Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

need help configuring home video editing PC

Last response: in Systems
Share
April 30, 2004 4:08:33 AM

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
April 30, 2004 4:08:34 AM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 30, 2004 4:41:10 AM

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?
Related resources
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 30, 2004 7:38:17 AM

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.
April 30, 2004 8:08:55 AM

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
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 30, 2004 8:08:56 AM

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
> >
> >
>
>
April 30, 2004 9:21:09 AM

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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 30, 2004 6:21:57 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 30, 2004 10:31:24 PM

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.
May 1, 2004 12:38:07 AM

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
May 1, 2004 12:46:41 AM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 1, 2004 5:00:37 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 1, 2004 7:33:53 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 1, 2004 4:29:53 PM

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.
May 1, 2004 5:45:18 PM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 2, 2004 12:59:00 AM

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.
May 2, 2004 1:55:39 AM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 2, 2004 3:10:07 AM

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!
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 2, 2004 3:14:56 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 2, 2004 3:35:03 AM

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.
>
>
May 2, 2004 11:26:22 AM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 2, 2004 11:43:18 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 2, 2004 11:46:03 AM

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.
May 2, 2004 12:48:58 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 2, 2004 6:55:28 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 2, 2004 9:30:55 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 3, 2004 12:15:30 AM

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.
May 3, 2004 4:40:15 AM

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
May 3, 2004 4:45:38 AM

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.


[root@stephe stephe]# 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
May 3, 2004 4:52:43 AM

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
May 3, 2004 5:00:52 AM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 3, 2004 9:55:22 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 3, 2004 9:59:22 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 3, 2004 6:09:41 PM

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
May 4, 2004 12:12:49 AM

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
May 4, 2004 10:25:19 AM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 7, 2004 5:43:28 PM

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.
!