PC for HDV editing

Ernesto Mantaras · July 2nd, 2007, 02:18 PM

Hi. I'm about to invest in a PC, and I want it to be good enough to keep it for the next, em, 3 years? I want it to be good enough to edit HDV without trouble, especially since we have an HV20 coming with a friend of mine.

From what I've heard, a Core 2 Duo above 2ghz should be enough, but considering the relief in costs, would it be advisable to buy a similar microprocessor from AMD? How do these two compare when it comes to editing HDV?

Also, if you could recommend me the ideal computer (considering that what I've been considering is one of those processors, 2GB DDR2, 2 250GB SataII hard drives... ^_^)?

Thanks a lot in advance!

James Harring · July 2nd, 2007, 02:32 PM

If I were buying today, Intel core2duo e6600. Short story. The link below benchmarks a couple of CPU's. You can change it to suit the CPU's you are contemplating. I used the H.264 encoder as the benchmark to test against.

I won't recommend a brand since I build my own, but fast hard drive is critical. Multiple hdd's are also critical. OS and NLE on boot drive, video on another. Look at e-sata as well as the SATA you mentioned. RAID would be very important IMO too, video is big, bulky nd therfore harder to backup, so reliability of data storage is important.

Video card may be important, this depends on the NLE. Vegas it has more to do with how big and how many screens you want to drive, as the video card has very little to do with Vegas. Other software it is more important.

I edit on amd x2 4600+,
2 gig ram
160g boot
640 gig raid 0
vegas, winxp
nvidea 7800 vga card driving a 24" flatpanel @ 1920x1080 and another 19" CRT.
While even a quad core owner could wish it to be faster during rendering HDV, it's pretty speedy. If I gob it up with more than 4 layers of m2t files though, performance starts falling off quickly. For dissolves, cuts with supers and a few effects, it's fine for a hobby machine.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=696&chart=182

Macs are a fine platform as well and should be considered -- I do receoomend you let the software determine the hardware. Your comfort level with a platform is important too.That is best recipie for success.

Ernesto Mantaras · July 2nd, 2007, 02:37 PM

RAID I was considering. Actually I'm a bit limited on the budget, but I could try and reach. And about the video card, do you think a Quadro would be that much better than some Geforce? I'm also gonna use 3dS MAX 9. And Premiere Pro 2 (possibly CS3) as my NLE... Thanks for the quick answer, by the way!

Mauritius Seeger · July 2nd, 2007, 06:29 PM

i just bought a PC a month ago - i built it from components which meant i could get what i thought was best and it ended up very cheap and very fast! i got an Intel core2 duo e6600 and some very fast memory and raided (striped) two hard drives together. editing HDV is a breeze in vegas. no noticeable delays when scrubbing etc.

so far the good news. putting it together and making it work was a nightmare. bios upgrades, voltage adjustments, raid drivers, xp drivers - it's a clunky horrible mess. it took me two weeks. and it's still flaky. if you can at all afford it, get a mac. and if you absolutely need to, run windows on it. i think in the long run the extra cost will be more than made up by the time you save in looking after an xp installation.

Ernesto Mantaras · July 12th, 2007, 06:11 PM

It's not my intention to make any excuses, but the truth is that on top of the fact that I don't have a very big budget to get the PC, it all costs three times as much down here, so it's that much more difficult to choose. So, Mac is unfortunately out of the question, at least for now...

Anyways, to me it all comes down to getting a low level PC, but big enough to handle HDV rather decently... I need to balance things up a bit I guess... :P

For now, two 250GB Sata II hard drives in Raid 0 are in, then 2GB RAM (667mhz) and a humble Geforce 7300. The microprocessor and the motherboard are the problem. There's where the balance comes into play, I guess...

So, the BIG question is: according to your experience, what processor performs best when working with HDV (and/or soon, with Prospect HD [wish-wish] ... ^_^)? Should I stick to some X2 or some Core 2 Duo? Any particular model that you recommend?

Thanks for the answers. Oh, and about the Windows XP configuration, I think it should be allright. Some people I know that know a lot about PCs will be setting it up for me, so I hope no trouble will show on the horizon...

Thanks again!

Oren Arieli · July 13th, 2007, 12:49 AM

AMD is a bit behind in the speed wars right now, so I would go with Intel. I'm going through the same process as you, upgrading my own 2 year old system.

No matter what you build now, it will be considered slow in 1 year. Around here (Silicon Valley), there are so many people who upgrade constantly, that a quick search for 'gaming computers' on Craigslist will net you bargains in leading edge equipment.

Best of luck. Don't forget that an efficient/reliable system is only as good as its WEAKEST part. Upgrade those as you can afford to.

Ken Hodson · July 13th, 2007, 01:43 AM

It depends on money. Both brands are equally capable. Buck for buck right now (stock speed) AMD is the clear winner. If you want to go top end (big $$) then intel is the clear king, especially if you want quad core tech. If you want affordable though you just can't beat AMD AM2 systems right now as they are so cheap. You simply can not define one brand a clear winner because its top chip is the fastest. It is how fast the chip you can afford compares.
Myself I have always been an intense OC'er, so my choice would be a core2duo 4300 clocked to sh**t, but most would over pay and go 6600 or 6700, when an AMD system would be so much cheaper at stock speed. Put the extra bucks into HDD, Monitors, Software, cams, lighting: oops don't mean to remind people what they should be spending cash on ;>)

Kevin Shaw · July 13th, 2007, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Hodson

Buck for buck right now (stock speed) AMD is the clear winner.

Not really. In video encoding tests at Tom's Hardware, the AMD AM2 4600+ was significantly outperformed by the Intel Core 2 Duo E4300, which only costs a few dollars more. Intel has been the way to go since they introduced their new 'Core' processor design, and loss-leader pricing by AMD hasn't changed that.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/03/...e13.html#video

Ken Hodson · July 13th, 2007, 01:58 PM

Horrible link to make your point. You do know that an E4300 doesn't run at 2.4 right? It runs at 1.8 so lets stick to apples to apples. Were not talking OC here. Stock speed only please.
Second of all, from a price point the E4300 is priced the same as a AMD 5000+. So if you want to show some benches of a E4300@1.8 vs. a 5000+ that would be great. Third point is AM2 MB are always cheaper then Intel boards, and you need a MB so that factors into the cost as well. I'm not an AMD fanboy, as I said in my post above I would build a E4300 system because I love to OC. Most video makers do not.

Kevin Shaw · July 13th, 2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Hodson

You do know that an E4300 doesn't run at 2.4 right? It runs at 1.8 so lets stick to apples to apples. Were not talking OC here. Stock speed only please.

Ah, good catch. Anandtech has results for the E4300 which shows it back and forth with the AMD 4600 at stock speeds...plus some impressive performance with overclocking for those who care about that. So your statement that the AMD chips are a good deal looks better in that light, with Intel being a good choice if you can afford an extra $50-100 for something like an E6600.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2903&p=5

Kevin P Brown · July 17th, 2007, 10:03 AM

For video editing, the 6000+ outperforms the E6600. Check out the benchmarks at http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html .

Also, AMD just dropped prices and now you can get the 6000+ for $170 at newegg.

Jon McGuffin · July 17th, 2007, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin P Brown

For video editing, the 6000+ outperforms the E6600. Check out the benchmarks at http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html .

Also, AMD just dropped prices and now you can get the 6000+ for $170 at newegg.

I don't trust all benchmarks and frankly, AMD is stretching all they can out of their X2 line of processors. And to think at the very top end they can just barely CATCH the E6600. Stick with the more efficent and better supported E6600 at about $40 - $50 more. You'll be happy down the road..

Jon

James Harring · July 18th, 2007, 04:22 PM

I concur with Jon, Core2duo is a better CPU right now, the e6600 is probably still the sweetspot between cost and performance. I don't know what the cost difference is, but over three years of use, it will probably not be that great.
As I indicated I have an AMD 4600+, so no religion here. Go to tomshardware.com and look at the HDV rendering times, they are a reasonable benchmark.

It is very important to get your operating system and editing software (etc) on one drive and your video files on another drive. This gives better performance. You can initially buy two drives (smaller one for OS/NLE, bigger one for video) and later on, buy another drive to create a raid down the road. Know that creating/deleting a raid destroys all data on the drives you are changing, though.

Most motherboards these days have RAID on the board. It is fine for most users. I like the ASROCK brand, far cheaper than ASUS. Both have been equally problematic, so I see you gaining nothing for more money on Asus.

As for RAM, I've read a number of studies and the memory timings do not make all that much difference, but get as large single RAM module as you can. This makes upgrading later on less wasteful.

The quadro is a very good video card. I won't offer any advice, as I don't recall offhand if Premiere uses the GPU for rendering. I know Vegas does not (all in CPU), so it may or may not be important.

Be aware the SLI video cards require considerably more power, so larger poswer supply maybe needed.

Finally, if money is real tight, consider a dual boot. I use my NLE only for media, all other stuff (email etc) is anotehr pc. But you can create a dual boot and have essentially two pc's in one.

Ken Hodson · July 18th, 2007, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon McGuffin

better supported E6600 at about $40 - $50 more. You'll be happy down the road..
Jon

Better supported? What do you mean by that? Both brands are equally supported!
When comparing equal benches $50+ more for the CPU and $50 more for the MB doesn't equal "happy down the road". Your not going to get that $100 back.
As has been stated above, in a buck for $$ comparo AMD is the better buy on the lower end (they have to be as they weak on the high end untill their new chips arrive.)
The good news is the lower end is a hell of a lot of power for the money these days. You simply can't loose from either brand right now. If you are going to run @stock speed AM2 will save you a few bucks and is in no way inferior.

Jon McGuffin · July 18th, 2007, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Hodson

Better supported? What do you mean by that? Both brands are equally supported!
When comparing equal benches $50+ more for the CPU and $50 more for the MB doesn't equal "happy down the road". Your not going to get that $100 back.
As has been stated above, in a buck for $$ comparo AMD is the better buy on the lower end (they have to be as they weak on the high end untill their new chips arrive.)
The good news is the lower end is a hell of a lot of power for the money these days. You simply can't loose from either brand right now. If you are going to run @stock speed AM2 will save you a few bucks and is in no way inferior.

Ken,

Boards supporting the Core 2 Duo are *not* necessarily $50 more. You can find AM2 boards for $200 as well as Core 2 Duo boards for $200. You can also find boards for both chips under $100.

Intel in the video editing community has always been a little bit better supported than AMD and this goes back to technologies like Hyperthreading, MMX, SSE3, etc. I'm not saying AMD makes a bad chip, I've pretty much *only* owned AMD chips for the past 6-7 years. I'm simply saying that right now, the Core 2 Duo is the man on the block and when 2-3 years from now you look back, there will be a great many deal more E6600 Core 2 Duo's floating around versus the AMD 6000+ CPU. AMD is pushing the clock envelope on that chip and the E6600 is, if anything, underclocked. Intel CPU runs cooler, uses less energy, and more efficient.

Oh and looky here......... Intel announces a major price hacking today that goes into effect next week. The E6600 is essentially being replaced with the E6750 that now will cost $183 in volume. It runs 260Mhz faster, has a FSB that is 266Mhz faster as well! Now the AMD 6000 is MORE expensive than than even this new chip.

Intel all the way right now boys...

Jon

July 2nd, 2007, 02:18 PM	#1
Ernesto Mantaras Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Santa Fe, Argentina Posts: 80	PC for HDV editing - Intel or AMD? Hi. I'm about to invest in a PC, and I want it to be good enough to keep it for the next, em, 3 years? I want it to be good enough to edit HDV without trouble, especially since we have an HV20 coming with a friend of mine. From what I've heard, a Core 2 Duo above 2ghz should be enough, but considering the relief in costs, would it be advisable to buy a similar microprocessor from AMD? How do these two compare when it comes to editing HDV? Also, if you could recommend me the ideal computer (considering that what I've been considering is one of those processors, 2GB DDR2, 2 250GB SataII hard drives... ^_^)? Thanks a lot in advance! __________________ "Because the guy who wants too much risks losing absolutely everything. Of course, the guy who wants too little from life might not get anything at all."

July 2nd, 2007, 02:32 PM	#2
James Harring Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 210	AMD v Intel If I were buying today, Intel core2duo e6600. Short story. The link below benchmarks a couple of CPU's. You can change it to suit the CPU's you are contemplating. I used the H.264 encoder as the benchmark to test against. I won't recommend a brand since I build my own, but fast hard drive is critical. Multiple hdd's are also critical. OS and NLE on boot drive, video on another. Look at e-sata as well as the SATA you mentioned. RAID would be very important IMO too, video is big, bulky nd therfore harder to backup, so reliability of data storage is important. Video card may be important, this depends on the NLE. Vegas it has more to do with how big and how many screens you want to drive, as the video card has very little to do with Vegas. Other software it is more important. I edit on amd x2 4600+, 2 gig ram 160g boot 640 gig raid 0 vegas, winxp nvidea 7800 vga card driving a 24" flatpanel @ 1920x1080 and another 19" CRT. While even a quad core owner could wish it to be faster during rendering HDV, it's pretty speedy. If I gob it up with more than 4 layers of m2t files though, performance starts falling off quickly. For dissolves, cuts with supers and a few effects, it's fine for a hobby machine. http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=696&chart=182 Macs are a fine platform as well and should be considered -- I do receoomend you let the software determine the hardware. Your comfort level with a platform is important too.That is best recipie for success. Last edited by James Harring; July 2nd, 2007 at 02:40 PM. Reason: add a mac.

July 2nd, 2007, 02:37 PM	#3
Ernesto Mantaras Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Santa Fe, Argentina Posts: 80	RAID I was considering. Actually I'm a bit limited on the budget, but I could try and reach. And about the video card, do you think a Quadro would be that much better than some Geforce? I'm also gonna use 3dS MAX 9. And Premiere Pro 2 (possibly CS3) as my NLE... Thanks for the quick answer, by the way! __________________ "Because the guy who wants too much risks losing absolutely everything. Of course, the guy who wants too little from life might not get anything at all."

July 12th, 2007, 06:11 PM	#5
Ernesto Mantaras Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Santa Fe, Argentina Posts: 80	It's not my intention to make any excuses, but the truth is that on top of the fact that I don't have a very big budget to get the PC, it all costs three times as much down here, so it's that much more difficult to choose. So, Mac is unfortunately out of the question, at least for now... Anyways, to me it all comes down to getting a low level PC, but big enough to handle HDV rather decently... I need to balance things up a bit I guess... :P For now, two 250GB Sata II hard drives in Raid 0 are in, then 2GB RAM (667mhz) and a humble Geforce 7300. The microprocessor and the motherboard are the problem. There's where the balance comes into play, I guess... So, the BIG question is: according to your experience, what processor performs best when working with HDV (and/or soon, with Prospect HD [wish-wish] ... ^_^)? Should I stick to some X2 or some Core 2 Duo? Any particular model that you recommend? Thanks for the answers. Oh, and about the Windows XP configuration, I think it should be allright. Some people I know that know a lot about PCs will be setting it up for me, so I hope no trouble will show on the horizon... Thanks again! __________________ "Because the guy who wants too much risks losing absolutely everything. Of course, the guy who wants too little from life might not get anything at all."

July 13th, 2007, 01:43 AM	#7
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	It depends on money. Both brands are equally capable. Buck for buck right now (stock speed) AMD is the clear winner. If you want to go top end (big $$) then intel is the clear king, especially if you want quad core tech. If you want affordable though you just can't beat AMD AM2 systems right now as they are so cheap. You simply can not define one brand a clear winner because its top chip is the fastest. It is how fast the chip you can afford compares. Myself I have always been an intense OC'er, so my choice would be a core2duo 4300 clocked to sh**t, but most would over pay and go 6600 or 6700, when an AMD system would be so much cheaper at stock speed. Put the extra bucks into HDD, Monitors, Software, cams, lighting: oops don't mean to remind people what they should be spending cash on ;>) __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

July 2nd, 2007, 06:29 PM	#4
Mauritius Seeger Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: London United Kingdom Posts: 77	i just bought a PC a month ago - i built it from components which meant i could get what i thought was best and it ended up very cheap and very fast! i got an Intel core2 duo e6600 and some very fast memory and raided (striped) two hard drives together. editing HDV is a breeze in vegas. no noticeable delays when scrubbing etc. so far the good news. putting it together and making it work was a nightmare. bios upgrades, voltage adjustments, raid drivers, xp drivers - it's a clunky horrible mess. it took me two weeks. and it's still flaky. if you can at all afford it, get a mac. and if you absolutely need to, run windows on it. i think in the long run the extra cost will be more than made up by the time you save in looking after an xp installation.

July 13th, 2007, 12:49 AM	#6
Oren Arieli Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: San Jose, California Posts: 919	AMD is a bit behind in the speed wars right now, so I would go with Intel. I'm going through the same process as you, upgrading my own 2 year old system. No matter what you build now, it will be considered slow in 1 year. Around here (Silicon Valley), there are so many people who upgrade constantly, that a quick search for 'gaming computers' on Craigslist will net you bargains in leading edge equipment. Best of luck. Don't forget that an efficient/reliable system is only as good as its WEAKEST part. Upgrade those as you can afford to.

July 13th, 2007, 01:58 PM	#9
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	Horrible link to make your point. You do know that an E4300 doesn't run at 2.4 right? It runs at 1.8 so lets stick to apples to apples. Were not talking OC here. Stock speed only please. Second of all, from a price point the E4300 is priced the same as a AMD 5000+. So if you want to show some benches of a E4300@1.8 vs. a 5000+ that would be great. Third point is AM2 MB are always cheaper then Intel boards, and you need a MB so that factors into the cost as well. I'm not an AMD fanboy, as I said in my post above I would build a E4300 system because I love to OC. Most video makers do not. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

July 17th, 2007, 10:03 AM	#11
Kevin P Brown Tourist Join Date: May 2006 Location: Worcester, MA Posts: 3	Go with the Athlon x2 6000+ For video editing, the 6000+ outperforms the E6600. Check out the benchmarks at http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html . Also, AMD just dropped prices and now you can get the 6000+ for $170 at newegg.

July 18th, 2007, 04:22 PM	#13
James Harring Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 210	Intel CPU I concur with Jon, Core2duo is a better CPU right now, the e6600 is probably still the sweetspot between cost and performance. I don't know what the cost difference is, but over three years of use, it will probably not be that great. As I indicated I have an AMD 4600+, so no religion here. Go to tomshardware.com and look at the HDV rendering times, they are a reasonable benchmark. It is very important to get your operating system and editing software (etc) on one drive and your video files on another drive. This gives better performance. You can initially buy two drives (smaller one for OS/NLE, bigger one for video) and later on, buy another drive to create a raid down the road. Know that creating/deleting a raid destroys all data on the drives you are changing, though. Most motherboards these days have RAID on the board. It is fine for most users. I like the ASROCK brand, far cheaper than ASUS. Both have been equally problematic, so I see you gaining nothing for more money on Asus. As for RAM, I've read a number of studies and the memory timings do not make all that much difference, but get as large single RAM module as you can. This makes upgrading later on less wasteful. The quadro is a very good video card. I won't offer any advice, as I don't recall offhand if Premiere uses the GPU for rendering. I know Vegas does not (all in CPU), so it may or may not be important. Be aware the SLI video cards require considerably more power, so larger poswer supply maybe needed. Finally, if money is real tight, consider a dual boot. I use my NLE only for media, all other stuff (email etc) is anotehr pc. But you can create a dual boot and have essentially two pc's in one. Last edited by James Harring; July 18th, 2007 at 04:24 PM. Reason: dual boot