Tony:

I have been studying this subject for months now, in anticipation of upgrading my own system. Let me start with the short version: get the AMD Athlon-64/FX-51processor, a pair of 15,000 RPM SCSI hard drives striped RAID-0, as much of the fastest RAM the motherboard will handle, and just about anybody's graphics card that supports dual monitors (I'm partial to Matrox). That is going to pretty much burn up all your $3,000 budget.

The long version: from every benchmark test I've seen so far, the new 64-bit Athlon FX-51 bests the fastest P4. Remember, Vegas doesn't use multi-processor support very effectively, so both hyper-threading and dual-CPU motherboards are almost non-issues. It does help a little, but not enough to overcome the advantage of the FX-51's raw power.

If we're lucky, Sony will recompile Vegas specifically for 64-bit processing and optimize it for multi-processor systems, etc. If they do we'll see performance gains that will be mind-boggling. But for the moment, if I were building a system just for Vegas as it exists today, I'd go with the Athlon64 FX-51 and cross my fingers that Sony creates an AMD 64-bit version Real Soon Now.

You want the fastest possible hard drive subsystem you can get, for a couple of reasons. First is to minimize dropped frames during captures. Second is to minimize dropped frames during render. Third is to optimize realtime previews. Using 15K drives and RAID-0 striping makes your hard-drive subsytem as fast as it gets.

From what I've read the new serial ATA systems aren't ready for prime-time yet, and I haven't seen benchmarks of RAID-0 SATA vs. RAID-0 SCSI. So I'd go with the dual-drive SCSI RAID-0 system.

If you use the AMD 64-bit FX-51 processor you have to use a specific type of RAM anyway, just make sure you get the fastest available if there's a choice in speed. Seems like the spec was for DDR-400 ECC chips, or something to the similar. Just get the fastest that'll work, to further optimze the number-crunching pipeline. And put as much as you can on the motherboard, so your OS won't have to page to the hard-drive.

For video, there actually is a difference between brands, in terms of video quality. Overall, the sharpest images I've seen have been from Matrox cards, with ATI a very close second. These aren't OpenGL or Direct-X accelerators cards used for gaming, so don't expect to play DOOM 3 or Half-Life 2 on them. But for graphics and video they'll deliver the goods.

Now, all that said, you can also buy something for half the price that will give you almost the same bang for the buck. Like an Athlon 3200+ or a P4/2.8 and striped 7200 RPM IDE drives. It will render a little slower, and have a few more hitches in the preview, and may occassionally drop a frame that the over-the-top system wouldn't. And of course, if Sony decides to make an AMD 64-bit version of Vegas available you'll miss that boat.

But in the meantime you'll be editing and rendering great video for half the cost, or you could even have two workstations: one for design, the other for rendering. The renders are still going to take hours, no matter how fast the system is, so why not render on one while designing the next project on the other? Or - even better - put a 3D accelerator card (Radeon 9800?) in the design statkon so you CAN play DOOM 3 and Half-Life 2 while the other station renders!!!

Have I muddied the water enough? ;-) Serously though, if I had a $3000 budget I would try to fit the Athlon64 FX-51 sytem into it, both for it's blazing speed on 32-bit apps and its future potential for 64-bit computing. Good luck!

Are you using DV as a source or uncompressed or huffyuv video? Because if it's DV, a 15k SCSI RAID is way overkill. A single 7200RPM IDE drive will be fine (as long as it's only used for captures). RAID will be faster, of course, and 2 raids better yet - sources on one, renders on another. But where to draw the line? In any case, you shouldn't be seeing dropped frames in DV with a decent single IDE drive.

I'm not sure how renders will drop frames, either. I've never had this occur. They will be slower if using slower CPU and/or drives, but I've never had frames dropped. Am I missing something?

The tests I've seen of WD's 10k 72GB SATA puts it slightly slower than a 10k SCSI, and above any IDE drive. I'd love one of these... ;-)

I'd stick with EIDE or SATA hard drives, and use the extra money to get niceties like:
- a decent 24/96sound card (I love my Echo Mia!) $200
- a nice case with a 300W-400W power supply;
- maybe a Canopus Acedvio 1394 card (w/ analog in/out);
- a keyboard with Vegas shortcuts (WorldTech) or Contour Shuttle Pro

I sure wish I had 3 grand to spend on a dream Vegas machine. Lucky you.

Hey Sid, thanks for your thorough response!

I've spent most of the day comaparing prices and specs. Unfortunately, in a lof ot the sites I've seen, the P4 3.2 EE (Extreme Edition with 2.3MB cache) comes out in November, and in the benchmarks is faster than the FX-51. It's not 64 bit, I know, but how long until we see 64 bit software?

I have been using a pair of WD 36GB 10,000rpm SATA drives in my Intel board in a RAID 0 configuration for a couple of months, and I must say that they are pretty dam* fast.

The new P4 will be around $900 when it comes out, and will work with many current P4 boards. So for about the same price, you could have either. Do you know of a good board to choose for the FX?

Are there any benchmarks for Vegas floating around here? I'd love to test it on some different benchmarks.


Thanks again,

Tony

I'll be using YUV for some TV Commercials. I'm using a pair of WD 10k 36GB now, and they are super fast! Where did you see about a 72GB? I need more space!


Tony

I just got an M-audio 7.1 sound card

I got a Lian-Li case picked out to go head to head with the G5's that are soon in my close area at work.

I'll check out the keyboard, and I already have the Shuttle Pro ;)


tony

*extracting foot from mouth*

...uuhh... My bad. The tests were of the 36GB version, and confused in my 486-speed brain with announcements of the upcoming 72GB two platter version due this month. Mea Culpa.

I just read a review of the AthlonFX at www.motherboards.org. The reviewer said that it's as good as the latest P4, but he was using beta Windows with the Athlon, and a beta bios with the motherboard. He also admits that there's no 64bit testing software, so there wasn't any way to test it's 64bit powerhouse.

Personly, I'd get the 64bit chip. Vegas doesn't support hyperthreading, so no advantage to the P4 over an AMD. 2nd, i'm sure Sony will release a special 64-bit Vegas 5 (it's it released say, 9 months+ from now). Then, it will fly by the p4 at 1/2 the ghz.

It's also interesting to note, the AMD FX is at 2.2ghz and compares to a P4 3.something. :)