Dual or single?
 

Okay, I'm down to the nitty gritty on selecting a computer to do my NLE. Everybody in the world says go with a dual processor... everybody except the guy with whom I do all my computer business. He tells me what he would build would be more efficient, that with dual processors you only net a 30% increase in capability.

He wants to build me a P4, 2.66, 1 gig of Rambus RAM, 120 gig hard drive w/another 120 gig second hard drive, 32MB AGP TNT2 Video, 40X10X48 CDRW, DVDRW Drive

I've done business with Walt for 10 years. He's treated me well, built all my computers in that time and is always available to answer my stuipd questions or fix things I screw up. I pay a little more by not buying at a discount house, but I'm never down because Walt takes care of me.

I've seen the BOXX system advertised on Sonic Foundry's site (I'm going to use Vegas Video) --- it's dual processor.

So... any words of wisdom?

If you've got money to burn a dual system might be sweet. But
I would buy a top of the line single processor system and put
that extra cash where it is more usefull (like more harddisk space,
a good backup medium or DVD burner). Single processor system
are very very fast today and the speed increase for a dual
processor system for video editing is questionable at best
(working out our resolutions -> ie not 4K).

30% is I think the max you will get out of such a system!

I've got both systems. System 1 is a TYAN duallie with 1.2 Gig AMD Athlons. System 2 is a brand new ASUS P4PE with one 3.06 Gig P4 with hyperthreading. I have VV3 on both systems. It's no contest to say that I'd take the ASUS/Intel system ANY DAY! It beats the pants off of that Tyan duallie, which is now year old technology. The 3.06 is *SO* fast I don't notice the silky smoothness that the dually system once brought me. I will note, also, that VV3, while dual processor capable, realizes less than 10% gain on the dual system. The place where a dual machine and VV3 really perform is when multiple instances of VV3 are all open at once. But, I don't do that very often.

The problem with dually systems is that they are almost twice as expensive to upgrade. At the rate of new technology development, upgrade potential is a REAL consideration.

My advice is to go with that single CPU...but, shell out what you save on the dually with the new 3.06 Ghz P4.

Unless you are going to run multiple instances of Vegas Video (or other programs while rendering in Vegas), you will be just as well off to go with a single. While Vegas DOES use both processors, one is basically for video while the other is for audio. In real usage, you will see very little gain from two processors because the main clog is the hard drive speed.

Now, if you are going to edit in one instance of Vegas while rendering in another, you WILL see some benefit. Personally, I would opt for a fast single P4 (2.8 or higher) instead of spending the extra for duals.

Dual or single
 

Thanks, folks. I appreciate it.

I guess Walt knows what he's talking about.

my vote
 

is for a single P4, unless you want to shell out the bucks for a dual Xeon setup.......

But, refer to the above on the increases you will gain on VV 3.0 with a dual setup.

Hard drive speed is important, but let's not forget about bus speed and memory speed.

I have a dual 2.2GHz Xeon NLE, with a 533MHz bus and 600MHz ram, and my G4 Mac buddies are impressed with the speed. (Premiere recognizes it as having 4 processors.)

If the money is tight, go with the single processor and make sure you have a high speed bus and plenty of high speed ram... then add another drive or two. If money is not a problem... go ahead and get the dually.

My project drive is actually two drives (which gives me a throughput of roughly 150% of a single drive) and my export drive is separate... just like my OS drive. I think you'll get much better performance if you use your "C" drive to run the software and operating system, another drive to capture and hold your project video and audio, and another drive to render out to.

My 2 cents.

Good points Doug! This is my approach as well and tends to work
the best indeed!

Only one problem i can see with this system is the video card, the tnt2 is so old and really a very poor card.

If i was you, i would ask for a geforce 4 ti 4200 with a dvi output on it too. With a $2 adapter the dvi plug can be used a second vga output for a second monitor, works extremely well.


kermie

Another way to speed up your computer is to use a 15k rpm SCSI drive as your system drive. It will give your system a nice kick in the pants.

All software installed on that drive will run faster.

I think right now a 3.06GHz is hard to beat either way. But in terms of price, I don't see it being much cheaper. Consider the following prices, obtained from www.mwave.com, someplace I like to order and feel is very reputable.

For a 3.06GHz you're looking at $825 US.

For dual 2.4GHz 533MHz FSB Xeons you're looking at $568

For dual 2.0GHz AMD 2400MP it will cost you $472

For a very good Pentium 4 motherboard, expect to spend around $130 to $150. For a dual AMD board expect to spend from $300 to $450 or so for a good one (Tyan with SCSI on the high end). A dual Intel mobo is expensive though at $500 and more I think. Anyway, for best bang for your buck the dual AMDs are not bad at all. You can get one for around $800 to $900. The dual Xeons and single Pentium 4 each come to near $1000 with processor(s) and motherboard. So in terms of the top of the line right now, you're not saving that much going either way. If you drop to the 2.8GHz Pentium 4 you save a lot more.

I'm gonna upgrade to either a 3.06GHz or dual Xeons on the E7505 Intel chipset.

dual chips are a waste of time.
most apps don't even use them.
They are only good for running web servers and such.

Also as noted: It expensive to upgrade, there are other issues two. The cost doesn't match the rewards at all.

>>dual chips are a waste of time.
most apps don't even use them.<<

Not true. An SMP machine will perform multiple tasks effortlessly. NLE's tend to use all the system resources of one CPU. An SMP system will still respond to keystrokes and mouse inputs with a smoothness like no single CPU. Furthermore, transcoders like TMPGENc or software like Photoshop function extremely well with SMP capable computers. If you can justify the cost, I recommend going duallie, without a doubt.

Canopus boards love dual systems.

Additionally, as Hyperthreading support continues to grow, and because it will be a standard feature of Intel's processor line, nearly every future upgrade will be a kind of "SMP" - this time as SMT or simultaneous multi threading (Intel's version of this technology is called Hyperthreading, other companies have their own including Sun and IBM). This is, in the rudest explanation, multiple processors on one chip. The BIOS and system should see multiple processors. As a result this is obviously not a waste of time - everyone will soon know the benefits of multiprocessing. True dual machines in the future will appear as four, and as the technology improves there should be processors which can support more than the two SMT implementation. Dual chips then, are not a waste of time.