Computer Setup Question

studioLord wrote on 5/11/2006, 1:06 PM
I was wondering what some of you are running to get good playback while editing on VMS. Being new to digital video, I realize that I was misinformed as to speed (CPU) , RAM, Video card.. etc when I purchased VMS + DVDA Platinum. I have a 900 MHz Athlon w/ 11024 Ram and an InVidia GeForce FX5700LE card and both "C" & "D" drives.
I was hoping someone out there could recommend a decent system. I have a friend that has a 2.4G w/ 80G drive/ 512 RAM, wanting to sell it to me. Would that be adequate for good playback while editing and working in DVDA? And would it support dual monitor setup as well?
Thanks
John

Comments

soaringrocks wrote on 5/11/2006, 3:02 PM
That's a pretty open ended question...

Is a 2.4G (something) better than a 900MHz Athlon? Probably, I would recommend you upgrate the system to 1024 RAM though (watch your memory usage during a render, if you go over your physical memory space the render speed really, really slows down. Maybe enough to eliminate any performance gain from the faster processor).

Is the friend's system a good deal? I usually use the Dell web site as a starting point for low-end price checks (their more premier systems are not as good of a deal). I found a E310 desktop at www.dell.com/tv for $589 with the following.
- 2.8GHz with Hyperthreading (which helps VMS render time)
- 1G RAM
- 80G hard disk
- CD/DVD burner
-17" monitor (you can sell this on craigs list for $50-$75)
- New with 1yr warranty

I'm NOT suggesting you go out an buy this PC, I'm just saying that as a price point that means at if your friends used system is in good condition, it's worth 'maybe' $300-$350 tops.

I don't think VMS does any processing offload to a graphics card, so there will be little render or usage difference between a good or not so good card. For games, of course, it matters a lot.

Hope this helps.
studioLord wrote on 5/14/2006, 2:37 PM
Thanks for the input... I was more or less asking about the "speed" of the 2.4G while editing.... I know rendering is a pain...
I see the tutor doing some changes on the screen and when I do the same change, the computer all but grinds to a screeching halt and throws up in my lap ... (okay, that was a bit much, I know... sorry)
My point ...
I would like to be able to see the changes in real time as opposed to waitng for "the final version" to come out after render... burn.... lunch ....
The computer in question is less than $350... so I know it's a "good deal".... I just want to be able to edit in real time.
Thanks for your answer...
John
TLF wrote on 5/14/2006, 11:34 PM
Fi you are having problems with real time editing, you can selectively render parts of a movie. This is especially useful if you have applied several effects.

Select the part you want to view, then press Shift + M (selectively pre-render). This will greatly improve preview performnace, though you will have to wait for the rendering to complete.

Worley
Andy C wrote on 5/15/2006, 2:25 AM
I use a couple of PCs with VMS: a 2.2Ghz and a 3.06Ghz (both Intel). They both have 768MB RAM. Whilst the 2.2 is more than adequate for real time editing it can't beat the 3.06 (with Hyperthreading) for rendering.
If you're not worried about render times then your friend's 2.4 will be fine, but as previous posters have said, you might want to increase the RAM to 1024 and add another drive for video work. 300GB drives are cheap - it will also benefit your Window's performance to have two drives.
As regards dual monitors, Windows will automatically extend your desktop onto any other video card you care to add. You might end up with the primary card in the AGP slot and the secondary one in a PCI slot, but that's fine. You can always swap the primary and secondary displays at will within Windows. It works well; I have that config on another of my machines.
Finally, my 3.06Mhz machine used to be the same spec as your friend's. I then bought the CPU upgrade for about £100/$180 and it made a big difference.
Good luck.