ to replace an Athlon64 3700+. While I haven't benchmarked anything, I have to say that I TOTALLY notice an increase in system zippiness in multitasking and application loading. I like that you can pop in a new processor into the 939 socket, and I'm TOTALLY bummed that their energy efficient 4600+ uses the new AM2 socket. This is the cheapest dual processor upgrade you can do.
Otherwise, you have to buy a new motherboard (time+money), new memory and new processor. I'll do that when main memory is really faster than DDR PC3200, as in 800 MHz DDR2 or something.

I would be REALLY interested in seeing reviews that also consider system power. This would help me decide whether to spend more money on a more efficient yet faster part. If a part will save me 30 watts of continuous usage over a couple of years, as would the Intel Core2 Duo or AMD EE Athlon64 XP, I'd totally go for it.

Power ratings would also put pressure on component manufacturers to deliver most efficient parts yet sell them at a higher cost. 3D graphics card could totally be a power saver if the manufacturers were pressured to put more effort into efficiency. Right now, the drivers of those components are price or GPU power.

I just read an interesting article about Intel's new Core 2 Duo which is supposed to be the next step up from the Pentium platform. Real mean. Real bad. I know this means Pentium processor prices are going to drop like hot rocks but is this new processor something to get excited about yet? Anybody here know how to describe the Core 2 Duo processor in idiot terms for me?

Believe the hype, these processors are the ONLY way to go at this point. Anybody considering an AMD setup is nuts.. And this is coming from a guy who has banged the AMD drum for the past 5-6 years....

Jon

Like a lot of folks here, I keep one eye on computer developments as I believe there's no such thing as a computer that's too fast, especially when it comes to video editing.

By all accounts, the "Conroe" Core 2 Duo systems are easily king of the desktop world right now. If you need a new high-end system now, that's the one.

I'd build myself a Core 2 Duo Extreme right now except for one thing...Intel announced a month or so ago that they are accelerating the release of their "Kentsfield" processor from 2007 to 4th quarter 2006. It will be called Core 2 Quadro and is basically two Conroe cores packaged together. Early benchmarks indicate that while it makes almost no difference for word processors etc that don't really much benefit from multi-processing, programs that do benefit can perform as much as twice as well under Quadro as they do under Duo. Tom's Hardware -- which is geared more toward gamers -- actually added PPro rendering to their testing. Render times were cut by a third to almost a half compared to Core 2 Duo and the fastest Athlons. I think the highest end systems will be moving from a 1066 front side bus to 1366, which should also help some video applications.

My read is this:
If you're looking at the very highest end desktop system and can afford to wait a couple of months, hang on for the Core 2 Quadro systems. If you need the best there is now, Core 2 Duo Extreme is it. If you need an economy system, take your choice; AMD dropped their prices hugely to compete based on "price vs performance" so what were high end systems 6 months ago are now pretty inexpensive mid-range computers.

Like a lot of folks here, I keep one eye on computer developments as I believe there's no such thing as a computer that's too fast, especially when it comes to video editing.

By all accounts, the "Conroe" Core 2 Duo systems are easily king of the desktop world right now. If you need a new high-end system now, that's the one.

I'd build myself a Core 2 Duo Extreme right now except for one thing...Intel announced a month or so ago that they are accelerating the release of their "Kentsfield" processor from 2007 to 4th quarter 2006. It will be called Core 2 Quadro and is basically two Conroe cores packaged together. Early benchmarks indicate that while it makes almost no difference for word processors etc that don't really much benefit from multi-processing, programs that do benefit can perform as much as twice as well under Quadro as they do under Duo. Tom's Hardware -- which is geared more toward gamers -- actually added PPro rendering to their testing. Render times were cut by a third to almost a half compared to Core 2 Duo and the fastest Athlons. I think the highest end systems will be moving from a 1066 front side bus to 1366, which should also help some video applications.

My read is this:
If you're looking at the very highest end desktop system and can afford to wait a couple of months, hang on for the Core 2 Quadro systems. If you need the best there is now, Core 2 Duo Extreme is it. If you need an economy system, take your choice; AMD dropped their prices hugely to compete based on "price vs performance" so what were high end systems 6 months ago are now pretty inexpensive mid-range computers.

I don't think there is ANY AMD processor that fits into the price/performance spot right now. Sure you can pay $220 for a fast AMD processor, but you can pay $320 for an Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 that runs at 2.4Ghz with 4Mb L2 Cache and smokes even AMD's $500 FX processors. At this poing, ONLY if you had a low low budget of $150 or so to spend on a processor AMD may make some sense, otherwise it's all Core 2 Duo...

Jon

We just posted our DIY5 article:

We just posted our DIY5 article:

DIY5 – Intel Core 2 Duo Strikes Back!
Intel regains the top spot for NLE workstations

This summer Intel began shipping their new Core 2 Dual CPUs (code name Conroe). I’d been watching and following the leaks and reports about the new Conroe chips for months. All my favorite hardware websites – Tom’s Hardware, ExtremeTech, Anandtech and many others where posting articles on the remarkable performance of these chips. I knew I had to have one. I would make my own personal dream machine, to use in my new home editing suite. I called my dream machine the Vaporizer, and I could not wait to get it built.


Click here for the complete article http://www.videoguys.com/DIY5.html

Gary

Gary, nice article. Thanks.

BTW, Tom's has just posted that Kentsfield is officially released so presumably they'll flow to retailer in the next month or so. Video rendering -- which of course is what we all care about here -- benefits hugely from Quad Core (at least in PPro 2), although most games and office apps WON'T initially benefit.

I haven't seen any 1333MHz FSB motherboards yet, but I suppose they'll be along soon, and if a person's really in a hurry you can always use one of the 1066 boards linked in Gary's article.

Gary,

At the end of the DIY5 article, there is a list for a custom Xeon computer with four cores. I've heard that Xeon is for servers and not desktop computers, so what is the purpose of this custom Xeon?

What about two dual Core Xeons?

Yes - you can now go to 4 cores. The new Dual dual-core Xeons are now shipping. So far we have 3 suggestions for those looking in that direction:

* Dell - Precision Workstation 690
* HP - Workstation xw8400
* DIY - Tyan Tempest i5000XT (S2696)

When getting into building a DIY machine with two processors I have to warn you: It's not that easy. the added weight, heat and other mechanical issues makes building a dual processor system much more complicated than a single processor. That's why I have the HP & Dell listed first. And I didn;t list any dual dual-core opterons just becuase this is an Intel focused thread.

here's a good article to read:
Double Double: Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700
Intel pops two Core 2 Duo chips into a single package, shipping the first quad-core CPU for desktop PCs. Can four CPU cores find a home in your PC? We put the new QX6700 on the test bench to find out.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2049683,00.asp

Gary
Videoguys.com

all the tests i've read, to date, show the quad cores to be arguably faster than a dual core machine. in some instances, they're slower, due to the negoiating time between cores. i suspect, unless the NLE software is multi-threaded, quad cores won't prove much of an advantage over dual cores.

ok. i see i'm a bit confused. My post was about 4 cores from dual dual-core xeons.

The new quad core sprocessors are shipping. these look rteally exciting. our DIY5 machine is 100% quad core compatible. just go with the quad instead of the dual.

Gary

i suspect, unless the NLE software is multi-threaded, quad cores won't prove much of an advantage over dual cores.Yup, that's what the early reviews have indicated. In the case of Adobe apps and Cineform, they ARE designed to use multiple cores so benefit greatly. I'm building a QX6700 system this weekend; if all goes well with the build, I'll give an update in a few days.

Hi everyone :)
I am researching to build a system for video editing and effects, and it's my first time building a system myself. I mostly use Adobe products (Premiere Pro2, After Effects 7 and etc)

My choice is to pretty much follow the DIY5 spects from videoguys.com except for minor changes. I have a question to ask though. The ASUS P5W64 WS Professional costs less on pricegrabber than the ASUS P5WDG2 WS Professional motherboard. It seems that the former has more value as it packs more PCIe slots, that's pretty weird isn't it?

Also will I get a tremendous increase in speed if gone with Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Quad Core Processor as opposed to Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 Dual Core Processor, do Adobe apps really support quad processors? Ideally I wanted to pack it with 8Gigs of Ram, but would you recommend getting the QX6700 Quad Core processor and go with 4GB instead?

My current machine is Dell XPS2, which is so damn noisy, it has numerous huge server fans, I had to literally put the machine in the closet and close the door to keep the noise down. Has anyone ever used water-cooling approach to cooling the processor with Zalman RESERATOR 2? I hear it makes the computer noticeably quiet.

Also, should I wait for Vista to come out and then build it, or build it with Win XP Pro and install Vista upon its release?
Will going with the PNY Quadro FX 1500 Pro Video Edition be a better choice than the top of the line 512mb cards from either ATI or nVidia?

Any comment is really appreciated.

Happy holiday season everyone!

My current machine is Dell XPS2, which is so damn noisy, it has numerous huge server fans, I had to literally put the machine in the closet and close the door to keep the noise down. Has anyone ever used water-cooling approach to cooling the processor with Zalman RESERATOR 2? I hear it makes the computer noticeably quiet.

Hi

Instead of water cooling, you might consider Scythe Ninja for your processor, and a good power supply like Seasonic 550 or 650 Energy Plus. If you add to that a good Antec case, your computer should be pretty inaudible.

For more information see www.silentpcreview.com - this is an excellent site for info on quiet computing.

Hi

Instead of water cooling, you might consider Scythe Ninja for your processor, and a good power supply like Seasonic 550 or 650 Energy Plus. If you add to that a good Antec case, your computer should be pretty inaudible.

For more information see www.silentpcreview.com - this is an excellent site for info on quiet computing.

After rigorous research I am going with the Scythe Ninja heatsink as opposed to watercooling. Thanks for the valuable info and the link.
Here is the list of the components that will make up the ultra-quiet powerhorse I am going to build:

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Quad Core Processor

Asus P5WDG2 WS Professional Motherboard

Scythe SCNJ1100P 120mm CPU Cooling Fan

Antec P180 Silver Mid Tower (Plus five Nexus 120 mm Real Silent Case Fans to replace the Scythe one as well all four throughout the Antec case)

Corsair CMPSU-620HX 620W ATX EPS12V PS/2 Modular Power Supply

Kingston 1GB PC2-6400 800MHz 240-pin Non-ECC Unbuffered CL5 DDR2 SDRAM DIMM (I wonder if there's 2GB one-piece version of the same RAM, this way I will get two 2GB ones for now and later get another two to make total of 8GB) Also, do you know if Ram must be istalled in a sequence, I noticed the Ram slots are color coded on the Asus motherboard, it is yellow then black and then again yellow then black, is there a difference if you skip one slot, and or if you have two 2GB ones you should only put them in the yellow slots?

PNY NVIDIA Quadro FX 1500 Video Card (MPN: VCQFX1500PCIEPBV)

Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS 320GB Hard Drive (system drive, all my video editing will be done on four Lacie Big Disk drives which vary in storage from 300GB to 500GB)

Pioneer DVR-710 Dual Layer DVD±RW Writer

Samsung SyncMaster 244T Silver 24" LCD Monitor

My only concern is if I should get the 64bit version of Vista or stay with 32bit. Adobe doesn't specify if the current Premiere Pro 2.0/AF7/Photoshop CS3 support the 64bit environment.

Any comments are really appreciated.

Thank you very much.

at one time, xp itself would only support two "cores", then intel brought out Hyperthreading and a xeon system with two processors would be seen by xp as four "cores".

I have been in the computer biz for 34 years, and my advice is stay away from vista for now, unless you think you will need no support. Or you think there won't be a vista sp1 and sp2? I would also stay away from xp64, as there are few drivers, and not many updates for it.

will that asus mb come with a bios that supports the quad core2? not all do, some can be flashed by the user, some cannot.

I don't think xp can use more than 4 gBytes of memory. the colors probably do mean something on the ram slots, see if you can download a userguide pdf for that motherboard from the asus site or email their support. you can also ask about the bios and quad core support.

any xp os you buy now should have a free upgrade to vista coupon with it anyway.

how about the system drive in a removable drive caddy? then you can keep one os with the minimum install and no virus checker and no internet support with a pp2 install to keep all the variables to a minimum, then one disk with os for getting on the internet and ftp ing or sending video.

good luck, and did I mention stay away from vista and xp64? If you don't believe me call adobe and try to get support under those os/s from their tech support people, NOT the salesmen!

The two colors for the RAM slots represent pairing used for dual channel. Check the motherboard's documentation to be sure, but for most boards (including the one ASUS system I've built), you want identical memory sticks in slots of the same color (eg if you are installing a total of 2 sticks, they go in slots 1 and 3, or 2 and 4) so you'll get the benefit of running the memory in dual channel.

Heads up: while I liked the Antec P180 case well enough the first time 'round to buy another one for my quad core system, it IS a #$%$^ to string the various cables through that case. Antec has a new "Nine Hundred" case that I just saw on the shelf at Fry's Electronics that might be worth a look. I can't really vouch for since it showed up after I'd already built my system, but it sure looked better in terms of fan placement and build ergonomics.

The two colors for the RAM slots represent pairing used for dual channel. Check the motherboard's documentation to be sure, but for most boards (including the one ASUS system I've built), you want identical memory sticks in slots of the same color (eg if you are installing a total of 2 sticks, they go in slots 1 and 3, or 2 and 4) so you'll get the benefit of running the memory in dual channel.

Heads up: while I liked the Antec P180 case well enough the first time 'round to buy another one for my quad core system, it IS a #$%$^ to string the various cables through that case. Antec has a new "Nine Hundred" case that I just saw on the shelf at Fry's Electronics that might be worth a look. I can't really vouch for since it showed up after I'd already built my system, but it sure looked better in terms of fan placement and build ergonomics.

for now? IS there a case that does'nt cut your fingers and is easy run wires? oh yeah, and is reasonably priced? I have used several of the antec sonata cases and they are a step up from the "thirty nine ninety five case AND power supply" crap.

You seem to be well versed in systems and software and I would like your opinion.

thanks

Jon,

I'm just an enthusiast who prefers to build my own computers with just the components I want rather than buy turnkey, so I've learned by trial and error. Mostly error. So my opinions warrant a grain of salt.

Personally, I'll probably wait just long enough to get solid word that my software (specifically Adobe Production Bundle) will not only run properly, but better, on Vista before I'll upgrade my editing box. Easy enough to restore from a disk image if things do go awry. But my "everyday" computers, with a multitude of software and hardware ranging from older DVD drives to my wife's iPOD to pocket cameras to a variety of my kid's games, will wait much longer to make the jump to 64 bit, if ever. Rumors on the internet are that Vista won't do too well on older systems, and for those systems, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." In a couple years when I replace those systems, I suppose by then the new boxes will be Vista systems.

yeah, but which vista? there are like 5, with basic, home,...,...,and vista Ultimate with aero! most people will need a new card to run aero. oh, well.

when you go to vista will you email me? I will be very interested. maybe a post here.

rstiltskin@yahoo.zom (remove the z)

Hello everyone,

I decided to build the system using the following approach. Since editing the footage on the external hard drives connected via USB or Firewire is noticeably slow I was wondering if anyone can recommend the fastest SATAII drive for the system (OS install and apps), and separate RAID setup of two identical hard drives totaling 1TB with RAID10 configuration. Back in the days to have a RAID setup one needed RAID controller cards, is this approach still yealding fastest editing capabilities or will I be able to connect both RAID drives directly into the motherboard, I will be using Asus P5WDG2 WS Professional Motherboard. So if going with RAID controller card, what would be the best card to get?
Ideally I will be digitizing the miniDV raw footage onto the RAID 1Terabyte drive then editing the projects and then moving all that data to external USB/Firewire drives for storage. What do you think of this approach to economize on storage. Later, when Blue-ray drives are around $200 I will store the finished video projects onto 50GB blue-ray media, avoiding buying more external hard drives for content storage.

So to conclude, what is the best way to go?
1. Fastest C: drive SATAII hard drive no more than 320GB needed.
2. Fastest SATAII RAID10 two hard drive approach, totalin 1TB in capacity with or without RAID controller card.

Any comments are really appreciated.

Thanks a bunch

Fastest SATA drives (actually you won't benefit ith SATAII enhanced bandwidth with current drive speeds) are Western Digital Raptors. The 150 GB version gives you 300 GB in total when you combine them in RAID.

Similarly, WD 500 GB HDDs get very good benchmarks and are reliable drives.

You can find some additional information on www.storagereview.com.

To add to that, for media storage and scratch disks use Hitachi T7K500 or Seagate 7200.10 drives. I haven't checked the capabilities of the Asus mobo you envisage, but if it has 6 SATA2 connectors AND uses the ICH8R chipset, I would suggest the WD Raptor as boot disk and up to 5 Seagates (the sweet spot currently is the 320 GB version at $ 95 in $/GB) in a Raid5. That will give you an effective storage capacity of 1.2 TB, redundancy in case one drive fails and more than sufficient speed for HDV editing. Otherwise have a look at the Areca ARC 12x1 ML PCIe SATAII Raid controllers. The fastest ones available.

For a chassis also have a look at the Lian Li PC-V2100 line. Perfect quality, lots of storage room and great airflow.

RAID5 read speeds are fast, but write speeds can be quite slow because of the calculation and writing of parity data to the array. So I normally use RAID0 for scratch disks and capture, then a separate RAID5 setup for longer term storage. The slow write speed might hamper the writing of temp files and slow down timeline performance.

RAID5 read speeds are fast, but write speeds can be quite slow because of the calculation and writing of parity data to the array. So I normally use RAID0 for scratch disks and capture, then a separate RAID5 setup for longer term storage. The slow write speed might hamper the writing of temp files and slow down timeline performance.
Pete,

That is why I said the ICH8R is required. That supports the Raid5 and is quite a bit faster than the previous ICH7R chipset. The Areca uses the IOP341 chipset, so this is an extremely fast HBA card. Look at these performance data, published by Areca. The information lacking is the number of disks in the array.

http://www.millcon.nl/Harm/Areca.jpg

In an ideal situation you would probably have a 2 or 3 disk Aid0 (leaving out the R due to lacking redundancy) on internal SATA connectors, using the ICH8R and a 6-8 disk Raid5 or Raid6 on the Areca, but that seems a bit far in light of the original question. From the link above you can see however that the penalty of a R5 or R6 in terms of performance is far lower than would be generally expected in comparison to a (r)aid0.

Pete,

That is why I said the ICH8R is required. That supports the Raid5 and is quite a bit faster than the previous ICH7R chipset. The Areca uses the IOP341 chipset, so this is an extremely fast HBA card. Look at these performance data, published by Areca. The information lacking is the number of disks in the array.

http://www.millcon.nl/Harm/Areca.jpg

In an ideal situation you would probably have a 2 or 3 disk Aid0 (leaving out the R due to lacking redundancy) on internal SATA connectors, using the ICH8R and a 6-8 disk Raid5 or Raid6 on the Areca, but that seems a bit far in light of the original question. From the link above you can see however that the penalty of a R5 or R6 in terms of performance is far lower than would be generally expected in comparison to a (r)aid0.

So which Areca card should I use for RAID0 setup (I actually thought that write speed on RAID10 is faster the the RAID0)? Asus P5WDG2 WS Professional Motherboard supports RAID0, will I gain much write speed with Areca controller card?

Will having the c: drive without any RAID setup and d: drive as two identical drives on RAID0 slow the video editing? Or should I set the c: drive separately on RAID0 and the d: drive consisting of two drives set to RAID0? I will not be needing any RAID for the external drives to be used for long-term finished projects storage.

Thanks again

Renat,

For optimal speed (mind you, speed costs $$$) and who can decide for you what is optimal, but answering from the perspective that money is no object and you want to have the best performance for HDV editing, I would look at a setup like this:

C: WD Raptor 150 GB for OS
D: 3 disk Aid0 array (3x320GB) for page file, scratch disk and previews on internal SATA connectors
E: 8 disk Raid6 array for media and audio on Areca ARC 1231-ML and
if necessary, an additional 4 disks dynamically added on the same controller.

An HBA like the Areca allows for multiple raid arrays on the same controller, has the advantage of staggered spin-up so not to put too much of a load on your PSU, supports SMART and NCQ and allows for up to 2GB cache memory, in addition to BBM (Battery Backup Module).

The consequence is that you either need a very roomy chassis or an external storage chassis to house, in the example above, the 16 disks, plus a triple redundant PSU to avoid problems.

Take this message as a dream. You probably won't need anything like this, but again if money is no object, this would be ideal. Can you imagine having a raid0 with 960 GB and main storage in R6 of (8x750 - 2 disks for R6) 4.5 TB, possibly enlarged to a 12 disk array to give you 7.5 TB?

Renat,

For optimal speed (mind you, speed costs $$$) and who can decide for you what is optimal, but answering from the perspective that money is no object and you want to have the best performance for HDV editing, I would look at a setup like this:

C: WD Raptor 150 GB for OS
D: 3 disk Aid0 array (3x320GB) for page file, scratch disk and previews on internal SATA connectors
E: 8 disk Raid6 array for media and audio on Areca ARC 1231-ML and
if necessary, an additional 4 disks dynamically added on the same controller.

An HBA like the Areca allows for multiple raid arrays on the same controller, has the advantage of staggered spin-up so not to put too much of a load on your PSU, supports SMART and NCQ and allows for up to 2GB cache memory, in addition to BBM (Battery Backup Module).

The consequence is that you either need a very roomy chassis or an external storage chassis to house, in the example above, the 16 disks, plus a triple redundant PSU to avoid problems.

Take this message as a dream. You probably won't need anything like this, but again if money is no object, this would be ideal. Can you imagine having a raid0 with 960 GB and main storage in R6 of (8x750 - 2 disks for R6) 4.5 TB, possibly enlarged to a 12 disk array to give you 7.5 TB?

Wow this setup is money-hungry :)

Can't I bypass the need to have the e: drive? What brand/model hard drives should I use for the d: drive RAID configuration. I do not edit longer than 2hour videos at a time, so that's why I just want to have the c: and the d: when it comes to OS and apps, and d: for purely editing. Will I loose system performace if do not set the c: drive to RAID?

Thanks alot Harm!

Harm, if you are able to do read and write benchmarks of your RAID setup(s), would be quite interested to see them. The numbers in the graphic you linked are just the manufacturer's advertising, so really aren't meanful for real world use. No doubt RAID cards are getting better with time, but RAID5 and RAID6 have an inherent overhead on the write side because of all that parity data, so a setup that has write rates nearly as fast as read rates would be most welcome. The particular models you listed are apparently fairly new and don't seem to be listed by several common online mega-vendors yet, so presumably won't be cheap when they are available. FWIW, a quick look on the internet gives the impression that ICH8R doesn't do too much more than support eSATA, and has fairly run-of-the-mill RAID5 capabilities, plus is limited to 4 drives in the array.

Renat, I'd caution against deciding on a particular solution and plunking hundreds of dollars without seeing some reasonably objective read and write tests on systems at least similar to what you want to build. There are quite a few reviews of various RAID setups online; sometimes you have to judge what's "wheat" and what's "chaff" but at least it isn't advertising data from the vendor.

I think Harm and I have different philosophies about how we like our editing boxes. I prefer to keep it as lean as possible; I only put the hardware and software on it that I need to edit a project, and the extras (like my RAID5 array) are on a different computer connected by gigabit LAN). Fewer things to break, overheat, make noise, require updates, etc, etc. But that's personal preference, nothing scientific.

Dreams have stopped, let's get back to earth:

C: WD Raptor for OS
D: Seagate 7200.10 320 GB ($95) for scratch, pagefile and previews
E: Seagate 7200.10 320 GB x2 ($95 ea.) for media in Aid0

This is assuming you have 4 SATA connectors available. HD investment would be around $ 285 plus the WD Raptor. If media are on a (r)aid0 and one drive fails you lose all data, but that can be recaptured from the original tapes. The major advantage is that you spread your disk accesses across multiple disks, thereby reducing the load overall and you will get better response from your system.

If you need more in the future, you can always have a look at this dream machine from my previous post.

Dreams have stopped, let's get back to earth:

C: WD Raptor for OS
D: Seagate 7200.10 320 GB ($95) for scratch, pagefile and previews
E: Seagate 7200.10 320 GB x2 ($95 ea.) for media in Aid0

This is assuming you have 4 SATA connectors available. HD investment would be around $ 285 plus the WD Raptor. If media are on a (r)aid0 and one drive fails you lose all data, but that can be recaptured from the original tapes. The major advantage is that you spread your disk accesses across multiple disks, thereby reducing the load overall and you will get better response from your system.

If you need more in the future, you can always have a look at this dream machine from my previous post.

Thanks Pete for the caution.

C: WD Raptor for OS (no RAID?)
D: Seagate 7200.10 320 GB ($95) for scratch, pagefile and previews
E: Seagate 7200.10 320 GB x2 ($95 ea.) for media in Aid0 (connected directly to motherboard?)

Thanks again!

Pete,

I don't have benchmark data on the new Areca ARC-12x1 ML cards.

An extensive comparison of SATA raid controllers was done which included the previous generation of Areca controllers, both the 1160 and the 1280. However it is only in Dutch, so unless your language skills allow you to understand this, it will not be much benefit to you. Here is the link to the test:
http://tweakers.net/reviews/639/1

The most interesting results are the sequential read/write speeds in Raid6 with it's double parity calculations. The Areca ARC-1280 ES with 512 MB cache scored for read speeds in MB/s: 330.1 (6xR6), 506.9 (8xR6), 641,6 (10xR6).
The write speeds in MB/s were: 328.8 (6xR6), 486.4 (8xR6), 623.4 (10xR6).

Also interesting are the results on page 11 of the review. Here they tested the AV Workstation StorageMark 2006 Index in Raid 5. This index consists of audio and video tests using Audition and Premiere Pro, and multi tasked DVD transcoding using Encore, supplemented with file copies.

You can find the results here:
http://www.millcon.nl/Harm/Storagemark.jpg

As you can see the parity calculations both in Raid 5 and Raid 6 do not significantly slow the write performance. I would assume that the newer chip on the ARC-12x1-ML range (IOP 341 instead of IOP333) plus the faster DDR2-533 cache, instead of DDR2-400, would give the multilane cards even better performance. Even based on the 1280 model, the AV StorageMark index shows a performance gain in an 8xR5 configuration of 245% over a single disk. Impressive I think.

Hope this gives you some background.

Thanks Pete for the caution.

C: WD Raptor for OS (no RAID?)
D: Seagate 7200.10 320 GB ($95) for scratch, pagefile and previews
E: Seagate 7200.10 320 GB x2 ($95 ea.) for media in Aid0 (connected directly to motherboard?)

Thanks again!
No raid on the OS drive is needed. It is the fastest SATA drive available and once your NLE is loaded, hardly used. No discernible speed increases can be found by raiding the OS drive, just a lot of wasted space. Probably your OS drive could be as small as 40 GB, so it is a waste of storage space to use 300GB for your boot disk.

For the E drive (2 Seagates) you could connect these directly to the mobo. That will save you the cost of a HBA controller.

You an get 74 GB WD Raptors quite cheaply nowadays too, and the chances are you won't need much more for your OS. I've been running similar setup as Harm writes only with WD drives for a couple of months and it's very efficient.