Check out the (rather lengthy) Any Core I7 users yet? thread on the DV Info forum for a lot of suggestions.

Mike

Hi John, yes I currently have the Q6600 running on a MSI Diamond motherboard. I have had it overclocked to 3.2G, but throttled back to stock 2.4G after various random problems
I have been getting numerous crashes and BSOD with this set up (even at stock 2.4G) and I think it is time to get rid of this board and RAM, as I suspect it is the reasons for many of my problems.
This may also be a good time to switch to the i7 processor

Ted

Personally I don't think the i7 is that big an improvement. The Gigabyte motherboard I linked is very well made and extremely overclock friendly and ram friendly (DDR2 and DDR3) in addition to being inexpensive. For around $140 what have you got to lose?

John

I'm using the GIGABYTE GA-EX58-UD3R - which is the best value right now for i7 boards...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128375 GIGABYTE GA-EX58-UD3R at Newegg[/link]

Newegg also has this PC1600 ( maybe overkill but gives you some overclocking headroom if you choose ) RAM on sale..

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231225&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL030509&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL030509-_-Memory-_-L0D-_-20231225PC-1600[/link]
here is a promo code for $10 off - good thru 3/11 = EMCLPLS45


Microcenter is selling the i7 920 for $279 ( store only ) right now .. So that's a pretty good deal also ...

I'm running XP 32, so I can't say if there are any issues with Vista or 64 bit OS's ..

"Personally I don't think the i7 is that big an improvement."

If you've been following the "rendertest-hdv" thread, then you would have noticed that the i7 processors have been turning in the fastest render times by a wide margin.

"Personally I don't think the i7 is that big an improvement."

If you've been following the "rendertest-hdv" thread, then you would have noticed that the i7 processors have been turning in the fastest render times by a wide margin.

I didn't say that the i7 wasn't faster. Within the context of his question I didn't think it is that big of an improvement over what he has to be worth the significantly greater cost. The i7 does renders faster in the benchmark tests by Anand Tech, Tom's Hardware, etc. Many of them are not sold on it's gaming performance or it's real world computing performance and in the forums of many of these sites a lot of them especially don't think it is worth the additional cost right now.

When I saw he had a Q6600 I assumed he has a GO stepping which is easily overclocked with the right motherboard. The Gigabyte motherboard I mentioned is around $120-$130 and is one of the most configurable boards I have seen. It will take the newer 45nm Quads and will work well with both DDR2 Ram (which is dirt cheap) as well as DDR3 ram. That leaves him many options for upgrades such as the Q9650 which will drop in price this April and that will overclock to at least 4GHZ if he sets the board up properly and will be very cost effective because he saved so much by not overpaying for an i7 system.
With his already owned Q6600 and a modest investment of around $120 he can have nearly the same performance and save a bundle. His render times will be more than fast enough and his wallet will be fatter.

John

Wanted to correct the price for i7 920 at Microcenter..

It is $229 - not $279 ....

I agree with with what John is saying about price/performance advantage of getting a new LGA775 board as opposed to putting together a new i7 system; assuming the Q6600 is not part of the problem ..

Thanks for the replies.
I do have one of the earlier Q6600 chips which I think is B3, and is not so easily overclocked as the later models.
I appreciate and understand your suggestion on staying with the Q6600, and just get a different MB to keep costs down.
The link Mike provided earlier in the thread really seems to highlite on the vast render time improvements between even a Q6600 and the i7 however.
I am in a bit of a quandry here, as I am getting these crashes and for a lack of better understanding as to why, am leaning towards the hardware part of my system.
The main question I had originally was to find out if anyone has had excellent result which a particular MB (e.g. ASUS, Gigabyte etc). along with i7 using Vegas.
And what type/mfg of memory they use

Ted

Generally, for stability + overclocking ability, Gigabyte is a good choice.
Not the only one however.
Check the charts at tomshardware for help with your choices.
Be sure to search back a couple of years, you might find some p35's still available at bargain prices that will do a bang-up job with your 6600.

I've used a variety of Asus and Gigabyte motherboards over the years and have had very minor issues with all of them. I built an nVidia chipset based system a couple of years ago and it was a complete disaster. Following that fiasco, I switched to Intel motherboards and have had no issues whatsoever. The machines I have built with Intel motherboards, Intel chipsets and Intel processors have been absolutely rock solid and 100% problem-free. My RAM preference has been exclusively Corsair.

Ted,

Look at the end of the Product Code.

If it says SL9UM, it is a B3

If it says SLACR it is a GO

But even the B3s will overclock if you watch the temps. Not sure which motherboard you have. Maybe you could list it along with it's revision. Maybe we can help in terms of the crashes.

John

John Cline, I guess using the Intel MB's says alot, as you pointed out in numerous threads that you never have any crashing issues. thanks for the info of the mem as well. I will look at the Intel boards more closely.

John, I know I have the B3 version of the Q6600 and yes it can (and I have ) overclosked it to 3.0G (stock 2.4)
But since I was having crash issues particularly in Vegas I decided to run it stock. I am running an MSI p6N Diamond MB along with a Zalman 9700 cooler, and 4 x 1 GB GEIL memory and GTX8800 graphic card.

Another vote for Intel boards.

I still use my old P4 on an Intel board occasionally, and sometimes I can render a .VEG that causes fits for my quad on an Asus board. However, even on the Intel board it still OFTEN crashes on renders that involve a long project (up to 2 hours or so) with lots of effects (especially feathered masks). In such cases (and they come often), I have to render 2-min. segments to Cineform Intermediate using Peachtree's Veggie Toolkit batch rendering, then render the segments to get a 1-file final .AVI.

Generally, I don't bother with the slow P4 but instead instead cut up the project with markers placed every 2 min. on my quad/Asus and render using all 4 cores. Usually that works OK and is much faster. When I say "works OK," I mean that on either machine the rendering will freeze after, say, a half-dozen renders, and I have to start the process again. On long projects, I'll get a BSOD and have to reboot after a few rendering freezes. Such is life when Vegas is pushed hard. On simple or short projects, the Asus P5B purrs just fine without the need to cut up the project.

I use Intel boards with Intel chipsets.

For AMD I use Asus/nVidea chipsets.. I guess AMD chipsets perform better.

It all depends on how much you want to spend and how long you want the build to be current. Like others have said - the i7 is faster for video editting - but the price of the total build compared to what you can do with a q6700 may not make it worth while in the near term. You can get boards from $100 to $400 and beyone - same for RAM, same for drive set ups. Personally - I spend more on drives so I have redundance and fast read / write speeds - and push my CPU with overclocking and a good cooler. All that said, if I didn't have parts like DDR2 etc laying around and was building from scratch, I would go with an i7 set up - just know the price of being an early adopter is high - they will be cheaper the longer you can put of building it.

John Cline, I guess using the Intel MB's says alot, as you pointed out in numerous threads that you never have any crashing issues. thanks for the info of the mem as well. I will look at the Intel boards more closely.
==========
I have the same board John has (unless he got a newer Intel board) which is the D975XBX2. The board is fantastic, but discontinued. It also cannot run any of the newer 45nm processors like the Gigabyte board can and will not work on BOTH DDR2 and DDR3 ram. But maybe John upgraded to a newer Intel board. Not sure.

I'll check a few things regarding the MSI p6N Diamond MB and the Geil ram. After the weekend.

John

Do you, like John Cline, find that you never have a problem rendering with your Intel board?

Do you, like John Cline, find that you never have a problem rendering with your Intel board?

The board is fantastic Larry and no I have never had a problem rendering with it. It is totally reliable. I helped my son build a computer with one and it too has been totally reliable.

The reason Intel had to (unfortunately) discontinue it is because it will not take the 45nm processors that Intel has almost exclusively produced recently.

John

Ted,

Try these settings:

Take out two of the sticks of ram and leave only two 1 GB sticks in there. With XP, you don't need the extra 1.2 CG that 32 bit XP allows as a maximum.

Then set the following in the BIOS:

FSB 1400 (about the maximum for that board)
Memory 700 (for 1:1 ratio) 4-4-4-12
NBV 1.60
SB Default
Core V Default
FSB VTT 12%
Intel IEST Enabled
PCI 128

Also try C1E Disabled:
Go to Advanced BIOS. Go down and into Chipset. Then press F4 (undocumented). This gives you more options. Now disable "C1E".

Also try:

FSB: 1400
MEM: 700 ( to run 1:1)
MP: 9
CPU V: 1.275
MEM V: AUTO
NB: 1.5
SB: 1.5
FSB VTT%: 20%

C1E, Spread, HPET and the rest: ALL TURNED OFF!

See which runs the most stable.

John