Video editing computer

[k0712s]

Building a computer for the primary reason of video editing. Making DVD movies clips. Here is what I have in mind:
CPU; Intel Core 2 Duo E6300
Mother Board, Asus P5B-E
Ram, 4GB Kingston
Video, card, really not sure what to get, possibly Radeon X1600 Pro
DVD burner; Sony DRU830A
Operating system, Vista professional

I appreciate any recommendation based on your experience

 

[Apple_Fritters]

I don't usually make this kind of recommendation, but...

First, drop vista. I think Pro costs $400. XP cost $100.
Second, drop to just 2Gig RAM (OK, I know)

So far that's ~$500 saved.
In the spring, the price of a Q6600 will drop to ~$530.
Linkage

Quad cores are great for video editing.

 

[pmr]

tell us what kind of editing. home, pro...

Put vista away.

 

[dsidious]

Agreed about Vista, it's a resource hog and you're better off with XP.

Does anybody know if Windows 2000 Pro supports dual core or quad core processors? W2K seems faster than XP, as far as I could tell, but I noticed that on a single core CPU.

Also, does anybody know if Windows 2000 Pro can use 2 GB of RAM?

Many thanks!

 

[AdamBomb42]

I agree, 2 Gigs is plenty and get an E6600. The increased cache will help with transcoding. I also suggest for you to get the GA-965P-S3 for your mobo. It's well priced and quiet the overclocker.

 

[dsidious]

Agreed about Vista, it's a resource hog and you're better off with XP.

Does anybody know if Windows 2000 Pro supports dual core or quad core processors? W2K seems faster than XP, as far as I could tell, but I noticed that on a single core CPU.

Also, does anybody know if Windows 2000 Pro can use 2 GB of RAM?

Many thanks!

Sorry about replying to myself, but since nobody answered...
Win2K sees only 2 cores out of 4 and only 2 GB of RAM out of 4. The Server version is a bit better when it comes to the RAM. There's also a /3GB switch or something like that - not very promising.
I found this info on some other forums and on Microsoft's support site. In conclusion, I guess XP Pro, possibly the 64 bit version, is the best choice for quad-core processors.

 

[cattbert]

I built a new computer back in November for video editing. While I cannot cite them to you, many of the articles I read listed three main areas to consider for video editing: (1) CPU (they recommended the E6600 because of the larger cache), (2) memory (most articles recommended 2 gig ... it was impossible to find objective comparisons of 2 gig vs 4 gig), and (3) speed and number of hard drives (such as 1 disk for progs and 1 for data or, ideally, 1 for progs, 1 for source files and 1 for output of files).

If you had to choose between the E6600 & 2 gig memory or E6300 & 4 gig, I would recommend the E6600. Note that if you go with 4 gig of memory a 32 bit OS will only be able to use 3.5 gig ... you can find the full explanation for this if you do a search.

Everything I read said that the video card will not have an impact on the speed of video editing. At first I thought that ATI was marketing the X1___ series as speeding up transcoding (called AVIVO), but found out later that the hardware acceleration only applies if you are using the ATI transcoder utility. It will do nothing for video editing software.

As to the hard drives, not only does it help to have more drives, but in setting them up a lot of the resources I checked recommended separate partitions for the Windows virtual memory and, if using Adobe, the Adobe scratch disk. For example, on my system I have the OS on the Raid 0, the source files on one hard disk (which also has a partition for the Windows virtual memory) and output to another hard drive (which has another partition for the Adobe scratch disk).

Finally, I do not know what software you are using or planning to use, but I actually found this to have a huge impact despite the system I eventually built. If you are looking at the consumer packages, I would highly recommend Adobe Premier Elements 3.0. I have Pinnacle Studio 10 and ULead 9 as well, but find Adobe to be much faster and less prone to crashes. (All of this applies to Win XP pro ... I do not know how they would do under Vista)

 

[madmurph]

Ditto Vista. With regard to Cattbert:

Everything I read said that the video card will not have an impact on the speed of video editing. At first I thought that ATI was marketing the X1___ series as speeding up transcoding (called AVIVO), but found out later that the hardware acceleration only applies if you are using the ATI transcoder utility. It will do nothing for video editing software. ATI X1950 Pro

You give excellent insight, but even though the AVIVO software didn't speed your editing, don't you still have video capture capabilities through that X1950Pro card? I don't see that the OP has any capture capability, esp with an X1600 card. I would endorse using the card you have - the X1950Pro with capture.

 

[k0712s]

Thank you,. I will use much of what you have recommended. I am still leaning toward the e6660 with 2GB over the e6300 with 4 GB. I liked the idea of the 3 hard drives with RAID 0 setup which I will utilize in my setup. I am planning on using Maxtor 300GB Ultra16 PATA, let me know if you have other recommendtions.

 

[cattbert]

I am importing from a digital camcorder via firewire, so I cannot speak to the X1950 Pro's video capture capability. It is probably equal or better than the quality of ATI TV Wonder Pro that I previously used to capture analog, which was just fine, before getting a digital camorder. In my case I got the X1950 Pro because I was concentrating on keeping the noise and heat down due to years of experience with my P4 Northwood system turning the room into a furnace; the X1950 Pro uses a smaller die (can't remember what nm); I can confirm that it is very quiet and runs cool.

 

[pip_seeker]

This really depends on how far you plan to go.

How many layers of video do you need?
Will you be using alot of effects?
Will your movies be long... IE greater than 30 min?
Will you be doing alot of editing or just minor / cuts & fades?
Will you need to do alot of encoding? IE... WMP / Divx / Mpg2 etc.

If you're going to just do simply fades / cuts, movies are just home movies then pretty much any computer these days should handle the task. However, if you plan to jump to the "HNL" to give your videos some zing and flare with text effects, multiple layers, chroma key etc then I would think a little longer on this decision.

Also note: anything you buy now for SD [Standard Definition] is obsolete the minute you buy it. HD is here and here to stay. So if you're leaning toward the cheap end, keep it really cheap... and don't expect too much.

 

[madmurph]

I liked the idea of the 3 hard drives with RAID 0 setup which I will utilize in my setup. I am planning on using Maxtor 300GB Ultra16 PATA, let me know if you have other recommendtions.

If you've got 3 identical drives, why not put them in a raid 5 array?

 

[Fulmar]

Definantly. If you have multiple drives, look at setting up RAID. Write speeds for one of my Maxtor 250gb drives was around 62-63mb/sec, now that I added an identical drive and set it up in RAID 0 (i save all important data on my own separate file server computer) I benchmarked around 107mb/sec. You'll see a good difference in loading large avi files when you're editing your videos.

When I took a course last year they had 'okay' machines for video editing but they had no raid arrays and I see a large difference when compressing and rendering video files now on my new rig.

 

[cattbert]

Actually, you will need a 4th drive to do Raid on the OS and have 1 drive each for original and output files. Use raid 0 (striping) for speed on the OS drive. As to why not raid 5 if you are using three or more drives, the reviews I have read consistently say that while the MB chipsets offer raid 5, the performance is not that great. Also, if you do that, then the virtual memory, scratch disk, input and output files would all be on the same drive, meaning that the read/writes for each would negate any performance increase you get by going that route. Just make sure you back up your raid 0 to one of the other disks regularly in case it fails (I use Norton Ghost, which occasionally sells for about $20 after rebate [or free if you have some other program that falls within the terms of the upgrade rebate]).

 

[madmurph]

I have a P5B Deluxe running 3 WD 500gb HD's in a RAID 5 array -- 1 TB of disc space, with redundancy, and it has been working flawlessly.

 

[kamel5547]

I have a P5B Deluxe running 3 WD 500gb HD's in a RAID 5 array -- 1 TB of disc space, with redundancy, and it has been working flawlessly.

I don't think the fact it works or not is the question:

1) RAID 5 with 3 disks is sub-optimal. You lose a lot of space, and you are missing out on the biggest speed gains... IMO you shouldn't consider it with under 4 drives.
2) RAID 5 will NOT automatically re-build with 3 drives on most hardware controllers (and definitely not with software). For that you need a minimum of 3 live drives (meaning an array of 4 originally).
3) Generally software RAID is a bad idea. For reliable RAID 5 you need an actual controller (not all that expensize, but an extra cost).

Just my opinion... personally if performance was what I was looking for I'd use RAID 0, and just make sure I never stored anything permanently on the work drives. It'll be quick, and considering you'll put the finished product on a DVD you don't need to worry about the possibility of a failure in the long term.

RAID 5 Comparison w/ 3-8 drives:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/07/23/raid_5_scaling_tests_with_up_to_eight_drives/page7.html