Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Budget PC for Video Editing only, but what processors???

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 22, 2008 5:42:14 PM

After all of your Help & guidance I will buy :

HDD 250 GB SATA II (8MB CACHE) = $70.00
2 GB RAM DDR2 = $45.38

-
i mean for Video Editing purpose ONLY, No HD or Blu-Ray play backs.
ONLY for SD(no HD here also) DV Video Editing only.

so which will be better for faster rendering in "Adobe premier cs3" ??

=
NOW Im Planing to Buy:


Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 ( i want to OverClock it)
= $131.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] &Tpk=e7200
-


Plz help me in these followings (Which Stuff to buy with the above CPU?):


- MotherBoard (OverClock able)
- VGA cheap & able to play some games

=
My 1st priority is Video Editing. and games come much later. So plz help.
a c 143 à CPUs
May 22, 2008 6:17:26 PM

You already have a case, PSU, RAM, hard drives, keyboard, rodent, and any other peripherals?
With a budget of $280-$314 (estimated based on your post), AMD on a 780G chipset board will be your best choice, if only because the video chipset on that board will blow away the integrated Intel Graphics Media Deccelerator, and you really can't afford to get a replacement video card.
The quad core 9550 is $195; over your $180 price point, but within a $314 budget. Even though that one is a quad core, this X2 5600+ might be a better choice: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168....
Some of the 780G chipset boards can't really handle the 125W chips, especially if you overclock them.
Related resources
May 22, 2008 6:45:57 PM

Someone just did a review of the 780g chipset and darned if I can find it now but the result seemed to say that the CPU should be at or above 2.0 GHz for efficient decoding. I seem to recall that the processor they liked best was the newest "be" version. Sorry if I can't remember the specifics - just got back from the clinic from some spinal steriod injections so a little foggy but wanted to help.
May 22, 2008 7:01:16 PM

Unless you are playing games or playing back hd content, you could easily get by with onboard graphics or a $30 video card. A fast video card wont accelerate video editing or encoding.
May 22, 2008 7:06:19 PM

I will buy :

HDD 250 GB SATA II (8MB CACHE) = $70.00
2 GB RAM DDR2 = $45.38
May 22, 2008 7:13:40 PM

For the 125W support, take the Gigabyte mobo. The 9550 is 95W TDP.

The BE (replaced by the new and the same 4050e (2.1GHz), 4450e (2.3GHz) and 4850e (2.5GHz) but renumbered) series cost more but are rated 45W

You can wait for the 9100e, a 65W quad core but it will high priced, same as the 9550.

For the CPU speed above 2GHz for decoding, anantech and tom's have used a sempron 3000+, 1.6GHz. OK the CPU was loaded near 100% for HD decoding but the movie play smoothly...
May 22, 2008 7:56:02 PM

I will buy :

HDD 250 GB SATA II (8MB CACHE) = $70.00
2 GB RAM DDR2 = $45.38

-
i mean for Video Editing purpose ONLY, No HD or Blu-Ray play backs.
ONLY for SD(no HD here also) DV Video Editing only.

so which will be better for faster rendering in "Adobe premier cs3" ??

=
Mobo Intel G33 chipset
= $110.76
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
-
with INTEL CORE 2 DUO 2.20 GHZ (E4500 /800 MHZ) 2MB CACHE)
=$129.23
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

=
OR
=
GIGABYTE GA-MA78G-DS3H
= $110.76
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
-
which AMD CPU should i buy Under $180???
May 22, 2008 9:23:35 PM

piratepast40 said:
Someone just did a review of the 780g chipset and darned if I can find it now but the result seemed to say that the CPU should be at or above 2.0 GHz for efficient decoding. I seem to recall that the processor they liked best was the newest "be" version. Sorry if I can't remember the specifics - just got back from the clinic from some spinal steriod injections so a little foggy but wanted to help.


Actually the CPU requirement for smooth HD playback is minimal with this chipset. The review done here at Tom's, http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-780g-chipset,1785-3.html, showed that only a Sempron 3200+ (a 1.8GHz chip) was necessary for smooth playback at 1080p resolution.
a b à CPUs
May 22, 2008 10:04:53 PM

The OP DOES NOT CARE ABOUT HD. he is not playing back hd content. He is just doing video editing of SD video.

So all that Intergrated video on the chipsets means nada. I would go for the E7200 and just give a slight overlock(fsb 1333) or even leave it at stock myself.

Or look at benchmarks that use the editing programs you will use and see what fits ya best. It may be faster clocked cheaper intel dual core, Maybe a AMD quad.

Basically get the fastest cpu for encoding you can afford. quads will most likely be the fastest then the higher clocked intels/amds.

IMO not unless the AMD quads fall into your buget and peform well in the software you are going to use, I would steer clear of AMD all together for this build.
May 22, 2008 10:31:19 PM

@ someguy7
Intel E7200 looks better than AMD in tests & nis also affordable for me.

What MoBo & VGa would you recommend for Intel E7200 processor?
-
My Major priority is Video editing.
later comes some games.
May 23, 2008 3:13:33 AM

Just recently posted and got feedback on similar topic.

I edit HDV and it seems that speed is way more important than L2 cache on cpus as far as video is concerned, because you're not throwing any surprises at the chip. Therefore some intels (i just bought an e2180) are really affordable for the speed. 'Playback' is irrelevant, even a p4 has enough juice for that.

For SD you're only going to be "waiting" when you render color correction or other effects and output to Quicktime or whatever you export to. IMO 4 gigs of fast RAM is oh so worth it!
May 23, 2008 8:00:24 AM

After all of your Help & guidance I will buy :

HDD 250 GB SATA II (8MB CACHE) = $70.00
2 GB RAM DDR2 = $45.38

-
i mean for Video Editing purpose ONLY, No HD or Blu-Ray play backs.
ONLY for SD(no HD here also) DV Video Editing only.

so which will be better for faster rendering in "Adobe premier cs3" ??

=
NOW Im Planing to Buy:

Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 ( i want to OverClock it)
= $131.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
-

Plz help me in these followings (Which Stuff to buy with the above CPU?):

- MotherBoard (OverClock able)
- VGA cheap & able to play some games

May 23, 2008 2:13:30 PM

I would still side with an AMD system, personally for the following reasons:

1) Higher stock clock speed
2) Athlon X2s superior memory sub-system (higher bandwidth, faster access, which in a lot of cases is the determining factor for video encoding speed)
3) Superior onboard video with hardware-accelerated decoding (takes load off your CPU)

Having said that as my last AMD argument, if you're still wanting an Intel system here's my opinion on that:

Intel E7200 (9.5*266) overclocks to 3.8GHz - depending on sample - (9.5*400) before starting to overclock ram, which should be plenty fast enough - $132

Gigabyte EP35-DS3L - $90
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

SAPPHIRE 100237L Radeon HD 3650 512MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card - $62 after MIR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

and I would still go for 4GB of ram (regardless of OS), if it can fit into the budget:
Transcend 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model JM4GDDR2-8K - $72
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

and I would change your HDD selection to this:
Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD3200AAKS 320GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - $70
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
It's the exact same price as the one you've listed before and is much faster and higher capacity.

If the things I've listed above are beyond your budget, you could scale back by getting a DDR2 version of the HD 3650 or a 2600Pro/XT. Please trust me on the HDD, ram and motherboard selections, they are excellent choices.
May 23, 2008 2:57:01 PM

ERROR: "Budget" and "Video Editing" are not compatible goals. Believe me, I've tried it.

That said: For your purposes, you really ought to consider a quad of SOME sort. A Q6600 or a Phenom 9550 for around $195. I know that SSE4.1 offers tangible encoding improvements, but I don't know if SSE4a offers the same (I suspect not as much).

If you're going to do any sort of capturing from analog sources, do yourself a favor and buy a second hard drive, maybe even a third for a simple RAID0. Otherwise you'll probably find yourseld dropping a lot more frames than you'd care for.
May 23, 2008 4:24:43 PM

snarfies brings up a good point. Encoding is slowed greatly when your source and desination hard drives are the same, encoding from your primary onto a secondary can yield big improvements.

I'm not sure exactly what SSE4a is, please explain.

Ideally, yes, a Quad would be the best way to go, but the man has a budget and we must respect that and follow it.
May 23, 2008 7:19:46 PM

So it looks like AMD's 'SSE4a' actually adds a couple of functions that 4.1 does not include, in that respect, I believe it is more advanced.
May 23, 2008 7:57:41 PM

KyleSTL said:
So it looks like AMD's 'SSE4a' actually adds a couple of functions that 4.1 does not include, in that respect, I believe it is more advanced.


Uh. Read more closely. Yes, SSE4a adds three additional functions to SSE4. SSE4.1 adds 47 additional instructions. Please particularly note MPSADBW: "Compute eight offset sums of absolute differences (i.e. |x0-y0|+|x1-y1|+|x2-y2|+|x3-y3|, |x0-y1|+|x1-y2|+|x2-y3|+|x3-y4|, ...); this operation is extremely important for modern HDTV codecs, and (see [4]) allows an 8x8 block difference to be computed in fewer than seven cycles."

I looked at some benchmarks from Phenom's initial release: In DivX encoding the Phenom is 24% slower than the Q6600, which lacks any form of SSE4. Sad. Still a better choice than a duo. Mind you, a duo will do in a pinch... I was editing on a single core Athlon 64 for years. SLOWLY, but I was doing it.
May 23, 2008 8:05:31 PM

I see.
May 23, 2008 8:41:01 PM

thanks man. i do have budget problem.

i wanna buy Qauds but Budget wont allow me.
I will replace only the CPU at the end of 2008. ill have enough money to buy quad & they will be cheaper also.
May 23, 2008 8:51:50 PM

In that case, make do with an E2160 or E2180 and save the money for a Q9450 or Q9550 when the funds are more plentiful. It'll still encode SD very fast (i.e. realtime+), and you'll (probably) be able to afford a better quad in the near future.
May 23, 2008 10:22:41 PM

KyleSTL said:
In that case, make do with an E2160 or E2180 and save the money for a Q9450 or Q9550 when the funds are more plentiful. It'll still encode SD very fast (i.e. realtime+), and you'll (probably) be able to afford a better quad in the near future.



good man.
ill buy E2180 & OverClck it.
Later at the end of 2008 ill buy only the Quad CPU.

but tell me a good OverClocking MotherBoard which also works on Quads.

Asus p35 better
or
GigaByte p35 better??
May 24, 2008 12:10:58 AM

Gigabyte board can typically achieve higher FSBs (which is important for OCing 1333FSB quads). The more you spend the higher it will overclock.

I would suggest:
P35-DS4
X38-DS4 or X48-DS4
or P35-DS3L to stay in the lower price range (not as overclockable as the others, but can probably still do 425 with a quad - 3.4Ghz for Q9450 or 3.6Ghz for Q9550)

The DQ6 and DS5 boards will overclock higher (typically), but they are much more expensive.
May 25, 2008 12:20:00 PM

Im having problems...those are GiGaByte is Not Available in Pakistan.

only Asus, MSI & Intel Mobo Available in Pakistan.
only G33 chipset available in Pak,
p35 chipset only available in Intel MotherBoards NOT ASUS.
May 25, 2008 12:58:43 PM

plz help
May 25, 2008 1:05:40 PM

DevilMind said:
@ someguy7
Intel E7200 looks better than AMD in tests & nis also affordable for me.


If you don't work with other tasks when videos are rendered then Intel may be better for current video applications, but if you want to work with other applications waiting for one movie to be compressed then AMD is better. AMD runs smoother and when more than one application is running Intel will not be as good.
Intel is designed to run one application fast. Running more than one application is AMD territory.
May 25, 2008 1:22:49 PM

kassler said:
If you don't work with other tasks when videos are rendered then Intel may be better for current video applications, but if you want to work with other applications waiting for one movie to be compressed then AMD is better. AMD runs smoother and when more than one application is running Intel will not be as good.
Intel is designed to run one application fast. Running more than one application is AMD territory.


if im editing. i only edit.

meaning i only run 1 app at a time.
-.
so intel good for me.
but plz help me in getting a good overclockable motherboard.
a c 117 à CPUs
May 25, 2008 5:44:21 PM

DevilMind said:
if im editing. i only edit.

meaning i only run 1 app at a time.
-.
so intel good for me.
but plz help me in getting a good overclockable motherboard.


Gigabyte DS3L- either p31 or p35
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

I would consider an AMD 780g chipset. You can initially run (up to 2 monitors!) on the IGP and do some light gaming - then upgrade the video with the PCIe2 x16 slot.

Toms CPU Chart - Premiere
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/prem...

Premiere Pro 2.0
MPEG2 (24 Sec. HDTV 1920 x 1080) to (WMV9 (1920 x 1080))

q6600 = 154 sec
Phenom 9700 = 158 sec

Mainconcept H.264 Encoder
24 sec HDTV 1920x1080 mpeg2 (mpeg2 to H.264)

Phenom 9700 = 63 sec
q6600 = 69 sec

Divx 6.6.1
2 Minutes DVD Terminator 2 SE (Encoding 720x576 16:9 @ 25 fps)

q6600 = 90 sec
Phenom 9700 = 96 sec

Premiere with the MainConcept encoder would seem to be ""the ticket""
May 27, 2008 1:54:17 AM

If you plan on overclocking do NOT get an Intel board. Most G33/G35 boards will overclock about the same, I'd stick with Asus from the ones you mentioned.
!