Dell Studio XPS Core i7 for Video Encoders

Xander wrote on 11/18/2008, 6:56 AM

I am glad to have waited before buying a new PC. I still have a Dell XPS Gen 5 (Pentium 840D 3.2GHz) and it is running strong but it is starting to show it age, especially when it comes to rendering. Will definitely take a look at this when I am finally ready to retire the ole Dell.

I would increase the memory to either 8 or 12 GB and increase the processor speed to 2.93 GHz. Lose the TV Tuner if you need to save on cost. The 2408WFP includes a 9-in-2 media card reader so you could also lose the FLOPPY & MEDIA READER.

TeetimeNC wrote on 11/18/2008, 9:37 AM

Xander, I also am on an old XPS Pentium 4, 3GHz so looking forward to a speedup. Especially with this AVCHD.

Good tip re the media reader. I will also probably remove the TV tuner.

I am hoping with Tri-Channel DDR3 SDRAM that 6GB is enough. I saw some test renders (not Vegas) with the 920 and 3GB - faster than the Core 2 Quad Extreme.

Going to 12Gb memory and 2.93 GHz would add about $800 to the cost. I'll have to think about that.

Jerry

Hulk wrote on 11/18/2008, 11:11 AM

I wouldn't even consider upping the RAM to 12GB. 6GB is plenty. I've never seen a benchmark that shows more than 4GB showing a significant speed increase in video apps unless you are running 20 applications while editing and even then it ain't the memory that's the problem generally but the CPU demand.

I suggest building with the 920 and doing a nice conservative overclock to 3.2GHz. That 920 has an 8x multi, move the FSB from 333 to 400, still within all specs, and you're good to go at 3.2. I would bet you might not even have to up the voltage, just get a better cooler.

That's what I plan to do.

- Mark

TeetimeNC wrote on 11/18/2008, 11:34 AM

Hey Mark, can't overclock the 920 afaik. I think only the highest end quad Nehalem can be overclocked. Also, no FSB on these babies.

I think you are correct on the memory.

Jerry

rs170a wrote on 11/18/2008, 12:55 PM

Jerry , I trust that you plan to add at least two more hard drives (one for captures and one for edited masters) to this.

Mike

Hulk wrote on 11/18/2008, 12:56 PM

The multi is locked on the 920 like any other non Extreme Intel CPU. but you can still overclock it via Bclk.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=15

Anandtech got 3.8GHz 24/7 stable with 1.5Vcore, which the the max Intel recommends.

I personally would go with a lower voltage and a 3.2 or so o/c. I'll take my $1000 CPU for $316 thanks.

Once prices on boards and memory come down a bit and we get a few BIOS revisions (I don't like to beta test motherboards) I'm going to pick up an Asus P6T, 920, and 3GB of DDR3 1600. It'll be a nice upgrade from my 2.16 C2D o/c to 3.2 I've been running for the past two years.

- Mark

Jeff9329 wrote on 11/18/2008, 1:20 PM

I would build your own unless you need a totally new machine.

To update a machine with everything else operating:

1. i7 2.66 CPU = $314
2. 2 X 2GB DDR3 1066 =$299
3. Asus P6T MB = $299

$912

Add a SSD for the OS $595
Im suprised Dell dosen't have a SSD option.

$1,507

You are ready to rock.

JJKizak wrote on 11/18/2008, 1:24 PM

I would be satisfied with about 32 gig of memory for doing HDV 32 bit rolling text with 2K jpg background stills, 3D motion composites, etc. without Vegas choking on it. Six gig of memory just is not going to cut it for all the high-fallootin memory consumption involved with the new stuff in Vegas. Heck, Lucas has a whole football sized room full of computers for rendering. (76,000 processors)
JJK

Hulk wrote on 11/18/2008, 2:16 PM

JJK,

I've never seen any benchmarks showing memory over 3or 4GB showing video editing/rendering improvements and I've been studying this for a long time. In fact the cheaper chips with smaller L1 caches don't show much performance difference either with video editing and rendering either from all the tests I've seen. Games is where large L1 CPU cache pays off. And hard drive speed generally doesn't have an impact either unless you are working with uncompressed HD, or have a really old drive. Most modern drives are quite fast. And of course the GPU does nothing to speed up Vegas.

Just get a new 7200RPM drive, video card that has the features you want, min 3GB memory - remember we're dealing with DDR3 and need to install in sets of three now, NOT pairs, and a Quad core CPU that runs at high frequency and you're set.

I believe this recommendation will be good for 99% of Vegas users that don't do uncompressed HD. The only thing one may want to consider is 3x2GB DDR3 memory if you want to memory overhead for having lots of apps open.

Vegas needs CPU cycles. Just have enough memory so it isn't starved and put your money in lots of cores at high frequency.

Of course I don't know it all but that is my recommendation. Take it for what you paid for it!

- Mark

TeetimeNC wrote on 11/18/2008, 3:10 PM

Hey Jeff, I like the way you are thinking. Unfortunately there were a several other things in the OTS Dell system that I would need to add to my existing Pentium 4, 3GHz system to make it functional. Here is the more complete list:

1. i7 2.66 CPU = $314
2. 3 X 2GB DDR3 1066 = $450
3. Asus P6T MB = $299
4. BluRay burner = $200
5. 1TB SATA HD = $120
6. 512MB Ati Radeon HD 4850 = $200
7. Vista Home Premium 64 bit = $100
8. Dell 24 2408WFP monitor = $540
9. Power Supply?

Total: at least $2223, which is more than the new Dell.

>To update a machine with everything else operating:$912

TeetimeNC wrote on 11/18/2008, 3:20 PM

Mike, I have some SATA drives - I would put one of those in the 2nd available bay. I'm now shooting AVCHD so there is no real capture anymore. Here is how I'm thinking I would set it up:

HD 1: Small partition for OS and programs, Large partition for projects and render.

HD2: All source materials

I will archive projects to external drives when finished. This is similar to how I operate now. I do not intend to use RAID.

Jerry

?Jerry , I trust that you plan to add at least two more hard drives (one for captures and one for edited masters) to this.

TeetimeNC wrote on 11/18/2008, 3:22 PM

Mark, I think you are right. I may opt to go with 3GB, rather than 6.

Jerry

>I've never seen any benchmarks showing memory over 3or 4GB showing video editing/rendering improvements and I've been studying this for a long time.

Hulk wrote on 11/18/2008, 4:07 PM

Jerry,

The Asus P6T has six memory slots so you can go with 3x1GB=3GB now and if you feel the need to upgrade you can add another 3 or 6GB and keep your old memory and any benefits that come with tri channel.

And we all know the volatility of the memory market. In a few months you might be able to pick up 6GB for $100.

I like to spend my money on a really good motherboard.
Good, but not great memory. Some sticks that will do 1600 at decent timings with a little headroom and not a lot of voltage.
A really good power supply that is sized to my power requirement so it operates at peak efficiency. No use buying a 600W power supply if your max load will be 300-400 Watts, which is generally what most Quads will draw full tilt if they are no overclocked like mad. It's only when you get into serious overclocks combined with dual 3D cards running wide open while gaming that one sees big watts needed. If you run a big power supply at low draw it isn't very efficient. I like Seasonic personally, around 400Watts does it.

Good luck with the build and let us know how it goes.

- Mark

JJKizak wrote on 11/18/2008, 4:33 PM

Hulk:
Put 550 Jpg 5 meg stills on the timeline (NTSC 4 x 3) and fade them all together with 1 second fades and set the options to 10 second stills duration. Then render to DVD. (MPEG2 Default) Vegas will choke on the first 10 stills.
Choke means the render will stop and hang because it ran out of memory. Add more memory and it will render further then choke again.
These are the physical laws and constants that exist in out Milky Way Galaxy. But don't feel bad as I am usually wrong.

JJK

TeetimeNC wrote on 11/18/2008, 5:09 PM

Doesn't matter... the audience will be asleep after the first 50.

>Put 550 Jpg 5 meg stills on the timeline (NTSC 4 x 3) and fade them all together with 1 second fades and set the options to 10 second stills duration. Then render to DVD. (MPEG2 Default) Vegas will choke on the first 10 stills.

jabloomf1230 wrote on 11/18/2008, 6:22 PM

The Core i7 with an x58 mobo is the machine to buy unless you want to go into server territory & dual quad CPUs. I have already scoped out the components to build my own Core i7 system, but I am more in the $4K price range, because of a Lian Li case, a Power & PC PSU, 12 GB of RAM, an ASUS mobo, a different graphics card and the 940 CPU (2.93 GHz).

But that Dell system should serve you well, for NLE and compositing work. We look forward to you posting your HDV render time, using John Cline's benchmark. The only caution that I would throw out there is that the PC market is very weak for high end machines at the moment and the prices might drop a bit, if the demand doesn't pick up soon.

Hulk wrote on 11/18/2008, 11:00 PM

JJK,

Like I said "for 99% of Vegas users."

Using that reasoning I should always wear a helmet when I'm outside because at any moment some flying debris could come at me.

Or drive a tank day to day.... just in case.

Or pad all the floors and walls in my house in case I trip and fall.

Or wear steel mesh gloves whenever I handle a knife while preparing food.

You get the point.

I'm actually burning a High School Reunion video project right now for a client and it contains a 20 minute video and a slideshow with about 250 jpegs. My puny 2GB system rendered it no problem.

When I get a project that requires more RAM I'll buy more RAM. Until then I will enjoy the bliss of my ignorance. If you have spare slots available a RAM upgrade is probably the easiest system change.

- Mark

ushere wrote on 11/19/2008, 1:17 AM

jjk,

just in passing, if all you're doing is banging x number of stills on the t/l and doing dissolves between them...

a. why 5 meg pics?

b. why jpg and not png (which vegas handles flawlessly)?

curious...

leslie

OGUL wrote on 11/19/2008, 2:12 AM

Which one is more suitable for HDV editing and burning BD discs?

Dell Studio XPS Core i7 for Video Encoders or
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-VGN-AW160J-18-4-Inch-Processor-Blu-ray/dp/B001FB6T6W/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1227089229&sr=8-2

JJKizak wrote on 11/19/2008, 5:32 AM

ushere:
I only used that as an example to show how to choke Vegas. I normally use jpgs not more than 500k
in size which Vegas can handle without any problems. This is what I end up with after scanning a 35mm slide at 1200 dpi which comes out about 5 meg, then save it as jpg which reduces the size to about 500k.
JJK

Jeff9329 wrote on 11/19/2008, 6:20 AM

Jerry:

I agree with you that it is more expensive to build a machine from the ground up. You do get some better individual parts, but a Dell build is usually troublefree and they have nice quiet & effective cooling systems.

Jerry/Mark

It seems to be shown over and over that lots of memory in Vegas does not help. I recently had a memory problem (related to OCing and a new bios version) and started experimenting and benchmarking between a paltry 2 & 4GB RAM with Vegas. There was no difference. I do understand every system is different, so maybe some systems work better with Vegas and more RAM, but it could also be the way Vegas uses RAM.

The Intel Nehalem demo systems that wowed everybody all had 3 GB of RAM. I don't know why, but bigger RAM modules were available and they also had three more slots to populate. Im pretty sure that smaller RAM modules and running in a single dual (DDR2 systems) or tri (DDR3 systems) channel mode can obtain faster data throughput when overclocking.

I would go with the default/no cost memory option as long as it is at least 3 GB for now. When memory comes down a little, populate the other 3 slots with whatever size modules you want.

Jeff

Hulk wrote on 11/19/2008, 9:17 AM

Jeff you are right on. In addition as the modules get larger, i.e. 1GB to 2GB it is harder to maintain timing accuracy. Same goes when you poplulate all slots. So a system that was running fine with 2x1GB might throw strange errors with 2x2GB. Memory errors are a mess as they can be tough to troubleshoot. Like motherboard and powersupply problems. Well actually PS problems usually exhibit as random reboots.

Anyway my theory is to buy memory with speed at least as high as you will go and timings that are actually higher than where you will use them giving a little bit of leeway when you're in the middle of that 12 hour render and really stressing the heck out of it.

Dell systems are generally fantastic from my experience. Dell thoroughly goes through all components and makes sure there are no conflicts. The downside is that you are locked into Dell's proprietary hardware and upgrades can be difficult. For example the Dell motherboards require Dell power supplies.

And of course you can't overclock and that is a big drawback in my opinion in these days of Intel having great process technology with lots of headroom. Like I said I've been running my E6400 o/c to 3.2GHz for nearly two years. That's 2.1GHz to 3.2GHz. After the initial setup where I checked the limits of the chip at various voltages and temps and settled on my current settings I have had no hardware problems at no. None, nada, zip, zero. This computer is as stable as any Dell system (maybe more as I've never had a hardware problem) I've ever owned.

Okay back to editing...

Mark

Jøran Toresen wrote on 11/19/2008, 10:04 AM

This test might be relevant:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/corsair-triple-channel-ddr3,6614.html

Jøran Toresen

Steve Mann wrote on 11/20/2008, 10:44 PM

Maximum PC Magazine did a benchmark test using the i7 Extreme. You can see the whole review on their web site, but here's the relevant conclusion:

"The Upshot

If we had to describe the Core i7 in one word, it would be monster. The CPU is to benchmarks as Godzilla is to downtown Tokyo.

Take, for example, the Core i7 Extreme 965 versus the Phenom X4 9950 Black Edition. It’s no surprise that the Core i7 throws the Phenom X4 through a couple of concrete walls and right into a telephone pole. We witnessed performance differences of 87 percent, 95 percent, and even 133 percent over the fastest Phenom X4 part. AMD’s best and brightest part was utterly crushed by Intel’s new baby. Naturally, some folks will argue that it’s unfair to put a $1,000 chip against one that sells for $174, but we don’t feel that way. The Phenom X4 9950BE is AMD’s fastest CPU. If AMD doesn’t feel comfortable selling it at higher clocks, that’s AMD’s problem. Sure, we could overclock the Phenom part to 3GHz, but we could also overclock the Core i7. In the interest of a more competitive landscape, let’s just hope AMD’s 45nm CPU—due out soon—puts some pep back in the company’s step because the situation is getting beyond ugly.

A more closely matched fight was expected between the Core i7-965 Extreme Edition and Intel’s own Core 2 Extreme QX9770, both of which churn along at 3.2GHz. Nevertheless, the Core i7 managed to maul its sibling in several benchmarks. In our MainConcept H.264 encoding test, the Core i7 was 55 percent faster. In ProShow Producer, the Core i7 completed its runs about 25 percent faster. Using WinRAR to compress a folder of digital RAW files, the Core i7 was 43 percent faster. In other tests, especially gaming, the QX9770 closed the spread down to single digits, but for the most part, the Core i7 was from 14 to 20 percent faster than its Penryn counterpart."