If you're planning on using large amounts of RAM then ECC RAM is worth considering. You need a mobo that supports it though. RAM through no fault of its own is not the most reliable, less so than a hard disk. At least hard disks have error detection and correction, typically RAM does not so a single bit can be flipped and nothing is the wiser.

Bob.

First off, you might want to start off with a 64-bit OS running 32-bit Vegas if you find that there isn't enough support for the 64-bit drivers at this time. You can always install 64-bit Vegas at a later time.

For #1: From your HW profile you indicate you have XP. Vista and Windows 7 have a larger memory footprints and I think that 4 MB is the bare minimum if I recall an article I read. I have 6 MB with Vista 64 and I haven't maxed out yet according to the performance monitors. Much depends on how many concurrent applications you plan on running.

With regard to #2 and #3: If you stay with your current MB in the interest of saving money, you will find that there are a good number of powerfull processors you could get (particularly the QX6800). On the negative side, these processors are hard to find since they are an older technology. See Intel's compatability chart:
http://processormatch.intel.com/COMPDB/SearchResult.aspx?Boardname=d975xbx2

#4: Your video card does not really play a critical role in NLE applications unless the software specifically leverages the abilities of the GPU. There are only a few of them out there and they are generally compositing tool (Boris Blue for example). Again, you can try the current card and upgrade later if you need to.

As for Bob's thoughts on ECC RAM, I think that it is important if you are running a corporate server and I have also been a fan of it over the years. However, I think that memory technology has very greatly improved over the years and I no longer feel it is essential. When is the last time that you had a memory fault? Besides, it think that i7 MBs do not support ECC but I may be mistaken.

Peter

I recently went to Vista 64 bit. I had built my computer about a year and a half ago using XFX nForce 680i LT SLI Socket 775 mobo, Intel Quad Core Kentsfield 2.4Ghz Q6600, XFX GeForce 8600 GT 512MB video card and 4 gigs of RAM. At that time I installed Vista 32 bit. A month ago I pre-ordered Windows 7 with the intention of going 64 bit. But I am impatient and decided to order Vista 64 bit, 4 more gigs of RAM, and a 1 TB hard drive. I pulled my old system drive, put in the 1 TB, did an install of Vista 64 with SP1, spent a couple of hours downloading and installing Windows updates, and then installed my additional RAM. Everything works and once I get Windows 7, I will upgrade to that. I haven't had any problems with drivers or software so far. I thought this was more economical than doing a brand new build with an i7. All my hardware was relatively new and I could not justify spending the money for all new parts. For a couple hundred dollars I feel I have extended the use of this machine for 2 - 4 more years. But I have to say I am a hobbyist and probably don't push my computer the way some of the others on this board do.

I can tell you for a fact that Excalibur, NewBlue, and Ultimate S are all 64-bit compatible.

"When is the last time that you had a memory fault?"

ECC is not enough to protect you from hard memory faults. There is technology available for that but that is strictly for mission critical applications. What ECC protects you from is soft memory errors i.e. random bits getting flipped by cosmic radiation and from what I read this is fairly common. There's nothing in the design of RAM that can prevent this although the switch to 'old' lead in solder might have helped some research shows it's not alpha particles causing the problem so that switch may have achieved nothing.

The problem is that the data is stored as a charge on very tiny capacitors. That charge is very vulnerable to outside influences. RAM with parity permits errors to be detected, ECC RAM can correct single bit errors and detect multiple bit errors. One thing that does seem to have improved is the speed of ECC RAM and the added cost is pretty minor although the mobos that support it and large amounts of RAM are expensive.

Same mobos also seem to have fast / wide busses which could be of some benefit for processing video. Other attraction with this class of PC is they usually come with on-site support and although all this does cost a lot it is a very nice feeling when someone does turn up quickly and does fix the problem.

Bob.

Mem test will tell you if you have problems with your memory - I have never had ECC and never had any problems rendering or with any applications - ECC is good if you are doing critical engineering work like finite element analysis but is hardly worh the additional cost in any home application including video editting (my opinion).

See below.
MEM test checks for hard errors. RAM will always get soft errors and that's what ECC corrects for. How do you know you've never had one. If you get one the impact might be only a single pixel the wrong color or the OS could crash. Reboot and the problem is gone until the next random soft error.
I do agree ECC RAM can be overkill but the probability of a soft error is a function of the amount of RAM. When we're talking about systems with 16 or 32GB of RAM we're already talking about mobos that support ECC RAM.

Bob.

Bob, good point on the more RAM the more chances for error - it does increase the odds of a soft error - that said I have 8gb and havent' ever had the OS crash - and I have never seen anything in video or photos to indicate there might be an error. For sure, not seeing doesn't mean it's not there - If there's a pixel the wrong color I probably wouldn't notice it - but then again if I don't notice it do I care? One frame with one off pixel is not really an issue is it? Probably less noticable than missing one blade of grass when mowing your lawn in the scheme of things. I don't think many people running vegas has more than 12GB of RAM - you'd need a server MB for more than that using ECC RAM and it wouldn't probably work as well as a desktop computer with 12GB. So for sure not arguing the point of errors - it's more about practial need for ECC in a rendering computer. I think we are agreed, right? :)

Out of curiosity - for the people who are installing 12-16GB on their 64-bit systems: Have you monitored RAM usage on your system via Windows' Performance Monitor? What's the peak usage with Vegas in full workload?

Bob, I'm not trying to be a wiseguy, but if most memory errors are due to particle radiation would we not benefit significantly with some lead shielding around the memory modules? I don't know off hand how thick it would have to be to absorb the energy of cosmic rays but for x-rays I think that foil is enough.

Peter

"So for sure not arguing the point of errors - it's more about practial need for ECC in a rendering computer. I think we are agreed, right? :) "

Yes, rendering puts as high a load on a computer as it will ever see.
A few years back I bought a Supermicro system and at times it'd run for weeks just rendering and never missed a beat with Vegas.

If I was still doing that amount of work I'd replace / upgrade that machine to 8 cores and bucket load of RAM but most of that would be for running apps other than Vegas. Given that I don't do that kind of work anymore I'm more inclined to spend the money on a Herman Miller or Recaro chair.

Bob.

I researched a QX6800 Quad processor... first of all they're hard to find, and the ones I saw were just as much as one of the new i7 Quad processors. I need to decide if I'll just buy one of the cheaper Quad processors & more RAM to use with my current motherboard until the prices drop for the quicker i7's, or take the leap and buy a new motherboard/a new i7.

As far as investing in more RAM is concerned, most of the older boards use DDR2 while the newer ones usually use DDR3.

I am considering upgrading from my Q6600 to an i7 920. Sandra gives it almost 100 % improvement on many of the benchmarks over the Q6600. A near doubling of the performance is significant and a criteria I usually use for upgrades. I am also considering going to SSD drives in Raid0 for the OS. Prices are below Raptors right now and will drop further. If you stick with keeping only your OS and applications on the SSDs, they will last for a long time. Then, put your data on Raid0 3G Sata drives. Terrabyte drives are less than $100 each. Of course, get the fastest DDR3 memory you can and at least 8 GB. Video cards are not significant for video editing, except they should support dual monitors. So, reuse your old card. The only complaint I have right now is that the motherboards available now are overkill. Most are SLI or server boards, neither of which is necessary for my purposes. However, that should change in the near future.

Good luck,
Guy

I was tempted by SSD for booting until I read a rather long article that reported a quite large drop in performance after a few months. It seems that one can't effectively defrag those drives, and the constant writing/re-writing that Windows performs (for cache, etc.) results in gross fragmentation. The expensive ones do some magic tricks to keep the problems within bounds somewhat, and are faster than a pair of RAID0 blacks (spinning, as I recall, at 10K), and faster still than a single 15K Seagate (as I recall); but just don't expect miracles.

I ended up going with the i7 920 and DX58SO Intel motherboard, and 6 GB RAM. The RAM killed me, because I wasn't aware that you have to buy all new RAM (DDR3).

I also don't understand how people are getting more than 6 GB RAM with the i7... it comes in matching blocks of 2 GB, unless you want to pay a fortune for 4 GB modules.

My i7 motherboard has 6 memory simm slots (ASUS P6T6 Workstation Revolution) and can hold up to 24 GB. I currently have 6 GB (3 x 2MB) and still have 3 slots open.

By the way, I did warn you that you will have to use DDR3 memory earlier in this thread.

Aah... that you did. I must have conveniently overlooked that when I was explaining to my wife that I only needed a new motherboard for this. Hopefully I catch the UPS truck and open the box before she gets home tomorrow!

By the way, is your motherboard working fine with the i7 (do you have the 920?)? I'm wondering if I should just return the Intel motherboard I ordered and order the one you have. RAM is dropping so quickly, and the Intel motherboard only has 4 slots.

I have an i7-950 which is rather expensive at $570 compared to the 920 at $280, but it does give me 3.06 GHz without overclocking. I don't build a new system too often (last one was in 2003), so I splurged a bit and hope that it will last me a good number of years.

As for the motherboard, I very strongly considered getting the board that you have (because I am an Intel fan) but I went with the ASUS workstation for several reasons: 6 memory slots, 6 PCI Express slots, 2 Ethernet ports (for failover), and a VERY nice uncluttered board layout for easy access to all ports/pins. Also, the ASUS board got a slightly better review than the Intel one on Newegg.

Note that the Intel board has a PCI slot for legacy cards, while the ASUS does not. However you can get a PCI Express-to-PCI converter mini card for about $50 if you need one (I didn't). Also, the Intel board has an IEEE 1394a interface. I bought a separate 1394a card for about $30, but it has 4 ports (one of which is internal). The only other card I have is for the graphics (takes two slots), which I eventually MIGHT double for a Crossfire configuration. So far, the one card seems to be fine for my applications.

The down side of this board is the price. Namely, $350 vs. $245 for the Intel. However, I am extremely pleased with it, particularly for its quality and clean circuit layout. The guy who routed the traces definitely knew what he was doing.

I do recommend the ASUS board, but you need to decide if the extra $100 is worth it (and whether you can successfully keep your wife from finding out).

Peter