need help configuring home video editing PC

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

Ok, please forgive the naiveness of my question. I'm not even sure if this
is the right forum. I am going to attempt to build my first video editing
PC. I have only ever built one other PC for my kid and it worked out just
fine. I used an MSI MB and AMD XP processor for it.

Anyway, here's what I want to do. I would like to build a relatively
inexpensive PC to capture DV from a camorder, edit it on a PC, and then
record to dvd. When i say inexpensive, I mean 600-700 bucks. not including a
monitor. I know in the past, if you wanted to convert analog to some digital
format you had to have the appropriate PCI card (like pinnacle) to convert
it. I know these cards had their own processor and as such sort of
alleviated the main CPU from some of the conversion processing. SO my
question is, do I still need some high end AGP slotted video display card to
perform these tasks? Or will i be able to use the sort of video card
function built into some MBs? I ask because the camcorder I plan to record
from will probably have firewire built into it. A firewire card is cheaper
than a high end video card. What do you folks recommend? any configs that
you all have used? I plan on using another MSI board, 2-2.2 Ghz AMD XP. 512
MB ram, 233 Mhz bus, some 8x dvd burner...by the way, while I'm here, any
recommendations on what format drives to buy? are dual format dvd burners
the way to go?

thanks in advance

juan
36 answers Last reply
More about need configuring home video editing
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    Juan wrote:

    > Ok, please forgive the naiveness of my question. I'm not even sure if
    > this
    > is the right forum. I am going to attempt to build my first video editing
    > PC. I have only ever built one other PC for my kid and it worked out just
    > fine. I used an MSI MB and AMD XP processor for it.
    >
    > Anyway, here's what I want to do. I would like to build a relatively
    > inexpensive PC to capture DV from a camorder, edit it on a PC, and then
    > record to dvd. When i say inexpensive, I mean 600-700 bucks. not including
    > a monitor. I know in the past, if you wanted to convert analog to some
    > digital format you had to have the appropriate PCI card (like pinnacle) to
    > convert it. I know these cards had their own processor and as such sort of
    > alleviated the main CPU from some of the conversion processing. SO my
    > question is, do I still need some high end AGP slotted video display card
    > to perform these tasks?

    If the camera is a "DV" camera, all you need is a $20 firewire card. The
    video card has -nothing- to do with this. What is needed is a fast hard
    drive and a clean system with no garbage running in the background that
    would interrupt the "download" of information from the camera. You'll be
    "downloading" the video stream straight from the camera to the hard drive
    in digital form. There is no hardware or software conversion whatsoever
    like there is with analog capture.(it's a totally lossless "download")


    > Or will i be able to use the sort of video card
    > function built into some MBs?

    Yep, that will work fine but for video editing dual montors is VERY nice to
    have. You'll quickly understand what I mean. It's well worth buying a
    couple (or an extra) used 17-19in CRT's for this type of work.

    Again the video card just needs to have good 2D performance and would be
    nice to have dual monitor connections. All the expencive video cards are
    about high end 3D performance which you don't need. you should be able to
    get by with a $75-$100 video card, a matrox G550 would be perfect. It's the
    same needs you'd have for doing office apps like word or excell.

    > I ask because the camcorder I plan to record
    > from will probably have firewire built into it. A firewire card is cheaper
    > than a high end video card.

    Yep sure is and it's all you need. Forget all those "real time" cards as
    well, the software today does -real time- in software on a fast machine.


    > What do you folks recommend? any configs that
    > you all have used? I plan on using another MSI board, 2-2.2 Ghz AMD XP.
    > 512 MB ram, 233 Mhz bus,

    I feel that P4's are a MUCH better platform for video editing and encoding
    from my experience with both. Get something like a P4P800 (non deluxe) and
    the fastest P4 (northwood) you can afford along with dual sticks of ram.
    Something like a 2.8C shouldn't be too much and save some money using a
    cheap video card.

    The last system I built for myself for doing video editing

    P4P800
    2.8C P4
    2 256Mb stick of DDR400 ram
    WD 7200 RPM 80 gig 8Mb cach HD
    ATI dual head AGP video card

    I get by with a small HD by "write to tape" when I'm done editing a video
    rather than trying to store them on a hard drive.

    I ran a test render file in vegas video 4 (a killer video editing app, easy
    to learn and powerful), it took 4:15 minutes on a AMD 2400+ I have and it
    took 1:45 on the 2.8 P4. Also on the AMD it couldn't keep up to do -real
    time- preview in vegas video while the P4 had no problems, this saves you
    from having to buy a $500 "real time" card as well. I'm a big fan of AMD's
    for most uses but for video editing, they aren't the ticket. The problem is
    the video software uses SSE2 coded apps which are optimized for the P4.
    You're fighting a losing battle trying to use an XP chip. Sure people do
    use them but if you've ever used both like I have, you wouldn't bother with
    an AMD XP for this use.
    --

    Stacey
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:08:33 GMT, "Juan" <elcamaney@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > Ok, please forgive the naiveness of my question. I'm not even sure if this
    >is the right forum. I am going to attempt to build my first video editing
    >PC. I have only ever built one other PC for my kid and it worked out just
    >fine. I used an MSI MB and AMD XP processor for it.
    >
    >Anyway, here's what I want to do. I would like to build a relatively
    >inexpensive PC to capture DV from a camorder, edit it on a PC, and then
    >record to dvd. When i say inexpensive, I mean 600-700 bucks. not including a
    >monitor. I know in the past, if you wanted to convert analog to some digital
    >format you had to have the appropriate PCI card (like pinnacle) to convert
    >it. I know these cards had their own processor and as such sort of
    >alleviated the main CPU from some of the conversion processing. SO my
    >question is, do I still need some high end AGP slotted video display card to
    >perform these tasks? Or will i be able to use the sort of video card
    >function built into some MBs? I ask because the camcorder I plan to record
    >from will probably have firewire built into it. A firewire card is cheaper
    >than a high end video card. What do you folks recommend?

    If/when the camcorder has firewire the solution is simple, use *anything*
    that has firewire-in... could be a video "editing" card, motherboard
    integrated, a PCI card, etc. The actual video card you use has
    practically no bearing on it, need not even be relatively good performing,
    just adequate for ~30FPS and MPEG decoding, as it typical of anything made
    in the last ~6 years or so... as always an AGP video card is preferrible
    to a PCI video card.


    >any configs that
    >you all have used? I plan on using another MSI board, 2-2.2 Ghz AMD XP. 512
    >MB ram, 233 Mhz bus, some 8x dvd burner...by the way, while I'm here, any
    >recommendations on what format drives to buy? are dual format dvd burners
    >the way to go?

    A P4 is "typically" faster at video editing. That's not to suggest an
    Athlon XP won't do the job, but it will be slower... don't have an exact
    figure but you should be able to find benchmarks on the 'net. It's also
    beneficial to have at least two hard drives, one for the source (the
    destination drive from the firewire-camcorder-copy) and the other drive
    the destination of the edited video.

    Might as well get the dual format burner, why limit yourself?
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:08:33 GMT, "Juan" <elcamaney@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > Ok, please forgive the naiveness of my question. I'm not even sure if this
    >is the right forum. I am going to attempt to build my first video editing
    >PC. I have only ever built one other PC for my kid and it worked out just
    >fine. I used an MSI MB and AMD XP processor for it.
    >
    >Anyway, here's what I want to do. I would like to build a relatively
    >inexpensive PC to capture DV from a camorder, edit it on a PC, and then
    >record to dvd. When i say inexpensive, I mean 600-700 bucks. not including a
    >monitor. I know in the past, if you wanted to convert analog to some digital
    >format you had to have the appropriate PCI card (like pinnacle) to convert
    >it. I know these cards had their own processor and as such sort of
    >alleviated the main CPU from some of the conversion processing. SO my
    >question is, do I still need some high end AGP slotted video display card to
    >perform these tasks? Or will i be able to use the sort of video card
    >function built into some MBs? I ask because the camcorder I plan to record
    >from will probably have firewire built into it. A firewire card is cheaper
    >than a high end video card. What do you folks recommend? any configs that
    >you all have used? I plan on using another MSI board, 2-2.2 Ghz AMD XP. 512
    >MB ram, 233 Mhz bus, some 8x dvd burner...by the way, while I'm here, any
    >recommendations on what format drives to buy? are dual format dvd burners
    >the way to go?
    >
    >thanks in advance
    >
    >juan
    >
    If you go AMD get an Athalon of at least 1 gig. You'll need 1 gig of
    ram as well. 512 is just to slow.
    You'll need fast hard drives as well. ATA 100 is bottom line. ATA 133
    is better.(Regardless of what others say ATA 100 does result in frame
    drop)
    I use a 1.2 gig Athalon T-Bird with 1 gig of ram and a promise fast
    ata 133 with matching maxtor hard drives, one 80 gig and a 40 gig.
    (one 80 gig will be sufficient if you don't plan to take on project
    that's really big.)
    Don't know of any current computers that don't have a firewire
    connection, that's all you'll need if you go DV, which is what I
    recommend.
    P4 is faster for video but does cost more. If you aren't working on
    tight production schedules AMD will do.
    Any decent 2d card will do for video. I have a Nvidia 64bit AGP card
    that works just fine. Get one with a s-video out if possible.
    Unless you plan to do high-end audio work than any 16bit duplex sound
    card will suffice. 5.1 surround cards have come way down in price in
    the past year though.
    Turn off all background junk while capturing. Best to dedicate the
    system to just doing video capture/editing and use a second machine
    for surfing and such.
    I use win2k pro and it works just fine without any of the problems
    that have to be debugged out of XP. Runs faster on 2k as well.
    I do video for a living, so if you need any details on setup e-mail
    me.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    the best investment is as said is firewire interface and instead of
    IDE or even SATA- go scsi, get a fast SCSI card and 2 or 4 harddrives
    and you'll be cookin with atoms...all else has been suggested.


    "Juan" <elcamaney@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:5Ogkc.14628$eZ5.5976@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > Ok, please forgive the naiveness of my question. I'm not even sure
    if this
    > is the right forum. I am going to attempt to build my first video
    editing
    > PC. I have only ever built one other PC for my kid and it worked out
    just
    > fine. I used an MSI MB and AMD XP processor for it.
    >
    > Anyway, here's what I want to do. I would like to build a relatively
    > inexpensive PC to capture DV from a camorder, edit it on a PC, and
    then
    > record to dvd. When i say inexpensive, I mean 600-700 bucks. not
    including a
    > monitor. I know in the past, if you wanted to convert analog to some
    digital
    > format you had to have the appropriate PCI card (like pinnacle) to
    convert
    > it. I know these cards had their own processor and as such sort of
    > alleviated the main CPU from some of the conversion processing. SO
    my
    > question is, do I still need some high end AGP slotted video display
    card to
    > perform these tasks? Or will i be able to use the sort of video card
    > function built into some MBs? I ask because the camcorder I plan to
    record
    > from will probably have firewire built into it. A firewire card is
    cheaper
    > than a high end video card. What do you folks recommend? any configs
    that
    > you all have used? I plan on using another MSI board, 2-2.2 Ghz AMD
    XP. 512
    > MB ram, 233 Mhz bus, some 8x dvd burner...by the way, while I'm
    here, any
    > recommendations on what format drives to buy? are dual format dvd
    burners
    > the way to go?
    >
    > thanks in advance
    >
    > juan
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    Waste of money for SCSI.

    Standard ATA 7200 RPM drives

    AMD 2000

    Dropped frames 0, ever.

    Processor usage 5%, tops, NOTHING in the background has ever interfered.

    Of course, no, I don't do massive downloads while capturing.

    HOWEVER,

    My system drive is different from the capture drive, and I DO surf,
    newsgroups, etc while capturing.

    Buy the cheap box, add firewire, make sure the drives are 7200 rpm, have a
    separate capture drive from your system drive, video card does not matter,
    use W2K if possible, and life will be good.

    Keep it simple.

    "JAD" <jdemma25@eartink.net> wrote in message
    news:rjkkc.7801$g31.7493@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > the best investment is as said is firewire interface and instead of
    > IDE or even SATA- go scsi, get a fast SCSI card and 2 or 4 harddrives
    > and you'll be cookin with atoms...all else has been suggested.
    >
    >
    >
    > "Juan" <elcamaney@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:5Ogkc.14628$eZ5.5976@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > > Ok, please forgive the naiveness of my question. I'm not even sure
    > if this
    > > is the right forum. I am going to attempt to build my first video
    > editing
    > > PC. I have only ever built one other PC for my kid and it worked out
    > just
    > > fine. I used an MSI MB and AMD XP processor for it.
    > >
    > > Anyway, here's what I want to do. I would like to build a relatively
    > > inexpensive PC to capture DV from a camorder, edit it on a PC, and
    > then
    > > record to dvd. When i say inexpensive, I mean 600-700 bucks. not
    > including a
    > > monitor. I know in the past, if you wanted to convert analog to some
    > digital
    > > format you had to have the appropriate PCI card (like pinnacle) to
    > convert
    > > it. I know these cards had their own processor and as such sort of
    > > alleviated the main CPU from some of the conversion processing. SO
    > my
    > > question is, do I still need some high end AGP slotted video display
    > card to
    > > perform these tasks? Or will i be able to use the sort of video card
    > > function built into some MBs? I ask because the camcorder I plan to
    > record
    > > from will probably have firewire built into it. A firewire card is
    > cheaper
    > > than a high end video card. What do you folks recommend? any configs
    > that
    > > you all have used? I plan on using another MSI board, 2-2.2 Ghz AMD
    > XP. 512
    > > MB ram, 233 Mhz bus, some 8x dvd burner...by the way, while I'm
    > here, any
    > > recommendations on what format drives to buy? are dual format dvd
    > burners
    > > the way to go?
    > >
    > > thanks in advance
    > >
    > > juan
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    you forgot IMO....\


    "Commentator" <commentator@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:Bpkkc.492$RC6.1875@news20.bellglobal.com...
    > Waste of money for SCSI.
    >
    > Standard ATA 7200 RPM drives
    >
    > AMD 2000
    >
    > Dropped frames 0, ever.
    >
    > Processor usage 5%, tops, NOTHING in the background has ever
    interfered.
    >
    > Of course, no, I don't do massive downloads while capturing.
    >
    > HOWEVER,
    >
    > My system drive is different from the capture drive, and I DO surf,
    > newsgroups, etc while capturing.
    >
    > Buy the cheap box, add firewire, make sure the drives are 7200 rpm,
    have a
    > separate capture drive from your system drive, video card does not
    matter,
    > use W2K if possible, and life will be good.
    >
    > Keep it simple.
    >
    > "JAD" <jdemma25@eartink.net> wrote in message
    > news:rjkkc.7801$g31.7493@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > > the best investment is as said is firewire interface and instead
    of
    > > IDE or even SATA- go scsi, get a fast SCSI card and 2 or 4
    harddrives
    > > and you'll be cookin with atoms...all else has been suggested.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Juan" <elcamaney@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > > news:5Ogkc.14628$eZ5.5976@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > > > Ok, please forgive the naiveness of my question. I'm not even
    sure
    > > if this
    > > > is the right forum. I am going to attempt to build my first
    video
    > > editing
    > > > PC. I have only ever built one other PC for my kid and it worked
    out
    > > just
    > > > fine. I used an MSI MB and AMD XP processor for it.
    > > >
    > > > Anyway, here's what I want to do. I would like to build a
    relatively
    > > > inexpensive PC to capture DV from a camorder, edit it on a PC,
    and
    > > then
    > > > record to dvd. When i say inexpensive, I mean 600-700 bucks. not
    > > including a
    > > > monitor. I know in the past, if you wanted to convert analog to
    some
    > > digital
    > > > format you had to have the appropriate PCI card (like pinnacle)
    to
    > > convert
    > > > it. I know these cards had their own processor and as such sort
    of
    > > > alleviated the main CPU from some of the conversion processing.
    SO
    > > my
    > > > question is, do I still need some high end AGP slotted video
    display
    > > card to
    > > > perform these tasks? Or will i be able to use the sort of video
    card
    > > > function built into some MBs? I ask because the camcorder I plan
    to
    > > record
    > > > from will probably have firewire built into it. A firewire card
    is
    > > cheaper
    > > > than a high end video card. What do you folks recommend? any
    configs
    > > that
    > > > you all have used? I plan on using another MSI board, 2-2.2 Ghz
    AMD
    > > XP. 512
    > > > MB ram, 233 Mhz bus, some 8x dvd burner...by the way, while I'm
    > > here, any
    > > > recommendations on what format drives to buy? are dual format
    dvd
    > > burners
    > > > the way to go?
    > > >
    > > > thanks in advance
    > > >
    > > > juan
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    gothika <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote:
    | If you go AMD get an Athalon of at least 1 gig. You'll need 1 gig of
    | ram as well. 512 is just to slow.
    | You'll need fast hard drives as well. ATA 100 is bottom line. ATA 133
    | is better.(Regardless of what others say ATA 100 does result in frame
    | drop)
    | I use a 1.2 gig Athalon T-Bird with 1 gig of ram and a promise fast
    | ata 133 with matching maxtor hard drives, one 80 gig and a 40 gig.
    | (one 80 gig will be sufficient if you don't plan to take on project
    | that's really big.)
    | Don't know of any current computers that don't have a firewire
    | connection, that's all you'll need if you go DV, which is what I
    | recommend.
    | P4 is faster for video but does cost more. If you aren't working on
    | tight production schedules AMD will do.
    | Any decent 2d card will do for video. I have a Nvidia 64bit AGP card
    | that works just fine. Get one with a s-video out if possible.
    | Unless you plan to do high-end audio work than any 16bit duplex sound
    | card will suffice. 5.1 surround cards have come way down in price in
    | the past year though.
    | Turn off all background junk while capturing. Best to dedicate the
    | system to just doing video capture/editing and use a second machine
    | for surfing and such.
    | I use win2k pro and it works just fine without any of the problems
    | that have to be debugged out of XP. Runs faster on 2k as well.
    | I do video for a living, so if you need any details on setup e-mail
    | me.

    Having read over your response to Juan's questions, and being also in the
    position of putting a machine together for video editing, I was wondering:

    Isn't there some issue over using more than 512 Mb RAM with Windows 2000
    which has to be addressed - with a registry hack or something ?

    I'd heard that using IDE as fast as ATA-133 was of marginal use, as few IDE
    drives could manage a data throughput fast enough to stretch ATA-66. Was
    this incorrect, or are you working with very fast IDE drives ? I had heard
    that platter rotational speed was the limiting factor when streaming data.
    In that case, wouldn't a striped RAID array be better ?

    Is there any big advantage to be gained by building a dual-processor
    machine, say using a pair of AMD MP2000 CPUs over a single processor at
    around XP2400 - XP2600 ? Can video compression or rendering benefit from
    multiple processors, or is it better to go for a single fast one ?

    I can certainly agree with your statement about having lots of RAM - I guess
    the one thing you don't want to be doing while compressing or rendering a
    large stream of video data is to start paging out to the swap file !
    TIA
    Kevin.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:21:57 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
    <socks.kepla.shoes@btopenworld.com> wrote:


    >Having read over your response to Juan's questions, and being also in the
    >position of putting a machine together for video editing, I was wondering:
    >
    >Isn't there some issue over using more than 512 Mb RAM with Windows 2000
    >which has to be addressed - with a registry hack or something ?

    You might be thinking of Win9x, the System.ini vcache setting... Win2K can
    use more than 512MB "out of the box".


    >I'd heard that using IDE as fast as ATA-133 was of marginal use, as few IDE
    >drives could manage a data throughput fast enough to stretch ATA-66. Was
    >this incorrect, or are you working with very fast IDE drives ?

    There is very minimal performance benefit to ATA133 over ATA100, most
    evident with drives having larger (8MB) cache. Today's modern 60+
    GB/platter, 7200 RPM drives do benefit from ATA100 enough to use it over
    ATA66, make it worthwhile to buy a PCI controller if at least ATA100 isn't
    supported, but on a board old enough that it isn't supported there would
    be the other issues of CPU speed, memory, etc, of that age of system.


    > had heard
    >that platter rotational speed was the limiting factor when streaming data.
    >In that case, wouldn't a striped RAID array be better ?

    Rotational speed is a limit but so is platter density. A striped RAID
    array can easily be better, but in some cases is worse... for example if
    the RAID controller is sitting on PCI bus, you're using a PCI capture card
    and doing realtime compression, you'd be better off with a single (or
    RAID) running from a modern m'board chipset's southbridge integrated
    controller since the data rate isn't in excess of the single drive's
    throughput and it reduces PCI congestion. Always it's best to have
    drive(s) dedicated to the work, not also running the OS.


    >Is there any big advantage to be gained by building a dual-processor
    >machine, say using a pair of AMD MP2000 CPUs over a single processor at
    >around XP2400 - XP2600 ? Can video compression or rendering benefit from
    >multiple processors, or is it better to go for a single fast one ?

    You'd be better off to just use a P4 ~ 2.4G, pair with good memory and o'c
    FSB/Mem bus. IIRC, the typical consumer (read affordable) codecs used for
    compression can't benefit from SMP, so it'd be an issue of how much
    pre-processing or other "background" work is being done... an o'c P4 will
    still beat dual XP2600.


    >I can certainly agree with your statement about having lots of RAM - I guess
    >the one thing you don't want to be doing while compressing or rendering a
    >large stream of video data is to start paging out to the swap file !

    Rendering needs more memory than typical linear compression would. 512MB
    is enough for typical cut/paste/(re)compress type editing, so long as
    there isn't a lot of background apps eating up excess. Still today it
    makes more sense to look at building around 1GB memory.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    Kevin Lawton wrote:


    >
    > I'd heard that using IDE as fast as ATA-133 was of marginal use, as few
    > IDE drives could manage a data throughput fast enough to stretch ATA-66.
    > Was
    > this incorrect, or are you working with very fast IDE drives ? I had
    > heard that platter rotational speed was the limiting factor when streaming
    > data. In that case, wouldn't a striped RAID array be better ?

    No need for that much throughput with DV data stream. You're right an ATA66
    interface is fast enough and the drive rotational speed in steaming data is
    the bottleneck. A raid array can introduce problems of it's own with video
    capture and there is no advantage in DV capture.

    http://www.geocities.com/fotocord/raid.html

    >
    > Is there any big advantage to be gained by building a dual-processor
    > machine, say using a pair of AMD MP2000 CPUs over a single processor at
    > around XP2400 - XP2600 ? Can video compression or rendering benefit from
    > multiple processors, or is it better to go for a single fast one ?
    >

    It will take 2 AMD's to equal the performace of a single P4 in video
    applications and will cost as much or more. Why fight what works best for
    this application? As I said I like AMD's for most applications but they are
    way behind in performance to a P4 in this use.

    --

    Stacey
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    JAD wrote:

    > the best investment is as said is firewire interface and instead of
    > IDE or even SATA- go scsi, get a fast SCSI card and 2 or 4 harddrives
    > and you'll be cookin with atoms...all else has been suggested.
    >


    The problem with this approach is you are putting even more noise on the
    already loaded up PCI buss! For DV capture there is no need for anything
    faster than an ata66 7200RPM drive and for -capturing- any CPU sold today
    new will work as well. I've used a single 80gig 7200 rpm WD drive (on an XP
    1700+) with both the system and capture on the same drive (seperate
    partitions) with zero dropped frames. It pulls about 45Mbs in streaming
    throughput which is way more than needed for DV capture. With the old
    systems using analog capture before the ata66 drives, scsi was the only way
    to go...

    The difference between a P4 and an AMD comes with rendering and editing
    application speed (previewing effects etc) of the video itself. Using a
    slow computer to preview effects etc will become so painful you'll quickly
    become bored with the process.

    --

    Stacey
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 20:46:41 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >JAD wrote:
    >
    >> the best investment is as said is firewire interface and instead of
    >> IDE or even SATA- go scsi, get a fast SCSI card and 2 or 4 harddrives
    >> and you'll be cookin with atoms...all else has been suggested.
    >>
    >
    >
    >The problem with this approach is you are putting even more noise on the
    >already loaded up PCI buss! For DV capture there is no need for anything
    >faster than an ata66 7200RPM drive and for -capturing- any CPU sold today
    >new will work as well. I've used a single 80gig 7200 rpm WD drive (on an XP
    >1700+) with both the system and capture on the same drive (seperate
    >partitions) with zero dropped frames. It pulls about 45Mbs in streaming
    >throughput which is way more than needed for DV capture. With the old
    >systems using analog capture before the ata66 drives, scsi was the only way
    >to go...
    >

    Quite true. Too often people fail to realize that the firewire "capture"
    is only a file-copy situation, that all frames are already "preserved" and
    even an old Pentium 1, PIO mode 1GB HDD, will work for the capture portion
    of the exercise providing the board supports busmaster PCI and of course
    has the firewire card in it (until you recorder something too big to fit
    on 1GB HDD). This is not to discount the benefit of the higher-end P4 for
    editing though.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    In article <7o73901qlvsavnrc9via7bc6knojt9jjo2@4ax.com>,
    spam@spam.com says...
    > A P4 is "typically" faster at video editing. That's not to suggest an
    > Athlon XP won't do the job, but it will be slower... don't have an exact
    > figure but you should be able to find benchmarks on the 'net. It's also
    > beneficial to have at least two hard drives, one for the source (the
    > destination drive from the firewire-camcorder-copy) and the other drive
    > the destination of the edited video.
    >

    Most folks say a difference of only 5-10% between the
    two... which ain't much in my book.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
    <snip>
    | It will take 2 AMD's to equal the performace of a single P4 in video
    | applications and will cost as much or more. Why fight what works best
    | for this application? As I said I like AMD's for most applications
    | but they are way behind in performance to a P4 in this use.

    Okay, thanks for that. I'm thinking cost effectiveness here.
    A 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 costs about the same as an AMD XP2600 and m/board prices
    are pretty similar.
    I take on-board that you're saying that the Intel chip will out-perform the
    AMD chip noticeably for the video editing tasks.
    This is interesting as for the past few years I've been choosing AMD
    processors for my systems on a cost vs performance issue, but this is the
    first time I've built a machine specifically for video work. I've not used
    an Intel chip since the 733 MHz P-III some time ago.
    Is there some particular feature(s) of the Intel CPU which are better suited
    to video editing over the AMD ones ? - and is there a particular m/board
    chipset which 'brings out the best' for video work ?
    Cheers,
    Kevin.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    Kevin Lawton wrote:

    > Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > Is there some particular feature(s) of the Intel CPU which are better
    > suited to video editing over the AMD ones ?

    SSE2, the AMD XP chips don't support this code. It's an extention of MMX and
    most video editing apps rely heavily on this code for speed. Also P4's just
    seem to be more "optimized" for this type of work. The AMD 64 does have
    SSE2 support but I have no idea how these compare to a P4 in actual use.

    > - and is there a particular
    > m/board chipset which 'brings out the best' for video work ?
    >

    The newer dual chanel rams boards help a bunch. I'm happy with my Asus
    P4P800 standard. A P4 LOVES memory bandwidth much more than an AMD so dual
    chanel ram and the 800Mhz FSB is a big bonus. I'd also say avoid the
    prescott and try to find the 800HmzFSB northwood chips. Like I said I too
    use AMD chips for most stuff as they have better price/performance but for
    video editing it's not the case. I was shocked at the differenece when I
    ran some files through vegas video on the two machines!

    --

    Stacey
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    On Sat, 1 May 2004 12:29:53 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
    <socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> wrote:


    >Okay, thanks for that. I'm thinking cost effectiveness here.
    >A 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 costs about the same as an AMD XP2600 and m/board prices
    >are pretty similar.
    >I take on-board that you're saying that the Intel chip will out-perform the
    >AMD chip noticeably for the video editing tasks.
    >This is interesting as for the past few years I've been choosing AMD
    >processors for my systems on a cost vs performance issue, but this is the
    >first time I've built a machine specifically for video work. I've not used
    >an Intel chip since the 733 MHz P-III some time ago.
    >Is there some particular feature(s) of the Intel CPU which are better suited
    >to video editing over the AMD ones ? - and is there a particular m/board
    >chipset which 'brings out the best' for video work ?

    Intel 865 boards are generally best bang for buck, though this is dated
    info, seek some benchmarks. Intel still has superior integrated SATA,
    NIC, and USB too.

    P4 benefits from optimization of the code, the benefit of using one over
    an Athlon can depend on that. It is necessary to consider the application
    and codec(s) you want to use and seek benchmarks of Athlon vs P4 is using
    older software. Often the Athlon will perform much more similarly with
    legacy, non-SSE2 code, or even better. The question then becomes what the
    budget allows for software upgrades in addition to hardware.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    kony wrote:

    > Often the Athlon will perform much more similarly with
    > legacy, non-SSE2 code, or even better. The question then becomes what the
    > budget allows for software upgrades in addition to hardware.

    In this case IMHO the budget would be better spent on newer software and
    slightly older hardware which would outperform old software on the
    newest/fastest hardware!

    --

    Stacey
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    On Sat, 01 May 2004 13:45:18 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >Kevin Lawton wrote:
    >
    >> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Is there some particular feature(s) of the Intel CPU which are better
    >> suited to video editing over the AMD ones ?
    >
    >SSE2, the AMD XP chips don't support this code. It's an extention of MMX and
    >most video editing apps rely heavily on this code for speed. Also P4's just
    >seem to be more "optimized" for this type of work. The AMD 64 does have
    >SSE2 support but I have no idea how these compare to a P4 in actual use.
    >
    I run a Athalon T-bird with MMX that supports SSE2. Have an oler
    t-bird cpu with it as well.
    They did come in pre-builts specifically made for video editing.
    Do most of the current AMD's not have this?
    >> - and is there a particular
    >> m/board chipset which 'brings out the best' for video work ?
    >>
    >
    >The newer dual chanel rams boards help a bunch. I'm happy with my Asus
    >P4P800 standard. A P4 LOVES memory bandwidth much more than an AMD so dual
    >chanel ram and the 800Mhz FSB is a big bonus. I'd also say avoid the
    >prescott and try to find the 800HmzFSB northwood chips. Like I said I too
    >use AMD chips for most stuff as they have better price/performance but for
    >video editing it's not the case. I was shocked at the differenece when I
    >ran some files through vegas video on the two machines!
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    On Sat, 1 May 2004 03:33:53 -0400, Toshi1873 <toshi1873@nowhere.com>
    wrote:

    >In article <7o73901qlvsavnrc9via7bc6knojt9jjo2@4ax.com>,
    >spam@spam.com says...
    >> A P4 is "typically" faster at video editing. That's not to suggest an
    >> Athlon XP won't do the job, but it will be slower... don't have an exact
    >> figure but you should be able to find benchmarks on the 'net. It's also
    >> beneficial to have at least two hard drives, one for the source (the
    >> destination drive from the firewire-camcorder-copy) and the other drive
    >> the destination of the edited video.
    >>
    >
    >Most folks say a difference of only 5-10% between the
    >two... which ain't much in my book.

    Never bothered benching the two against one another.
    I'd picked up a couple of AMD machines built for video editing and was
    happy with their speed.
    I have noticed that when rendering with alot of effect layers a
    friends P4 seems a tad faster.
    Still whether an AMD or P4 it still seems a slow go when doing the
    final burn.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:21:57 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
    <socks.kepla.shoes@btopenworld.com> wrote:

    >gothika <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote:
    >| If you go AMD get an Athalon of at least 1 gig. You'll need 1 gig of
    >| ram as well. 512 is just to slow.
    >| You'll need fast hard drives as well. ATA 100 is bottom line. ATA 133
    >| is better.(Regardless of what others say ATA 100 does result in frame
    >| drop)
    >| I use a 1.2 gig Athalon T-Bird with 1 gig of ram and a promise fast
    >| ata 133 with matching maxtor hard drives, one 80 gig and a 40 gig.
    >| (one 80 gig will be sufficient if you don't plan to take on project
    >| that's really big.)
    >| Don't know of any current computers that don't have a firewire
    >| connection, that's all you'll need if you go DV, which is what I
    >| recommend.
    >| P4 is faster for video but does cost more. If you aren't working on
    >| tight production schedules AMD will do.
    >| Any decent 2d card will do for video. I have a Nvidia 64bit AGP card
    >| that works just fine. Get one with a s-video out if possible.
    >| Unless you plan to do high-end audio work than any 16bit duplex sound
    >| card will suffice. 5.1 surround cards have come way down in price in
    >| the past year though.
    >| Turn off all background junk while capturing. Best to dedicate the
    >| system to just doing video capture/editing and use a second machine
    >| for surfing and such.
    >| I use win2k pro and it works just fine without any of the problems
    >| that have to be debugged out of XP. Runs faster on 2k as well.
    >| I do video for a living, so if you need any details on setup e-mail
    >| me.
    >
    >Having read over your response to Juan's questions, and being also in the
    >position of putting a machine together for video editing, I was wondering:
    >
    >Isn't there some issue over using more than 512 Mb RAM with Windows 2000
    >which has to be addressed - with a registry hack or something ?

    Win2k pro will take a gig of ram with no need to any hack work.
    Heck 98se will take that much.(I have a PII super running 98se with
    just under a gig.)

    >
    >I'd heard that using IDE as fast as ATA-133 was of marginal use, as few IDE
    >drives could manage a data throughput fast enough to stretch ATA-66. Was
    >this incorrect, or are you working with very fast IDE drives ? I had heard
    >that platter rotational speed was the limiting factor when streaming data.
    >In that case, wouldn't a striped RAID array be better ?

    I'd advise sticking with the simpler setup of fast ATA for starters.
    Many argue that ATA100 is sufficient. It may be on most systems.
    On my main machine which came with ATA100 built in I got ocasional
    frame drops when capturing Some DV formats.(Mostly full or DV-cine and
    miniDV shot in full 16:9)
    133 increased my capture rate substantially. ( 47mbs vs 34mbs with
    100)

    >
    >Is there any big advantage to be gained by building a dual-processor
    >machine, say using a pair of AMD MP2000 CPUs over a single processor at
    >around XP2400 - XP2600 ? Can video compression or rendering benefit from
    >multiple processors, or is it better to go for a single fast one ?

    I've been seriously considering a dual machine for some time now, that
    or a blade/cluster setup.
    I'm going to wait though, when 64bit finally gets out with the apps
    needed the dual chip machines should drop in price.
    To really see the advantage now your editing software will have to
    utilize hyperthreading.
    Most low end apps don't at this time.
    You'll have to spend big bucks to get software that'll take advantage
    of dual chipsets, at least as far as I know.
    Others here may be able to point you to affordable software for dual
    sets.
    I've looked at Avid setups as well as a blade system that blazed
    through heavy render jobs, at a hefty price tag though.
    If you're looking to build a first system best to keep a realistic
    budget in mind and accept a bit less speed in the hardware department
    and spend a bit more on better editing software.
    I have several 1gig AMD machines that I HOPE to one day find the time
    to cluster into a small render farm.
    I just stay too busy these days.
    >
    >I can certainly agree with your statement about having lots of RAM - I guess
    >the one thing you don't want to be doing while compressing or rendering a
    >large stream of video data is to start paging out to the swap file !
    >TIA
    >Kevin.
    >
    >
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    Hmmm noise on the PCI....well since the PCI has only a sound card and
    the SCSI card (AGP video if you want to include that) I would say
    that's a nit-pick of a con. Frame dropping seems to be a point in
    which all is concerned, It has never been an issue with my setup at
    home nor any (MAC included) at the LAB. Not saying at all, that ATA
    sata or any other type of storage solutions are not feasible. Problem
    is, I have never( well once on a backup machine PIII) used any other
    solution, so I should have added "with my experience, my opinion would
    be"......

    "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:c6urt3$gidi6$1@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > JAD wrote:
    >
    > > the best investment is as said is firewire interface and instead
    of
    > > IDE or even SATA- go scsi, get a fast SCSI card and 2 or 4
    harddrives
    > > and you'll be cookin with atoms...all else has been suggested.
    > >
    >
    >
    > The problem with this approach is you are putting even more noise on
    the
    > already loaded up PCI buss! For DV capture there is no need for
    anything
    > faster than an ata66 7200RPM drive and for -capturing- any CPU sold
    today
    > new will work as well. I've used a single 80gig 7200 rpm WD drive
    (on an XP
    > 1700+) with both the system and capture on the same drive (seperate
    > partitions) with zero dropped frames. It pulls about 45Mbs in
    streaming
    > throughput which is way more than needed for DV capture. With the
    old
    > systems using analog capture before the ata66 drives, scsi was the
    only way
    > to go...
    >
    > The difference between a P4 and an AMD comes with rendering and
    editing
    > application speed (previewing effects etc) of the video itself.
    Using a
    > slow computer to preview effects etc will become so painful you'll
    quickly
    > become bored with the process.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Stacey
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    On Sun, 02 May 2004 07:26:22 GMT, "JAD" <jdemma25@eartink.net> wrote:

    >Hmmm noise on the PCI....well since the PCI has only a sound card and
    >the SCSI card (AGP video if you want to include that) I would say
    >that's a nit-pick of a con. Frame dropping seems to be a point in
    >which all is concerned, It has never been an issue with my setup at
    >home nor any (MAC included) at the LAB. Not saying at all, that ATA
    >sata or any other type of storage solutions are not feasible. Problem
    >is, I have never( well once on a backup machine PIII) used any other
    >solution, so I should have added "with my experience, my opinion would
    >be"......
    >

    Having both a mid to high-end sound card and *ANY* drive controller on the
    PCI bus is enough to degrade performance of either or both. The question
    is then if that matters, since there's little reason these days to capture
    uncompressed rather than lossless, the bitrate can always be lower than
    (whatever drive or interface you want). However for the best performance
    for capturing, nothing beats southbridge-integrated SATA if it's a "PC"
    platform. The 33MHz 32bit PCI bus may deliver a realized max of around
    120MB/s or lower, if there is NOTHING else on the bus being used, so it
    effectively cripples even the highest-end SCSI w/ 15K RPM drives, to the
    point of being slower than integral SATA RAID0 for a one-way capture
    scenario. Now if we were considering high request I/O server duty it'd be
    a different story, SCSI wins.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    On Sat, 01 May 2004 23:10:07 -0500, gothika <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote:

    >On Sat, 01 May 2004 13:45:18 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Kevin Lawton wrote:
    >>
    >>> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Is there some particular feature(s) of the Intel CPU which are better
    >>> suited to video editing over the AMD ones ?
    >>
    >>SSE2, the AMD XP chips don't support this code. It's an extention of MMX and
    >>most video editing apps rely heavily on this code for speed. Also P4's just
    >>seem to be more "optimized" for this type of work. The AMD 64 does have
    >>SSE2 support but I have no idea how these compare to a P4 in actual use.
    >>
    >I run a Athalon T-bird with MMX that supports SSE2. Have an oler
    >t-bird cpu with it as well.
    >They did come in pre-builts specifically made for video editing.
    >Do most of the current AMD's not have this?

    Nothing older than Athlon 64 has SSE2. Athlon Palomino, Thoroughbred,
    Thorton, Barton, Duron Morgan (and maybe another Duron?) have SSE(1).
    T-Birds do not have SSE(1) or SSE2. If yours does it is not a T-Bird.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    I am not sure of all the sound solutions in the lab, Aardvarks
    'Aark24'(?) on some of the PC's, very nice setups. I am unfamiliar
    with the macs, I believe that they are integrated. I have the SB
    audigy 2 platinum at home, pretty low CPU usage. This I purchased
    mainly because of the inputs on the front head.


    >Having both a mid to high-end sound card and *ANY* drive controller
    on the
    > PCI bus is enough to degrade performance of either or both.

    Interesting, where would I see this degradation? Would I be spending
    hours in front of a 'benchmarker' comparing or would this be something
    that is real world? Are we again talking of 'dropped' frames, poor
    video appearance, or rendering time increases? My partners and I have
    not come across any of this type of problem (degradations) with these
    rigs. I am always up for improvements when it comes to quality of my
    work and time spent wisely. I am not into ' look my rigs faster than
    yours' scenarios though. Also, unlike a few of my cohorts, just
    because we have been doing it this way for 15 years it 'must' be the
    'only way', is not my motto ;^)

    Thanks for the input


    "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:j59990phf8manejq2al68g09tmn8lmv0mc@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 02 May 2004 07:26:22 GMT, "JAD" <jdemma25@eartink.net>
    wrote:
    >
    > >Hmmm noise on the PCI....well since the PCI has only a sound card
    and
    > >the SCSI card (AGP video if you want to include that) I would say
    > >that's a nit-pick of a con. Frame dropping seems to be a point in
    > >which all is concerned, It has never been an issue with my setup at
    > >home nor any (MAC included) at the LAB. Not saying at all, that ATA
    > >sata or any other type of storage solutions are not feasible.
    Problem
    > >is, I have never( well once on a backup machine PIII) used any
    other
    > >solution, so I should have added "with my experience, my opinion
    would
    > >be"......
    > >
    >
    > The question
    > is then if that matters, since there's little reason these days to
    capture
    > uncompressed rather than lossless, the bitrate can always be lower
    than
    > (whatever drive or interface you want). However for the best
    performance
    > for capturing, nothing beats southbridge-integrated SATA if it's a
    "PC"
    > platform. The 33MHz 32bit PCI bus may deliver a realized max of
    around
    > 120MB/s or lower, if there is NOTHING else on the bus being used, so
    it
    > effectively cripples even the highest-end SCSI w/ 15K RPM drives, to
    the
    > point of being slower than integral SATA RAID0 for a one-way capture
    > scenario. Now if we were considering high request I/O server duty
    it'd be
    > a different story, SCSI wins.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    On Sun, 02 May 2004 07:46:03 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

    >On Sat, 01 May 2004 23:10:07 -0500, gothika <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 01 May 2004 13:45:18 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Kevin Lawton wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Is there some particular feature(s) of the Intel CPU which are better
    >>>> suited to video editing over the AMD ones ?
    >>>
    >>>SSE2, the AMD XP chips don't support this code. It's an extention of MMX and
    >>>most video editing apps rely heavily on this code for speed. Also P4's just
    >>>seem to be more "optimized" for this type of work. The AMD 64 does have
    >>>SSE2 support but I have no idea how these compare to a P4 in actual use.
    >>>
    >>I run a Athalon T-bird with MMX that supports SSE2. Have an oler
    >>t-bird cpu with it as well.
    >>They did come in pre-builts specifically made for video editing.
    >>Do most of the current AMD's not have this?
    >
    >Nothing older than Athlon 64 has SSE2. Athlon Palomino, Thoroughbred,
    >Thorton, Barton, Duron Morgan (and maybe another Duron?) have SSE(1).
    >T-Birds do not have SSE(1) or SSE2. If yours does it is not a T-Bird.

    Have to disagree on that. Every diagnostic I've every run(Sandra
    etc..) clearly shows my setup as having SSE2. That was one of the
    primary reasons I bought these custom builds.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    On Sun, 02 May 2004 08:48:58 GMT, "JAD" <jdemma25@eartink.net> wrote:


    >>Having both a mid to high-end sound card and *ANY* drive controller
    >on the
    >> PCI bus is enough to degrade performance of either or both.
    >
    >Interesting, where would I see this degradation? Would I be spending
    >hours in front of a 'benchmarker' comparing or would this be something
    >that is real world?

    The degradation is seen when the drives and interface method "would" be
    capable of exceeding 120MB/s yet can't. Then it stands to reason that
    seeing it would require 1) fast enough drives 2) large continuous data
    stream 3) comparison of performance on a server with (other) traffic on
    PCI bus limited, contrasted with PC 32bit 33MHz PCI bus with sound, analog
    capture and/or other devices in use simultaneously.

    >Are we again talking of 'dropped' frames, poor
    >video appearance, or rendering time increases?

    I was talking primary of drive performance itself. Dropped frames and
    rednering times are relative to the data rate needed. Data rate lower
    than realized drive transfer rate potential wouldn't matter. Rendering
    times will increase if the process is drive-bottlenecked rather than CPU
    or other bottleneck... depends on what you're doing.


    My partners and I have
    >not come across any of this type of problem (degradations) with these
    >rigs. I am always up for improvements when it comes to quality of my
    >work and time spent wisely. I am not into ' look my rigs faster than
    >yours' scenarios though. Also, unlike a few of my cohorts, just
    >because we have been doing it this way for 15 years it 'must' be the
    >'only way', is not my motto ;^)
    >
    >Thanks for the input

    IF your situation is one where the job is pushing the limit of drive
    throughput on PCI bus then clearly a change in drives, interface, and/or
    bus applies. A "my rig is faster than yours scenario" may be something
    that gets stressed too often, but in some cases that's what it does boil
    down too, no magic bullet other than specing out best modern config for
    the job, or use of more systems.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    On Sun, 02 May 2004 14:55:28 -0500, gothika <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote:


    >>>I run a Athalon T-bird with MMX that supports SSE2. Have an oler
    >>>t-bird cpu with it as well.
    >>>They did come in pre-builts specifically made for video editing.
    >>>Do most of the current AMD's not have this?
    >>
    >>Nothing older than Athlon 64 has SSE2. Athlon Palomino, Thoroughbred,
    >>Thorton, Barton, Duron Morgan (and maybe another Duron?) have SSE(1).
    >>T-Birds do not have SSE(1) or SSE2. If yours does it is not a T-Bird.
    >
    >Have to disagree on that. Every diagnostic I've every run(Sandra
    >etc..) clearly shows my setup as having SSE2. That was one of the
    >primary reasons I bought these custom builds.
    >

    It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for any kind of "custom build" to result in a
    T-Bird supporting SSE, period. CPUs support the instructions or don't...
    check AMD's website.

    If your CPU is a T-Bird, that is, a Thunderbird, it doesn't support SSE
    and there isn't anything that can be done to make that Thunderbird support
    SSE. _IF_ you really do have a T-Bird and those diagnostics claim SSE
    support, they're wrong. Again, check AMD's website.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    gothika wrote:

    > On Sat, 01 May 2004 13:45:18 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Kevin Lawton wrote:
    >>
    >>> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Is there some particular feature(s) of the Intel CPU which are better
    >>> suited to video editing over the AMD ones ?
    >>
    >>SSE2, the AMD XP chips don't support this code. It's an extention of MMX
    >>and most video editing apps rely heavily on this code for speed. Also P4's
    >>just seem to be more "optimized" for this type of work. The AMD 64 does
    >>have SSE2 support but I have no idea how these compare to a P4 in actual
    >>use.
    >>
    > I run a Athalon T-bird with MMX that supports SSE2.

    SSE not SSE2. If you have some application that claims this, it's a bug in
    the app. AMD has never had SSE-2- support in anything until the AMD64.
    --

    Stacey
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    gothika wrote:


    > Many argue that ATA100 is sufficient. It may be on most systems.
    > On my main machine which came with ATA100 built in I got ocasional
    > frame drops when capturing Some DV formats.(Mostly full or DV-cine and
    > miniDV shot in full 16:9)
    > 133 increased my capture rate substantially. ( 47mbs vs 34mbs with
    > 100)


    That was the drive not the interface. Look at your numbers, ATA 66 can move
    47Mbs a sec cause it can move 66Mbs at the interface, it's just those older
    drives couldn't move that much data mechanically. My ata100 WD 80 gig moves
    46Mbs no problem.


    # hdparm -t /dev/hda

    /dev/hda:
    Timing buffered disk reads: 140 MB in 3.02 seconds = 46.35 MB/sec


    It's more about rotational speed and disk density than interface for
    streaming video.
    --

    Stacey
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    JAD wrote:

    > Hmmm noise on the PCI....well since the PCI has only a sound card and
    > the SCSI card (AGP video if you want to include that) I would say
    > that's a nit-pick of a con.

    http://www.geocities.com/fotocord/raid.html


    This guy didn't think this noise from his raid card was "a nit-pick". :-)

    Why introduce possible problems when the "solution" doesn't solve any
    problems itself? Like I said when an ata33 drive could only move 10Mbs,
    multiple SCSI drive setups were the hot ticket for video capture. That's
    not the case anymore. That money is better spend on a faster CPU or better
    software!
    --

    Stacey
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    Toshi1873 wrote:

    > In article <7o73901qlvsavnrc9via7bc6knojt9jjo2@4ax.com>,
    > spam@spam.com says...
    >> A P4 is "typically" faster at video editing. That's not to suggest an
    >> Athlon XP won't do the job, but it will be slower... don't have an exact
    >> figure but you should be able to find benchmarks on the 'net. It's also
    >> beneficial to have at least two hard drives, one for the source (the
    >> destination drive from the firewire-camcorder-copy) and the other drive
    >> the destination of the edited video.
    >>
    >
    > Most folks say a difference of only 5-10% between the
    > two... which ain't much in my book.


    Depends on the application and the effects being used. The "speed test" file
    for vegas video shows a 2.4 P4 is -at least- 2X as fast as an AMD XP2400.
    Also an AMD of this speed can't keep up to do real time preview effects
    either while the P4 does it without a hitch.

    Have you actually used both types of systems yourself with video effects
    rendering or just repeating what you've read AMD fanboys ("most people")
    claim? Maybe on a pre-SSE2 app there isn't much difference?

    I'm not a fan of either platform nor do I push one or the other, only based
    on price/performance for the application do I recomend a solution. 99% of
    the time it's AMD, yet people try to argue AMD are good for video editing
    to push AMD's for everything? I've used both using real world apps against
    each other and I'd NEVER build an AMD system for someone wanting to do
    video editing.. Then again some people seem to just hate Intel and will
    push the wrong hardware on other people because of their views on this
    subject.
    --

    Stacey
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    On Mon, 03 May 2004 01:00:52 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:


    >Depends on the application and the effects being used. The "speed test" file
    >for vegas video shows a 2.4 P4 is -at least- 2X as fast as an AMD XP2400.
    >Also an AMD of this speed can't keep up to do real time preview effects
    >either while the P4 does it without a hitch.

    It's quite believeable that a P4 is 2X as fast with encoders optimized for
    SSE2, but is it even slightly optimized for the Athlon or just SSE2 vs.
    completely unoptimized? If the latter it's no wonder anything without
    SSE2 will far poorly.
    >
    > Have you actually used both types of systems yourself with video effects
    >rendering or just repeating what you've read AMD fanboys ("most people")
    >claim? Maybe on a pre-SSE2 app there isn't much difference?
    >
    >I'm not a fan of either platform nor do I push one or the other, only based
    >on price/performance for the application do I recomend a solution. 99% of
    >the time it's AMD, yet people try to argue AMD are good for video editing
    >to push AMD's for everything? I've used both using real world apps against
    >each other and I'd NEVER build an AMD system for someone wanting to do
    >video editing.. Then again some people seem to just hate Intel and will
    >push the wrong hardware on other people because of their views on this
    >subject.

    You might want to restate that as "never build an Athlon XP system", since
    Athlon 64 does have SSE2 and can generally do much better as a result.
    The key of course would be which application, which codec (and version)
    since Vegas Video might be a great app but not what everyone wants to use.
    Also there's the age-old debate of which codec is better for quality,
    since it's not always the newest, SSE2 optimized version someone might
    want to use.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    On Mon, 03 May 2004 00:40:15 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >gothika wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 01 May 2004 13:45:18 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Kevin Lawton wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Is there some particular feature(s) of the Intel CPU which are better
    >>>> suited to video editing over the AMD ones ?
    >>>
    >>>SSE2, the AMD XP chips don't support this code. It's an extention of MMX
    >>>and most video editing apps rely heavily on this code for speed. Also P4's
    >>>just seem to be more "optimized" for this type of work. The AMD 64 does
    >>>have SSE2 support but I have no idea how these compare to a P4 in actual
    >>>use.
    >>>
    >> I run a Athalon T-bird with MMX that supports SSE2.
    >
    >SSE not SSE2. If you have some application that claims this, it's a bug in
    >the app. AMD has never had SSE-2- support in anything until the AMD64.

    Not even SSE... Palomino, which came after T'Bird, was the first Athlon
    core to support SSE.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    "gothika" <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
    news:5mt890dh48ko1r5on6g6tqiotkfor5qkcd@4ax.com...
    ....
    > I've been seriously considering a dual machine for some time now, that
    > or a blade/cluster setup.
    > I'm going to wait though, when 64bit finally gets out with the apps
    > needed the dual chip machines should drop in price.
    > To really see the advantage now your editing software will have to
    > utilize hyperthreading.
    > Most low end apps don't at this time.
    > You'll have to spend big bucks to get software that'll take advantage
    > of dual chipsets, at least as far as I know.
    Any app. that utilizes HT can benefit from SMP.

    E.V
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    kony wrote:

    > On Mon, 03 May 2004 01:00:52 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    > It's quite believeable that a P4 is 2X as fast with encoders optimized for
    > SSE2, but is it even slightly optimized for the Athlon or just SSE2 vs.
    > completely unoptimized? If the latter it's no wonder anything without
    > SSE2 will far poorly.

    No idea how e code is written. Since most of the "turn key" video systems
    are built with P4's, My guess is most of the software is written with this
    in mind.


    >> I've used both using real world apps
    >>against each other and I'd NEVER build an AMD system for someone wanting
    >>to do video editing..
    >
    > You might want to restate that as "never build an Athlon XP system", since
    > Athlon 64 does have SSE2 and can generally do much better as a result.

    Well until I have a chance to test one, I'll stick with P4's for video
    workstations.


    > The key of course would be which application, which codec (and version)
    > since Vegas Video might be a great app but not what everyone wants to use.
    >

    Premier also is very P4 friendly and is the "cornerstone" for video editing
    just like photoshop is for photography. The main issue seems to be the
    effects rendering, not the MPEG encoding that differs in the processors.
    People looks at MPEG encoding and assume these represent video work, they
    don't.

    The encoding can be done on even something like a PII 350 as this work
    requires no user interaction, you just start it and go do something else.
    WHo cares if it take 4 hours or 8 hours or 30 minutes? But when you are
    editing, to see what the edits are going to look like, the effects have to
    be rendered and if each edit takes 4-5 minutes to even see if you even like
    that one edit's effect, it can take DAYS to edit a 30 minute video! Most
    people aren't going to have the patience for that.
    --

    Stacey
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    WHo cares if it take 4 hours or 8 hours or 30 minutes? But when you
    are
    > editing, to see what the edits are going to look like, the effects
    have to
    > be rendered and if each edit takes 4-5 minutes to even see if you
    even like
    > that one edit's effect, it can take DAYS to edit a 30 minute video!
    Most
    > people aren't going to have the patience for that.

    Hehehehhe A typical week in the life of an editor...............MPG
    is rarely used like you said, less your authoring for the web. .MOV
    NTSC then converted is common, But even that also like you said,
    makes up the smallest amount of time. Transitions and recoloring,
    removal of things like street signs, business advertising on walls,
    fire hydrants, that's the weird kind of stuff we do, takes weeks,
    depending on the length of the clip or if its a whole production
    piece.

    Anywho, we have a MAC that is showing its age, put it out there to
    replace it, at the next slow down period (where we can do without it)
    with a P4 and a SATA setup. One thing that was ask was how many drive
    can we install (they were thinking of redundancy)


    "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:c76n15$dto8$1@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > kony wrote:
    >
    > > On Mon, 03 May 2004 01:00:52 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
    wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > It's quite believeable that a P4 is 2X as fast with encoders
    optimized for
    > > SSE2, but is it even slightly optimized for the Athlon or just
    SSE2 vs.
    > > completely unoptimized? If the latter it's no wonder anything
    without
    > > SSE2 will far poorly.
    >
    > No idea how e code is written. Since most of the "turn key" video
    systems
    > are built with P4's, My guess is most of the software is written
    with this
    > in mind.
    >
    >
    > >> I've used both using real world apps
    > >>against each other and I'd NEVER build an AMD system for someone
    wanting
    > >>to do video editing..
    > >
    > > You might want to restate that as "never build an Athlon XP
    system", since
    > > Athlon 64 does have SSE2 and can generally do much better as a
    result.
    >
    > Well until I have a chance to test one, I'll stick with P4's for
    video
    > workstations.
    >
    >
    > > The key of course would be which application, which codec (and
    version)
    > > since Vegas Video might be a great app but not what everyone wants
    to use.
    > >
    >
    > Premier also is very P4 friendly and is the "cornerstone" for video
    editing
    > just like photoshop is for photography. The main issue seems to be
    the
    > effects rendering, not the MPEG encoding that differs in the
    processors.
    > People looks at MPEG encoding and assume these represent video work,
    they
    > don't.
    >
    > The encoding can be done on even something like a PII 350 as this
    work
    > requires no user interaction, you just start it and go do something
    else.
    > > --
    >
    > Stacey
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.video.dvd.tech (More info?)

    On Sat, 01 May 2004 13:45:18 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >Kevin Lawton wrote:
    >
    >> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Is there some particular feature(s) of the Intel CPU which are better
    >> suited to video editing over the AMD ones ?
    >
    >SSE2, the AMD XP chips don't support this code. It's an extention of MMX and
    >most video editing apps rely heavily on this code for speed. Also P4's just
    >seem to be more "optimized" for this type of work.

    Yes! Another advantage for the P4 is that video work are menial ;)
    tasks. The P4 is a fastrunning, but 'stupid' ;), cpu. If the work
    doesn't require 'intelligence' or complex decisions, it performs well,
    because it will have full use of its high clock frequency. Performing
    a simple operation on a large block of data, is THE thing that P4s do
    well.

    If you compare cpus on a price basis, AMD will do better of course.
    But for video, P4 is still ultimately best.
    I can imagine sound encoding to work out on more equal terms (since
    it's a little bit more problematic than video). Provided we compare
    with code also optimized for 3DNow+.

    For the AthlonXP to be in the running for media encoding at all, the
    code must also be optimized for 3DNow+. And I gather that's not so
    popular as SSE2.
    SSE2 and 3DNow+ performs twice as many operations per
    instruction&clock as old SSE.

    >The AMD 64 does have
    >SSE2 support but I have no idea how these compare to a P4 in actual use.

    In 32-bit mode, P4 is still better. The reason is again that the work
    is so straightforward, that clock frequency is a factor.
    But again, I'd like to reserve myself on sound.

    Only 64-bit media benchmark I've seen is 'Lame' on Linux64. And that
    achieves an astonishing (~X2) improvement. But 64-bit SSE2 works
    pretty much exactly like 32-bit SSE2, aside from having twice as many
    registers to fool around with. So my guess is that if the code doesn't
    make use of those, the situation will be similar.

    To beat the clock advantage, AMD would have to define their own vector
    instructions, rather than implementing Intel's. But it's also a
    question of software convergence. 3DNow+ hasn't been a wholesale
    success, outside games and APIs. As Intel too, will be switching to
    more powerful, but lower clocked cpu cores, AMD will get their chances
    in the future. Maybe on SSE4.

    ancra

    P.S. As you have already touched, the situation can be utterly
    reversed in other cases, A-XP can have a 30-85% advantage over the P4
    on '386/'387 -code. (I've seen 200%, but sofar, I'm assuming that
    involved throttling on the P4). Also, the P4C is doing somewhat better
    than earlier P4.
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Systems