Custom building a fast machine for video editing

lorengd wrote on 2/17/2004, 2:22 PM
I'm currently using Screenblast Movie Studio 3.0, and I was noticing that it takes about ten minutes to render a 2 minute video. I currently have a 1.1 GHz Pentium 3 Processor and 256 MB Ram, and am running Windows ME (Windows Mulitple Errors). I'm now planning on personally custom building myself a new computer. This is both for the experience, and because I've heard that this is cheaper. My question, however, is what sort of processor, hard drive, memory, OS, etc should I get? What of these various things actually makes a difference in the amount of time I have to sit around twittling my thumbs? Also, how does Screenblast 3.0 compare with other video production software out on the market for a similar price?

Comments

Chienworks wrote on 2/17/2004, 2:31 PM
The processor speed is the single largest hardware influence on rendering time. If you want faster renders then spend most of your money on the fastest processesor you cat get. A motherboard with a fast buss and fast RAM will help some, but not a huge amount. After 256MB the amount of memory you have won't make much difference either, unless you like to do lots of other things on your computer while you're rendering. Then again, doing lots of other things on your computer while rendering will slow your renders down anyway.
lorengd wrote on 2/17/2004, 3:01 PM
Ya, that's kind of the idea that I have been getting from reading around on here, that I should really focus on the processor. What kind of processor should I get though AMD (Athlon, Duron, Athlon Xp, etc) or Intel (Pentium or Celeron)?
Thanks for the help
csantelman wrote on 2/17/2004, 3:10 PM
FWIW

I have a Pentim 4 - 2.8 GHz Hyper Threaded
1 Gig PC2700 Memory
320 Gig HD - (120 gig + 160 gig + 40 gig) 7200 RPM drives on IDE bus
XP Home edition

And when I make a MPEG-2 file from my DV-AVI files - it takes over 2 hours to render a 90 minute video with minimal effects/transitions. With that in mind, I've noticed some interesting things...

First of all, my processors aren't at 100% when I render - in the windows task manager, I actually see 2 different graphs (due to the hyper threaded processor) - one runs around 80-90% and the other is usually below 60%. So after a point - my processor isn't being used to it's fullest potential.

So what is it waiting on - the disk drives! I would bet that if I had a faster disk array (SCSI-2 or fiber-channel) - my rendering times would drop. But that would blow the cost factor out the window.

Just my observations...
lorengd wrote on 2/17/2004, 3:39 PM
Well so far, I don't think that my computer is up to that level, but I guess I should keep that in mind when getting hard drives and what not. By the way, do you figure that the bottle-neck is in the IDE ribbons, the hard drives themselves, the bus, or something else. Also, what do you mean by hyper threaded, is that something that I should try to get when I get my processor. Also, any ideas on checking the processor use in Windows Me, it's similar to 98, so if anyone knows anything that worked then, it should work with Me too. One other question for everyone, does it slow a harddrive down, if it is plugged into an IDE slot on a PCI card, rather than being plugged directly into the motherboard. For example, if I plugged a harddrive into something like the following PCI card: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=15-104-214&depa=0. Thanks for the help.
djcc wrote on 2/17/2004, 6:30 PM
Please, please do not take this the wrong way, but if you are not familiar with intels HT technology, and you are not sure about the ramifications of using a pci card vs. a controller built into the mother board, are you sure you really want to be building your own box?

There are plenty of decent white box producers out there if you want to go that route.... and if anything does not function as expected, you might have better recourse than if you did it yourself....

I think you do well with the majors - Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, Sony, etc... but if you want to save a few bucks, look around at some of the white box folks... they vary greatly by region. I know someone who swears by www.krex.com, but I have no personal experience with them.

Again, please do not take this the wrong way.... you could be an ace at putting these things together - they are, afterall, very modular.... but you are trying to improve your present situation, but you are headed down a road that will introduce MANY variables.... regardless, best of luck on your decision.
csantelman wrote on 2/17/2004, 7:47 PM
I agree with the post by djcc - it might be better to just purchase a pre-assembled system. My system is a Sony VIAO from Best Buy, granted I added memory & hard disk, but otherwise stock.

And let me tell you, it does everything I want it too and more.

But, inorder to solve the disk throughput issue, I would need to take my second hard drive and attach it to another IDE controller inside of the case. I don't mean attaching it to the same ribbon - a whole new IDE card. But here is where I haven't done the research yet - you can't just purchase a low end IDE card - the card needs to be designed to work as a seperate (seconde) IDE card inside the box.

I'm not frustrated enough yet to go that step. Give me six months.
lorengd wrote on 2/17/2004, 8:18 PM
Admittedly I still have a bit to learn about creating high end machines. I know a far amount about putting machines together, I just don't know as much about where bottle necks lie and how to keep up the speed. Anyways, no one really answered my question about the PCI to IDE card. Is something like what I'm looking at going to work, or what would I need?
csantelman wrote on 2/18/2004, 5:22 AM
I'm not sure how to respond here...

IDE on motherboard
Pros : traffic doesn't get placed on PCI bus - so it could be faster.
Cons : not upgrade able

IDE on PCI card
Pros : can have multiple controllers - upgradeable
Cons : I/O traffic must go on PCI bus - not as fast

You might want to check out Tom's Hardware site http://www.tomshardware.com/index.html - this site performs alot of technical research on hardware.
cbrillow wrote on 2/18/2004, 5:43 AM
In my opinion, you should remove from consideration all but Pentium 4 and Athlon XP.

1) Just plain "Athlon" refers to older, slower series chips. The current faster ones are Athlon XP

2) Celeron (Intel) and Duron (AMD) are budget versions of their respective lines, with lower amounts of on-chip cache. They are good processors, but you want all the performance you can squeeze out for video work.

I have an Athlon XP 2600+ (with Barton core) and I'm very satisfied with it. It represented a good cost/performance ratio, with the CPU running just a little over $100. If you look at Tom'sHardware Guide, you'll probably find that the absolute top performers are the fastest Pentium 4s, but it's a close race. The newest Pentiums also offer great potential with Hyperthreading, but your software has to be capable of using that before you'll see any advantage.

I went through what you're contemplating -- building a system from scratch -- just two months ago. I'm happy with it, but when I walk through Best Buy or Circuit City, I feel like an idiot. Though I bought most of my components from newegg.com, I still have considerably more $ into this than I could pay for a ready-built, near-equivalent machine from one of those retailers. And those systems are complete with keyboard, mouse, monitor, etc. I paid for a cpu & an operating system, sans all the extras. It's difficult these days to save significant $ by rolling your own.

There are a couple of advantages to what I did that are almost worth the extra money: I have a complete operating system disk, not some kind of chintzy "recovery disk" like you get with many pre-built systems, and I completely controlled the software that was loaded -- none of that AOL/MSN/Musicmatch bloatware crap that pollutes most systems that you buy. This keeps you from uninstalling a lot of garbage that you didn't want in the first place.

Good luck in your pursuit!
csantelman wrote on 2/18/2004, 6:56 AM
Another good site for computer parts is : http://www.pricewatch.com/

Roadkyng wrote on 2/18/2004, 10:33 AM
Hyperthreading is an Intel spec for allowing the CPU to perform psuedo "mutli-tasking". It is primarily designed for users that will have more than one substantial application running at the same time, but do not have the need or cash to buy a mutiprocessor machine.

Another consideration is the chip set on the mother board. You must match the CPU / Chipset / MB combination carefully. Some RAM types will only work with certain chipsets (single channel vs dual channel). Performance of the system can be greatly affected by the chipset.

As far as the IDE bus, be sure your HD that you intend to do your video on is on it's own IDE channel, or it is the master. A HD that is slaved with a CD-ROM on the IDE may run at the same transfer speed as the CD-ROM drive.
Roadkyng wrote on 2/18/2004, 10:40 AM
One thing about building your own is you can choose what components to use - as you did. I've built several and they usually do cost more than the Best Buy special. But I usually have better components.

We have 3 networked computers in our house. When I upgrade something in mine I slide the other components to my kids. My 4 year old has a PIII 650 that he can go to the DIsney sites and play his edu games. I have Win 98SE on it because I can get tons of software for 10 bucks or less.

There are advantages to building one of your own but saving money is not one of them
lorengd wrote on 2/18/2004, 1:50 PM
That's strange, cause I have a whole bunch of computer friends, and many of them say that you can get a much better system for your money by building it yourself. They also say that it ends up being more upgradable.
Stiffler wrote on 2/18/2004, 11:29 PM
I agree with Racer. Generally it will cost you more, but by putting one together, you know that you are putting in good name brand parts.

When I built my first one, all I had to buy was a case, motherboard, and a CPU (about $300). Then I gutted my old computer for the rest of the parts and slowly upgraded the rest of the stuff when I could afford it.

Get a nice case that will give you some options for upgrading in the future, like lots of space for hard drives and stuff.

AMD vs. P4? I went with the Athlon because I got more bang for the buck at the time.

NaperRick wrote on 2/19/2004, 6:03 AM
I would agree with most of what has been said so far - comparing basic requirements you can't really beat the price of the big guys (Dell, etc) but you can, for an equivalent price, get build a much better machine. For example, the high performance Dell machines use the Intel 875 chip set but their mobo's do not include onboard support for RAID. Most 875-based mobos include that. Many of the additional items they include are OEM versions of commercially available items (video and sound cards, CD and DVD drives, etc). These OEM versions typically are missing features or require special drivers. I built my first machine about 6 months ago and paid about the same as the equivalent Dell box but I got brand name additional items that were not OEM versions (my Intel D875PBZ mobo had on board RAID support, for example and my Video board (ATI AIW 9000) Sound Board (Creative Audigy), DVD burner (Sony 510A) were all non-OEM version with full support from the manufacturer.
The biggest downside though, is I spent quite a bit of time researching components because it's up to you to determine what will would together successfully - you have full control of what goes in the box and also have full control of any mistakes. If you are in a big hurry to get a new PC and have never built one before I would caution you about undertaking a build.
It's not the same as slapping in a new video board in an existing PC. I have worked with computers all my career, upgrading memory, audio and video card, adding hard drives, even did a few processor upgrades but building a new computer from parts you choose is a lot more challenging. It's not rocket science but it will require some research and learning. The good news is there are many websites that can provide assistance both before, during and after the build. For me, the build was a complete success but I spents weeks doing research, spents a couple of weeks acquiring the parts and reading all the literature that comes with the parts and them took about 3 days to actually put everything together. The time consuming stuff was things you never really think about - how to route power cables - plugging in the miriad of little cables for the frot panel connectors and controls - determining the correct order to operating system and drivers. Some things you have to do right the first time (installing the heat sync on the processor - since it will destroy the processor in seconds if installed incorrectly) and other things you can correct after the fact.
Sorry for the long post - you can can get a great PC that has just what you want of a price similar (but probably not less) to the purchased PC's but take your time, learn what you can before your start.
Rick