Any Core I7 users yet?

Jeff Harper · April 5th, 2009, 05:45 PM

Videoguys lists their build ingredients, but I don't agree with their selection of a 1TB OS drive. It doesn't make sense to me to not buy a Velociraptor at $159.

David Wayne Groves · April 5th, 2009, 06:56 PM

My new iCore 7 Build...

MSI X58 Pro
iCore 7 920 2.67Ghz
6Gig Tri-Channel OCZ 10666
EVGA 295Gtx
Auzentech 7.1 Prelude
3-1TB Hds Seagate
LG Blu-ray Burner
Lite on Lightscribe DVD Burner
800Watt Tagan PS

Replaced my Q9550 Quadcore setup...
Rendering recent HD project with Q9550 quadcore using Vegas 8 Pro exceeded 3 Hours
Same project using the new iCore 7 920 took no more than 1 Hour 10 minutes....
Huge difference......Well worth the investment...

Ken Steadman · April 6th, 2009, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Videoguys lists their build ingredients, but I don't agree with their selection of a 1TB OS drive. It doesn't make sense to me to not buy a Velociraptor at $159.

The raptors are past their time. I didn't even bother to use them in my new build. Look at the read write times it's a minimal improvement at best.

from toms hardware
ave write
raptor 150gb 101 Mb/s
seagate 1.5 tb 98.2 Mb/s

ave read
raptor 150gb 102 Mb/s
seagate 1.5 tb 99 Mb/s

maximum write
raptor 150gb 123.9 Mb/s
seagate 1.5 tb 127.3 Mb/s

maximum read
raptor 150gb 124.6 Mb/s
seagate 1.5 tb 127.3 Mb/s

Once you factor in cost per GB is a no brainer to me to run the 1.5 TB Seagates instead.

Jeff Harper · April 6th, 2009, 07:48 AM

Ken, you shouldn't focus on transfer speeds/read write times when discussing drives for an OS. You will come out looking uninformed, to put it politely. Access/Seek and I/O performance times are what counts. I/O performance of the Velocirpator is well over 2X that of the Seagate (193 I/O per second vs the Seagate at 90 I/O per second).

Velociraptors are a 10K drive and are by far much better suited for OS applications. They access data MUCH faster than the Seagate, it isn't even a contest. Access/seek time is what are looked at for OS drives, as well as I/O performance, which is where the Seagate is "disappointing" (Toms Hardware). Transfer speed is relatively irrelevant for an OS drive.

The Caviar Black (my personal choice for 1tb drive) outperforms the Seagate in the most important areas and is much more reliable. If one looks only at transfer speeds, you are missing the picture altogether.

The Seagate is a poor choice for workstations that require high transaction performance, as Tom's says.

As of now the Velociraptors are still dollar for dollar a better choice than even SSD drives.

Transfer rates are more important for drives used as backup, etc., and while the 1.5 Seagate has fast transfer rates it is by far the most problem plagued drive that I have ever seen. If you google the darned thing you will find page after page of DOA drives, drives that die after a few months, and even the firmware is not helping everyone. I am a hard drive fanatic, and I would not use one if it was free.

According to one physicist, the drives are an accident waiting to happen. If anyone here is using them with good results, that is fine, and my compliments to you. I have nothing against them, but as an OS drive they are among the poorest of choices.

Additionally, to have a 500GB or greater OS drive allows the page file and program files to be spread over a ridiculously large area unless you set your page file to a static size. And no, degragmenting does not solve this issue. And even then why would you want an OS drive with more than 50GB or even 100GB of data on it? You are not supposed to put media on the OS drive anyway.

To quote Tom's Hardware: "This is reflected in the workstation I/O performance per watt efficiency test, where it is just a bit better than the aged, power-hungry Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 with its five platters."

Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, ST31500341AS (1.5 GB) - Review Tom's Hardware : Seagate's 1.5TB Barracuda: Bigger And Better?

Gary Bettan · April 6th, 2009, 08:02 AM

Guys - some very good points on both sides about system drive choice. I'll throw the big wrinkle in. It may not happen with DIY8, but sometime in the near future system drives will be SSD. We are already seeing this in some high end laptop configurations.

I like our choice of system drive for the reasons given in the article. That said, putting in a 10K RPM drive would increase performance for many OS tasks. So the trade off in size vs. speed (seek / access) is really up to personal preference.

Gary

Jeff Harper · April 6th, 2009, 08:15 AM

Gary, SSDs are an exciting prospect, Gary, for the future, but you are correct, of course, they are not yet ready for prime time for the video editor. Many still do not have the performance advantage of Velociraptors or SAS drives. That is going to change, of course, but as of now....no.

Their use in laptops is the perfect application for them as of now.

Regarding the small drive vs large OS drive thing: I noted in the article you say, regarding small boot drive: "While it's (good for office computing and maybe gamers, it's not so good for video editing. You don’t ever want to have a clogged up C: drive in your NLE workstation."

I wonder how or why the average video editior fill a 150GB boot drive more than even 40%?

I have Vegas 8.1 and 8.0c, Premier Pro, The Adobe Master Collection which includes Photoshop, After effects, Fireworks, Adobe Acrobat Pro, etc., Nero 8, and my page file is 15GB in size, yet my 150GB drive is 75% empty!

You can use the 1GB drives for OS and it will work fine. I personally love the performance of a fast drive. Programs open SO fast and perform so well. Photoshop opens for me in less 1 second.

I still find Vegas HD projects open way too slowly, but there is nothing to be done for that as of now short of putting my media files on a RAID array.

I noticed your RAID array for your media storage drive, and now with HD (HD is new to me) you've got me thinking about RAID again. With SD I didn't need it, but this HD stuff is killing me!

Ken Steadman · April 6th, 2009, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Additionally, to have a 500GB or greater OS drive allows the page file and program files to be spread over a ridiculously large area unless you set your page file to a static size. And no, degragmenting does not solve this issue. And even then why would you want an OS drive with more than 50GB or even 100GB of data on it? You are not supposed to put media on the OS drive anyway.

I dont my use OS drive for media storage it has 5 partitions
1 XPpro I use for day to day stuff word/etc with firewall and molasses-ware stuff for web use.
2 Vista 64 with only my editing progs
3 Vista 64 with only gaming progs
4 Windows7 for testing
5 Empty partition for future use.
This way I get to use the machine variably without slowing down anyone function.

Then I have a 4 drive array for source files.
and lastly 1 drive I use a write to drive for renders and I use this for none editing media (music files mainly).
I guess on my last computer I wasnt impressed with the raptor vs the raid in that computer. Seems I'm wrong.

Jeff Harper · April 6th, 2009, 01:53 PM

If you don't see the difference then it doesn't matter. You're happy, and that is all that counts.

Dale Guthormsen · April 10th, 2009, 05:37 PM

Gentlemen,

I partitioned my 750 gb os drive that came with my 435 xps. I simply cut it into two. would it be wiser to nail it down even smaller? I use it only for editing aand only plug it in to go online for support or such. I run adobe suite, some other video user programs and Vegas of course. I do have Office on it but that is about all.

Now, I have a box for hot plugging in two hard drives whenever i want. Can a Velociraptor be benificial in this circumstance?

I had two seagate hd's die two clicks apart this spring!!! I want to move away from them!!!

Jeff Harper · April 11th, 2009, 01:53 AM

The WD 1tb Blacks are very nice as media drives. If you're needing media drives, Raptors are great but small. I do use a Velociraptor as a "work" drive (or a some people call it scratch drive). I also use a VR as my OS drive. But if you're already running fine, you don't need to change unless you have money to spare.

I personally like to keep my OS drive closer to under 50GB. Less area for things to be spread over.

Re: hot plugging, I'm think some drives might be better suited for that purpose than others, but I'm not sure.

Jeff Harper · April 13th, 2009, 03:08 PM

For those looking to upgrade their PC, I need to announce I just rendered a 65 minute SD video video, with some slow motion, and some color correction, in 11:30. I knew this thing was fast, but even I am shocked. This happened on a i7 920 processor rendering to the same hard drive as the original media is located. I'm sure there are those who get faster render times, and I'm not bragging. It is just such a time saver.

Darren Burns · April 14th, 2009, 12:09 PM

Jeff, I just had to wipe the drool off my desk, especially as my new NLE computer has been put back a couple of months. :(

This is a good thing though. If we bought it now it would end up in the "dungeon" rather than at my desk (some wierd decisions coming from higher up). Hopefully the price of the i7 will have dropped even more by that time.

Jeff Harper · April 14th, 2009, 03:03 PM

Lets hope so.

John Travis Lisnam · April 30th, 2009, 08:33 AM

Greetings everyone, have been reading your results from a very long time. I do not know if I am doing anything wrong on my vegas 8.1 but I try to render the rendertest-hdv.veg and everytime I come up with 35/37 seconds.

My settings in Vegas is;
Profile: 60i HDV 1080-60i (1440x1080, 29.970 fps), 8 bit, BEST

Save as; suggested by user who posted the rendertest.
Audio: 48,000 Hz, 16 Bit, Stereo, PCM Uncompressed.
Video: 29.97 fps, 1920x1080, Upper field first.
Pixel Aspect Ratio: 1.000, using Sony YUV codec. OpenDML compatible.

I am not on Corei7 but Q9650, I do not know much about my system setup, I bought a second hand pc with raid 0 drive. I have been told that my processor has been o/c but I do not know how to check.

Anyone know? Please let me know.

Jeff Harper · April 30th, 2009, 08:47 AM

Regarding the i7 920 and overclocking: I have found that even though tests show a stable overclock at 3.8, I've been running into issues with Gearshift and Neo Scene running at that speed. Everything else has been running fine however.

I lowered my clock speed from 3.8 to 3.4 and lowered my voltages accordingly and all seems well. I'm keeping it a 3.4 from this point on. The speed difference is minimal, and I feel satisfied that I ran for a couple of months at 3.8. I never have or will achieve 4.0 which had been my goal, but because I'm not willing to invest in the more elaborate cooling solution I'm having to live with what i've got. Overall this is a great processor.

April 6th, 2009, 08:02 AM	#290
Gary Bettan Sponsor: Electronic Mailbox Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Glen Cove, NY Posts: 758	Guys - some very good points on both sides about system drive choice. I'll throw the big wrinkle in. It may not happen with DIY8, but sometime in the near future system drives will be SSD. We are already seeing this in some high end laptop configurations. I like our choice of system drive for the reasons given in the article. That said, putting in a 10K RPM drive would increase performance for many OS tasks. So the trade off in size vs. speed (seek / access) is really up to personal preference. Gary __________________ Check out http://www.videoguys.com 800 323-2325 We are the video editing and live video production experts! DV InfoNet members save 5%! Use Coupon Code DVINFO5OFF

April 6th, 2009, 08:15 AM	#291
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Gary, SSDs are an exciting prospect, Gary, for the future, but you are correct, of course, they are not yet ready for prime time for the video editor. Many still do not have the performance advantage of Velociraptors or SAS drives. That is going to change, of course, but as of now....no. Their use in laptops is the perfect application for them as of now. Regarding the small drive vs large OS drive thing: I noted in the article you say, regarding small boot drive: "While it's (good for office computing and maybe gamers, it's not so good for video editing. You don’t ever want to have a clogged up C: drive in your NLE workstation." I wonder how or why the average video editior fill a 150GB boot drive more than even 40%? I have Vegas 8.1 and 8.0c, Premier Pro, The Adobe Master Collection which includes Photoshop, After effects, Fireworks, Adobe Acrobat Pro, etc., Nero 8, and my page file is 15GB in size, yet my 150GB drive is 75% empty! You can use the 1GB drives for OS and it will work fine. I personally love the performance of a fast drive. Programs open SO fast and perform so well. Photoshop opens for me in less 1 second. I still find Vegas HD projects open way too slowly, but there is nothing to be done for that as of now short of putting my media files on a RAID array. I noticed your RAID array for your media storage drive, and now with HD (HD is new to me) you've got me thinking about RAID again. With SD I didn't need it, but this HD stuff is killing me! Last edited by Jeff Harper; April 6th, 2009 at 09:00 AM.

April 10th, 2009, 05:37 PM	#294
Dale Guthormsen Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 3,048	Gentlemen, I partitioned my 750 gb os drive that came with my 435 xps. I simply cut it into two. would it be wiser to nail it down even smaller? I use it only for editing aand only plug it in to go online for support or such. I run adobe suite, some other video user programs and Vegas of course. I do have Office on it but that is about all. Now, I have a box for hot plugging in two hard drives whenever i want. Can a Velociraptor be benificial in this circumstance? I had two seagate hd's die two clicks apart this spring!!! I want to move away from them!!! __________________ DATS ALL FOLKS Dale W. Guthormsen

April 30th, 2009, 08:33 AM	#299
John Travis Lisnam Tourist Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: San Diego Posts: 1	My 9650 do rendertest-hdv.veg in 34 seconds Greetings everyone, have been reading your results from a very long time. I do not know if I am doing anything wrong on my vegas 8.1 but I try to render the rendertest-hdv.veg and everytime I come up with 35/37 seconds. My settings in Vegas is; Profile: 60i HDV 1080-60i (1440x1080, 29.970 fps), 8 bit, BEST Save as; suggested by user who posted the rendertest. Audio: 48,000 Hz, 16 Bit, Stereo, PCM Uncompressed. Video: 29.97 fps, 1920x1080, Upper field first. Pixel Aspect Ratio: 1.000, using Sony YUV codec. OpenDML compatible. I am not on Corei7 but Q9650, I do not know much about my system setup, I bought a second hand pc with raid 0 drive. I have been told that my processor has been o/c but I do not know how to check. Anyone know? Please let me know.

April 5th, 2009, 05:45 PM	#286
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Videoguys lists their build ingredients, but I don't agree with their selection of a 1TB OS drive. It doesn't make sense to me to not buy a Velociraptor at $159.

April 5th, 2009, 06:56 PM	#287
David Wayne Groves Regular Crew Join Date: May 2008 Location: Charleston WV Posts: 149	My new iCore 7 Build... MSI X58 Pro iCore 7 920 2.67Ghz 6Gig Tri-Channel OCZ 10666 EVGA 295Gtx Auzentech 7.1 Prelude 3-1TB Hds Seagate LG Blu-ray Burner Lite on Lightscribe DVD Burner 800Watt Tagan PS Replaced my Q9550 Quadcore setup... Rendering recent HD project with Q9550 quadcore using Vegas 8 Pro exceeded 3 Hours Same project using the new iCore 7 920 took no more than 1 Hour 10 minutes.... Huge difference......Well worth the investment...

April 6th, 2009, 07:48 AM	#289
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Ken, you shouldn't focus on transfer speeds/read write times when discussing drives for an OS. You will come out looking uninformed, to put it politely. Access/Seek and I/O performance times are what counts. I/O performance of the Velocirpator is well over 2X that of the Seagate (193 I/O per second vs the Seagate at 90 I/O per second). Velociraptors are a 10K drive and are by far much better suited for OS applications. They access data MUCH faster than the Seagate, it isn't even a contest. Access/seek time is what are looked at for OS drives, as well as I/O performance, which is where the Seagate is "disappointing" (Toms Hardware). Transfer speed is relatively irrelevant for an OS drive. The Caviar Black (my personal choice for 1tb drive) outperforms the Seagate in the most important areas and is much more reliable. If one looks only at transfer speeds, you are missing the picture altogether. The Seagate is a poor choice for workstations that require high transaction performance, as Tom's says. As of now the Velociraptors are still dollar for dollar a better choice than even SSD drives. Transfer rates are more important for drives used as backup, etc., and while the 1.5 Seagate has fast transfer rates it is by far the most problem plagued drive that I have ever seen. If you google the darned thing you will find page after page of DOA drives, drives that die after a few months, and even the firmware is not helping everyone. I am a hard drive fanatic, and I would not use one if it was free. According to one physicist, the drives are an accident waiting to happen. If anyone here is using them with good results, that is fine, and my compliments to you. I have nothing against them, but as an OS drive they are among the poorest of choices. Additionally, to have a 500GB or greater OS drive allows the page file and program files to be spread over a ridiculously large area unless you set your page file to a static size. And no, degragmenting does not solve this issue. And even then why would you want an OS drive with more than 50GB or even 100GB of data on it? You are not supposed to put media on the OS drive anyway. To quote Tom's Hardware: "This is reflected in the workstation I/O performance per watt efficiency test, where it is just a bit better than the aged, power-hungry Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 with its five platters." Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, ST31500341AS (1.5 GB) - Review Tom's Hardware : Seagate's 1.5TB Barracuda: Bigger And Better?

April 6th, 2009, 01:53 PM	#293
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	If you don't see the difference then it doesn't matter. You're happy, and that is all that counts.

April 11th, 2009, 01:53 AM	#295
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	The WD 1tb Blacks are very nice as media drives. If you're needing media drives, Raptors are great but small. I do use a Velociraptor as a "work" drive (or a some people call it scratch drive). I also use a VR as my OS drive. But if you're already running fine, you don't need to change unless you have money to spare. I personally like to keep my OS drive closer to under 50GB. Less area for things to be spread over. Re: hot plugging, I'm think some drives might be better suited for that purpose than others, but I'm not sure.

April 13th, 2009, 03:08 PM	#296
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	For those looking to upgrade their PC, I need to announce I just rendered a 65 minute SD video video, with some slow motion, and some color correction, in 11:30. I knew this thing was fast, but even I am shocked. This happened on a i7 920 processor rendering to the same hard drive as the original media is located. I'm sure there are those who get faster render times, and I'm not bragging. It is just such a time saver.

April 14th, 2009, 12:09 PM	#297
Darren Burns Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 29	Jeff, I just had to wipe the drool off my desk, especially as my new NLE computer has been put back a couple of months. :( This is a good thing though. If we bought it now it would end up in the "dungeon" rather than at my desk (some wierd decisions coming from higher up). Hopefully the price of the i7 will have dropped even more by that time.

April 14th, 2009, 03:03 PM	#298
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Lets hope so.

April 30th, 2009, 08:47 AM	#300
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Regarding the i7 920 and overclocking: I have found that even though tests show a stable overclock at 3.8, I've been running into issues with Gearshift and Neo Scene running at that speed. Everything else has been running fine however. I lowered my clock speed from 3.8 to 3.4 and lowered my voltages accordingly and all seems well. I'm keeping it a 3.4 from this point on. The speed difference is minimal, and I feel satisfied that I ran for a couple of months at 3.8. I never have or will achieve 4.0 which had been my goal, but because I'm not willing to invest in the more elaborate cooling solution I'm having to live with what i've got. Overall this is a great processor.