OT: Hardware recommendations for new build

Coursedesign wrote on 8/9/2006, 10:05 AM

It will be a long time before Vista is solid, and there will be at least two generations of PCs coming out before then.

The word this week from major beta testers is that they are shocked that it is so buggy, so slow and uses so much memory (700MB), so close to the intended release (year-end for some).

They are emphasizing that previous versions of Windows were much more stable at the same point in the cycle.

Microsoft has conceded that the consumer release may be delayed from the "January/early 2007" date.

Alternatively, Windows XP x64 is widely used by hardcore pro workstations in Hollywood and elsewhere. It is very solid, you just have to make sure that you have drivers for your peripherals, but these are widely available for many devices now.

The newest Intel processors are the fastest you can buy currently, but they are not for those on a limited budget. On top of the hefty CPU prices, you pay through the nose (2-4 times more) for FB-DIMM RAM.

The best deal right now may be an Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe motherboard for about $165 plus an AMD 4800+ X2 dual-core processor for $298.

Rock solid board and CPU, used by the creme-de-la-creme of Hollywood, etc., and a bargain after recent price reductions (CPU went from $640 to under $300 when Intel's latest were released).

In the end you get only slightly less performance, but for a fraction of the price.

I've been an Intel-only guy since the 4004, but with AMD's latest CPUs and Asus mobos with nVidia CPU support chips I saw something that was indeed rock solid.

No matter what CPU & mobo you get, you can forget about keeping much of the computer you have right now.

The power supply probably doesn't cut it, your harddrives are getting old and increasingly unreliable, your PC case probably doesn't have the right cutouts for modern ports, etc. You could keep the floppy drive if you want one of those...

Antec Sonata II is a great case, often available for less than $90 including a very good and very quiet power supply.

Hard disks? Get a Samsung 160GB SATA 3.0 Gbps drive for maybe $70 to install Windows + apps on, super quiet and veryt good performance. Then one or more 500 GB SATA drives for about $175 or so for media.

Many possibilities, but please give that old PC to a school or use it for e-mail.

Cliff Etzel wrote on 8/9/2006, 10:41 AM

ARRGGHH! Consumerism and video editing go hand in hand.. :-O

Sounds like I might as well just buy a pre-built computer for all apparent purposes.

The Hard drives is what is killing me - I have a pair of Seagate 160GB ATA drives as well as 40GB Maxtors that are running with no issues (They were installed within the last year)

It almost sounds like I should just buy a new MacIntel and be done with it.

Update:

Went to NewEgg - here's what I spec'd out:

Intel 930 3.0Ghz Presler Dual Core
Intel 945 GTPLKR MoBo
2GB Corsair PC2 5200 RAM
1 - 80GB Seagate SATA boot drive
2 - Seagate 250GB SATA video drives - Raid 0 config
Antec NSK 6500 Case w. 430w PS
Graphics card - not sure - nVidia or ATI??? Any suggestions?

How do these hardware specs look? SHould I go with XP 64bit?

Cliff

johnmeyer wrote on 8/9/2006, 11:23 AM

Spot has given some excellent recommendations in the past few months. Do a search on his name.

Boxx or Polywell have some good systems that aren't totally bogged down with useless software, like Dell and HP computers. Look at their turnkey systems (which include video editing software that you probably don't want), write down the specs, and then configure a bare-bones system that matches.

Don't obsess too much about getting the last 5% of performance. I'm editing HDV on an almost 4-year-old computer that wasn't even near the fastest available when I bought it, and it works fine (although I'd very much appreciate the much faster renders from a dual everything computer -- mine doesn't even have a CPU capable of multi-threading).

apit34356 wrote on 8/9/2006, 11:30 AM

Apple maybe the best buy with the 5100 for the dollar. Using bootcamp, you can run vegas. Apple does have "motion" at a great price, so, its adds to your creative skills on post.

riredale wrote on 8/9/2006, 12:25 PM

The dual-core Conroe-based CPUs are the current champs, followed by the x2 AMD dual-core CPUs, followed by everything else.

If your money was tight, I'd get the cheapest AMD x2 (3800x2) for maybe $125 and a board to run it. I bought this chip a few months back when it was a solid $300, but the new Conroe stuff forced AMD's hand. I understand that you can overclock the heck out of it, too.

Personally, I'd steer clear of anything not Conroe (or x2) based. But I'm sure you'll get 10 different opinions from 10 people on this board.

Cliff Etzel wrote on 8/9/2006, 1:46 PM

hmm... I have been leary of AMD, but that goes back to the days of K6..

AMD hardware:

Athlon 64 x2 3800 Processor
Asus A8N5X Mobo
2GB Corsair XMS Memory
Asus EN7300LE Video Card

Nice thing is I can hold out on the drives since I just purchased them within the last 6 months.

Any thoughts?

jrazz wrote on 8/9/2006, 3:35 PM

Don't let the K6 keep you from AMD. For what you are asking, I would go with the x2 as well and if you look around (TigerDirect) has dropped the prices dramatically on all x2's, as I am sure everybody else has too, but the point is, the price difference between the 3800 and the 4800 is not that much now.
I have used AMD since 2001 and I like them :)

j razz

Stuart Robinson wrote on 8/9/2006, 4:11 PM

>The dual-core Conroe-based CPUs are the current champs, followed by the x2 AMD dual-core CPUs, followed by everything else.<

Do you know of any benchmark tests of say, the Conroe Intels vs. the Opteron AMDs?

busterkeaton wrote on 8/9/2006, 6:54 PM

Here's some benchmarks from the Digital Video Editing website. They tested the new Dell workstation with a superfast new SAS hard drive setup. The base machine starts at $900 right now.

Not surprisingly, the Dell Precision Workstation 390 blew the doors off every machine we've ever tested on almost every benchmark. On the processor-intensive benchmarks using Adobe After Effects comps consisting of animations, video composites, illustrator graphics and a virtual set, the 390 swept every one, in some cases cutting the time of the fastest machine tested before almost in half. The 390 wasn't able to beat our fastest HP dual-core dual Opteron machine in our CineBench rendering tests, though, nor was it able to win the NightFlight render benchmark, a test created to showcase the vector graphics processing power of the Altivec engine, called the Velocity Engine in the Power Mac G5. But on the comprehensive TotalBenchmark tests, the Precision Workstation 390 won the contest handily, with a 781 second time, its closest competitor far behind at 953 seconds.

Coursedesign wrote on 8/9/2006, 7:15 PM

Just consider that if you get a factory-built machine, support is crucial.

Dell's support is infamous to say the least, and their hardware quality has taken a big fall in their quest for Wall Street profits in spite of competition from especially Compaq/HP.

Imho, the best factory-built machines worth getting today are from Apple, Boxx, and Compaq/HP.

Still, I prefer to build my own. Why? Better component quality, better configuration options, and better service.

apit34356 wrote on 8/9/2006, 9:28 PM

Tho, I joke with Coursedesign being hooked on Apple, really, the new Apple with 5100's looks great on price and pure performance. The only real concern I would have is the support available in your corner of the world. So, Dell would not be too high on the list; Apple support in Asia, I don't have any "real" experience with or information that I would with trust and that goes with the other manufacturers also for your area. Since most manufacturers are in the asia rim, one would think support would be great, but reality is different for small businesses vs large businesses. This is where building your own system gains in the column "worth the effort" if the Retailers' hardware support is really poor.

TeetimeNC wrote on 8/10/2006, 5:59 AM

I have three Dell's and have received outstanding support from them. The hard drive in my laptop started generating occasional error messages just before the 3 year warranty expired (about 6 months ago). Dell sent a replacement even though the drive hadn't actually failed yet.

My video PC is a Dell 3.0 ghz XPS. About 2 months after receiving it the motherboard flaked out. Dell sent a new motherboard and a service rep to install it. I had purchased the onsite repair coverage for this unit.

I too have read the articles about Dell's service slipping so I know some have had problems. But as I noted, my exerience has been good. I almost always have better luck with their live chat than with a telephone call. And the support side of their web site is quite good too. I wouldn't hesitate to buy another Dell if it has competitive features and price.

>>Dell's support is infamous to say the least, and their hardware quality has taken a big fall in their quest for Wall Street profits in spite of competition from especially Compaq/HP.

Jerry

johnmeyer wrote on 8/10/2006, 7:13 AM

I have ended up with three Dell computers and while tech support has been horrible in the computer industry since the beginning of time, I can't think of another computer company that currently provides better support than Dell. In other words, very few companies provide good tech support, but Dell is the best amongst a bad lot. If someone knows of a company that is BETTER, I'd be interested to know, and to know on what basis. I'm not defending Dell; I just don't know of any company that is doing any better, now that tech support is usually sub-contracted.

Coursedesign wrote on 8/10/2006, 8:17 AM

Glad for the people who got good support from Dell, I'd love to hear that they have turned the corner, because nobody deserved what they were getting before ("The harddisk makes a squealing sound." "OK, please reformat the harddrive, reinstall Windows and let me know if it happens again."

If so, I hope they also turn the corner on hardware quality. Worst case I have personal knowledge of is a friend's company here in L.A. that bought 40 Dells. One year later, 30 of them had serious problems.

I have also seen broken Dell PCs stickered at every Kinko's I've been to since they standardized on Dell.

OTOH, I've been very impressed with the tech support for my Compaq notebook.

I had some very unusual problems with chipset drivers, and got them resolved in one chat with the guy staying online while getting the information and firmware for this out-of-the-ordinary support request. A+ for this and another call last year about DVD burner compatibility.

I think chat in general is better than phone calls, because it's easier to do other work while waiting.

The worst tech support in the industry? Fry's would make a good candidate for that.

TeetimeNC wrote on 8/10/2006, 10:16 AM

I just went out and looked at the Dell Precision Workstation 390 - very impressive. My question: how do you think a 2.13GHz Core Duo with 4Gb RAM would compare with my current 3GHz Pentium 4, 1 Gb RAM? I know there are major improvements in Core Duo beyond dual core. Would you expect the 2.13 GHz to be significantly faster?

Jerry

jkrepner wrote on 8/10/2006, 10:34 AM

Just my .02--I've always had great experience with Dell tech support on Dell Precision workstations and Power Edge servers.

Guy Bruner wrote on 8/10/2006, 11:34 AM

The best performance right now is with the new Conroe processors (E6300, E6400) and an Intel 965/ICH8 chipset. This chipset uses DDR2 memory but not the FB-DIMMs that Apple is putting with their Xeons. Anandtech.com just blew the doors off all the FX Athlon with an overclocked E6400 using the stock CPU cooler (air). They have a Conroe buying guideline up that gives really good info on what motherboard and memory to put with the Conroe. The good thing about this chipset and CPU is that the quad-core 2 duo chips that are coming out this fall/winter will drop right into the socket. I think for the best performance/upgrade path, the Conroe/965 can't be beat.

jaydeeee wrote on 8/10/2006, 12:53 PM

>>just blew the doors off all the FX Athlon with an overclocked E6400 <<<

LOL. You guys get too excited with this inane amd vs. intel stuff.
Well they're better, but the point diff is considered more hype as for "blowing the doors off" better.

Coursedesign wrote on 8/10/2006, 2:08 PM

Amen to that!

And this guy wanted to build on a budget, it's also very clear that AMD gives more bang for the buck right now, say the renders will take 10-20% longer in return for paying 50% less, depending on how you buy.

Cliff Etzel wrote on 8/14/2006, 8:04 AM

This weekend I got a steal on an AMD X2 3800 for $130.00 with free shipping. With my only experience being with using Intel boards with Intel CPU's, I'm not sure which way to go on the mobo end of things. ASUS seems highly regarded, but I have heard mention of Gigabyte - how are their boards in relation to ASUS? And even with all my research, I'm still confused about the chipsets on the mobo's. What is the difference between an ATI chipset and an nVidia chipset? And then there is mention of VIA and ULI - more confusion. I've heard certain chipsets are better for video editing. Any comments on this?

After everything I read about AMD -vs- Intel, it seems the Intels more or less required a water cooler to keep things in check and I'm not into overclocking anything, I just want as stable a workstation as I have had with my trusty P4 and Intel mobo.

Also - what brand of RAM and how much can I get away with for starters? And lastly, Graphics card? Should I plan for the future with something that has a serious GPU or can I get away with something less expensive?

Thanks to all for your input.

Cliff

busterkeaton wrote on 8/14/2006, 9:09 AM

What Intel chips required a water cooler? That's a bit of hype, unless they were overclocking. Intel did change it's chip plans when the saw how hot the 4.0 gig P4 was going to be.

The new Core 2 Duo's are said to be very cool and very low power.

If you want good heat control, do a search on heatsink and user johnnyroy, he posted his setup here.

I would go with Nividi, but I'm not up to date on Chipset, but have heard of problems with ATI. I would go with a less expensive graphics card, because by the time something with heavy GPU comes out, if and when, the heavy duty cards will be cheap. Vegas 7 is due in about a month, so we will know then if GPU is an issue.

Coursedesign wrote on 8/14/2006, 10:28 AM

You could start with 1GB if you want, not a problem for Vegas. Crucial, Corsair, many others are good, but do make sure you get the right specs

nVidia's chipsets are the best for AMD today. Avoid VIA like the plague, they were the ones who gave AMD a bad name.

For a GPU, look at nVidias only (they generally have better drivers than ATI today), a 7600 GS for about $100 gives you a decent percentage of the top performing cards at a fraction of the price, at newegg.com for example.

eVGA is my favorite brand because their lifetime warranty covers your life, not the life of the card (like PNY's warranty that expires when your card has been superseded by a new model). eVGA also has an upgrade guarantee on many cards.

jwcarney wrote on 8/14/2006, 10:39 AM

I don't think they require liquid cooling, but the Dual Core Sony Desktops I saw at the Sony style store had water cooled cpus. Pretty cool(pun intended). I wonder if they will do that with the Core 2 Duos'.

Jayster wrote on 8/14/2006, 12:16 PM

Oceanvisions - you are correct that 64 bit XP is the only way you'll get full use out of 4GB of RAM. For one instance of Vegas doing a full render you really don't need more than 2G of RAM. Where you would benefit from the additional RAM is if you are running another instance of Vegas during a render, or you are running Photoshop and Vegas at the same time, and so on. Most of which wasn't even worth attempting until dual core (or dual proc or hyperthreading) became available.

Vegas does do better at tough rendering jobs (i.e. on projects that push Vegas to the limits) with 64 bit XP, and it's primarily due to improvements in memory management. More disucussion here.

Before you make the move to 64 bit XP, be certain that all your hardware peripherals have compatible 64-bit drivers available. If some of them don't have 64-bit drivers, you might be able to attach those devices to another computer and share them (you can do that with printers and scanners, for example).