Let Intel worry about memory channel bandwidth. Your options for a video workstation come down to two. (I’m assuming you’re not going for the 8-core Xeon on a server board using registered ECC ram.)

1) Intel 3930 or 3960 on an X79 chipset motherboard. Many people on the forum have these systems and are happy enough to brag about them from time to time. With the X79 chipset you must populate the DIMM slots in groups of four and memory bandwidth can be higher. One must pay for the extra performance you get with higher original cost and higher power usage. The 22nm die-shrink for the LGA2011 processor line is off into next year and there aren’t many details available at the moment, so you upgrade path is unknown.

2) Intel i7-3770(k) on a Z77 chipset motherboard. There are many people here who have systems based on this configuration. The Z77 chipset requires the DIMMs be installed in matching pairs. The i7-3770 (as well as some of the other processors in the i7 line) has a video adapter on the processor die. This video adapter (HD 4000) has rendering assist for some codecs (Intel calls it Quick Sync). These third generation processors are already at 22nm and benefit from lower power consumption and higher clock speeds. The highest number of cores is limited to 4 (8 with hyper-threading) so at the limit, they can’t compete with the 3960 with six cores.

As for how much memory to buy as a starting point: If you go with a 3960, you’ll likely find the economic sweet spot to be four 4GB DIMMS (16GB). It’s not worth fooling with four 2GB DIMMS (8GB). If you go with the 3770, get two 8GB DIMMS (16 GB). See how easy that was. Pick some of the key words in the thread and search the forum. You’ll find more detail than you ever thought possible.

I’ve said in the past that if you’re making money with video, consider buying the i7-3960, if money is tight or you’re doing it to entertain yourself, friends and family, buy the i7-3770.

I have an i7-3770k

Since I purchased and am using an 8 core Xeon, assuming it would be good for working with Vegas, can you shed any light on this as the third option to the other two above?

Noone advised me to buy the machine, so I am in the dark as to all implications.....did not cost much, though, so any mistake will not be too devastating.

This is what I have been using.
Intel Xeon E3-1245 V2 Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz on a ASRock Z77 Extreme4 LGA 1155 Intel Z77 with 16GB ram.
A 60 min video in hd rendered to sd for DVD in under 20 minutes.

I have nothing bad to say about the 8-core Xeon, here or here.

I assumed it away because of the $1600 to $1900 price tag for the processor.

@john_dennis, No, not looking at an 8 core, nor ECC (too expensive and unnecessary imo). I have been looking at dual E5 4 cores though, in which case I would also go with 16GB. The two options you recommend are both good, but I'm not sure why you would say those are the only two...

@Mudsmith, I don't see a problem with an 8 core at all, mainly just too much of a premium. Where did you find one for cheap?

Since my initial post I have concluded that NVIDIA Quadro is the go at this point (mostly for driver and compatibility reasons), but a 600 is too weak. If I am going to spend the money on a new system with a decent processor I will at least get a 2000, but probably go with the 4000.

"I'm not sure why you would say those are the only two..."

You can certainly pick different processor and motherboard combinations but, as a selection criteria, you should be trying to get the most performance you can afford out of each platform, LGA1155 or LGA2011. The cost of your time and effort spent on doing a product selection must be amortized over the inventory that you build, one or two systems. The difference in cost can quickly be swamped by the time and effort spent building the system and reconfiguring all the OS and software. Pick one near the top and move on.

On selecting the NVIDIA Quadro: I think you have reached the conclusion that NVIDIA wants you to reach as they attempt to segment their market between consumers and content creators.

<< If I am going to spend the money on a new system with a decent processor I will at least get a 2000, but probably go with the 4000.>>

I would not recommend the Quadro 4000 card. We upgraded my work computer from nVidia 460 > 680 > Quadro4000; I saw no *noticeable* improvement in timeline or rendering performance and ended up sticking with the 460.

For my home system the choice came down to the 3820 and 3770: memory bandwidth vs. on-board GPU. I finally decided on the 3770 and couldn't be happier with my decision because V12 does use the in-built GPU and it is significantly faster than my discreet graphics card - nearly twice as fast.

"...I think you have reached the conclusion that NVIDIA wants you to reach..."

Based on other posts you have made I gather you aren't against NVIDIA, just aren't convinced of their marketing position on cards. It seems to me that the GTX 6xx cards are not reliable in many cases, but the 5xx seem to be great, and I assume that is th fermi difference.

Quadro or GTX?
Seems like the GTX 570 beat out the Quadro 5000 (per SCS site, but it's old data), and specs seem to favor the GTX, as best as I can compare. Is there something major i am missing as a Quadro benefit?

I'm considering starting with an i7-3770/16GB system and see how the HD4000 performs, and then if I don't like it, try a GTX. On the other hand if I see a reason for the Quadro (2000 or 4000) I would likely just go that way now along with an LGA2011.

Aint this fun? *pulls out handful of hair*

You can check out my NLE system in my system specs. It works great with Vegas 12 for me (including all GPU functions that I have used).

If you chose an LGA2011 system, here is a list of parts that Johnny Roy chose from

"Thanks to all those who helped me with recommendations. My final build contains (some of it taken from my old PC):"

Case: Corsair Carbide Series 500R Black Steel

Power Supply: CORSAIR Professional Series Gold AX850

Motherboard: ASUS P9X79 PRO LGA 2011 Intel X79 ATX Intel

CPU: Intel Core i7-3930K Sandy Bridge-E 3.2GHz (3.8GHz Turbo)

CPU Cooling: CORSAIR H100 (CWCH100) Liquid CPU Cooler w/Noctua NF-P12-1300 120mm CPU Cooler Fan

Memory: G.SKILL Ripjaws Z Series 16GB (4 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1866 (PC3 14900)

HardDrive1 (boot): Crucial M4 CT256M4SSD2 2.5" 256GB SATA III Solid State Drive (SSD)

HardDrive2 (media): 3TB Western Digital SATA2 5400-7200

HardDrive3 (video): 2TB Western Digital WDC WD20 01FASS-00W2B0

Media Reader: Rosewill RCR-IC001 40-in-1 USB 2.0 3.5" Internal Card Reader

Blu-ray/DVD: Pioneer Blu-ray BD-RW BDR-207

Graphics Card: PNY NVIDIA Quadro 4000

Video Monitors: 2x ASUS ProArt PA246Q (1920x1200 Widescreen)

Video Capture: Canopus ADVC-300 / Rosewill PCIE FireWire 1394a Card 2+1 Ports Model RC-504

Sound: M-Audio Firewire 410

Speakers: M-Audio Studiophile LX4 2.1 System + LX4 5.1 Expander System

Keyboard: Logitech Illuminated Keyboard

Mouse: Logitech MX510 Optical Mouse

Operating Sys: Microsoft Windows 7 64 Home Premium



Here is a partial list of the parts I chose for my LGA 1155 system.

ASUS P8Z77-V PRO LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
Item #: N82E16813131819 $199.99

Intel Core i7-3770K Ivy Bridge 3.5GHz (3.9GHz Turbo) LGA 1155 77W Quad-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 4000 BX80637I73770K
Item #: N82E16819116501 $299.99

CORSAIR Vengeance 16GB (4 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model CMZ16GX3M4A1600C9B
Item #: N82E16820145347 $75.99

Corsair Force Series 3 CSSD-F120GB3A-BK 2.5" 120GB SATA III Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
Item #: N82E16820233206 $139.99

SeaSonic X750 Gold 750W ATX12V V2.3/EPS 12V V2.91 SLI Ready 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Active PFC Power Supply
Item #: N82E16817151087 $99.99

<<Seems like the GTX 570 beat out the Quadro 5000 (per SCS site, but it's old data), and specs seem to favor the GTX, as best as I can compare. Is there something major i am missing as a Quadro benefit?>>

Quadro cards are targeted to scientific, engineering, and 3D applications. Quadro cards are more rigorously tested and their drivers are regarded as more stable. Quadro drivers will also support specific applications, like 3DS Max, SolidWorks, Maya, etc.

GeForce cards are targeted to entertainment use and favor speed over precision. I have found the drivers to be stable and for my purposes (video editing) speed is more important than precision.

QUadro/GeForce analyses: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3721504/difference-with-cuda-hardware-quadro-4000-vs-geforce-480

GPU/card comparison spreadsheet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units

Thanks GuyS. The first link confirmed in detail what I had been finding. I also found this helpful link last night: http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/PremiereCS5.htm It's not specific to Vegas, though it still applies.