Computer Nerd Input Needed at DVinfo.net

Roger Shealy · February 16th, 2010, 06:10 PM

I'm looking to build a editing computer for Vegas 9 (i7 860 2.8GHz as the heart). I'd like to go with an SSD for the OS, editing programs, and active project media & files and several large HDD's to render to as well as store inactive projects and media.

Would it appreciably faster to have a separate SSD for the OS+Vegas and a separate SSD for the active media, or one large SSD for OS+Vegas+Active Media & Editing files?

Brian Boyko · February 16th, 2010, 06:37 PM

No. One of the advantages of solid-state drives is that there's no needle moving and no disc spinning, meaning it takes the same time to access the next bit over as it does to access one all the way on the "other side" of the hard disc.

Splitting up the data and OS makes sense on a disc based system, because then you're not constantly switching between wherever you stored the data for the OS or swap file with wherever you stored the data for the project on the same disc. - no disc, no needle moving, no delay in accessing information.

Roger Shealy · February 16th, 2010, 06:51 PM

Brian, thanks for you quick response. I didn't know if a separate SSD would allow it to access simultaneously from OS and media and somehow make it faster. If I can go with a single larger SSD, it would be a much simpler set-up and slightly less expensive.

Brian Boyko · February 16th, 2010, 07:55 PM

It might be faster, but not *appreciably* so.

Bryan Cantwell · February 16th, 2010, 09:35 PM

I don't know much about using SSD's, but I can offer an important bit of information when building a PC for Vegas editing.

That CPU will get HOT during rendering, so make sure you put a very efficient heat sink on there! Also make sure your power supply is >80% efficient and provides more power than you think you'll need. All obvious things, at least after you've replaced a CPU heatsink and blown a power supply!

And, if money's not a problem, I would go for one SSD for the OS & Vegas, another SSD for active media, and a big disk for render/storage space!

Roger Shealy · February 16th, 2010, 10:45 PM

I'm looking at a 950W supply and liquid cooling as one option. So far, however, my quick research points to liquid's biggest advantage is noise more so than temp. If so, I'll probably stay with a traditional heat sink and keep it simple.

If I go with 2 SSD's, I'll use one 40G for the OS and program and 160 for the active media and probably 2 or 3 1TB's. I don't like to go bigger than 1TB, my experience is they run hot and are more prone to failure. Based on Brian's input, it may be fine just to go with the one larger SSD for OS/Vegas/Media and 2 or 3 1TB's for storage. I've found the Thermal Take removable drive bay an inexpensive and effective solution if you have good ventilation in the box and your drive doesn't run too hot: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-032-_-Product

Randall Leong · February 18th, 2010, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan Cantwell

That CPU will get HOT during rendering, so make sure you put a very efficient heat sink on there!

That is NORMALLY the case. However, it is HOT only if you consider 50 to 60°C as "hot". And even overclocked to 3.5GHz with the stock Intel boxed CPU cooler, my particular i7-920 very seldom goes above 60°C during rendering to AVC in Vegas or DVD Architect.

And many of the older, cooler CPUs also had very low thermal capability (or low maximum safe operating temperature); thus, they will throttle or burn out at relatively cold temps. Which would you rather have, a CPU which runs constantly at idle between 45 and 50°C and has a lot of room for loading, or a CPU which stays cool but maxes out thermally all too quickly?

Bryan Cantwell · February 19th, 2010, 11:55 AM

I actually do consider 140 degrees to be a little warm, and prefer to cool as much as possible.

:)

Randall Leong · February 19th, 2010, 09:59 PM

And some cool-running CPUs are actually too cool for their own good. In the past I actually had an older CPU which began throttling down at even 25°C (77°F) and shut down completely at only 38°C (100°F). That was an example of a cool-running CPU with an extremely low thermal limit. With that CPU, I could not even use that system in summertime without having it constantly run at molasses-slow performance levels. Granted, that CPU was too weak to even perform low-definition (320x240) video rendering, let alone standard- or high-definition video work.

And that's not to mention that the first AMD CPU-based motherboard that I had had an overly sensitive thermal monitor, slowing down everything and destabilizing Windows XP (this was during that OS's early years) once the sensor's reading reached only 38°C. I needed a huge, extremely heavy, way-out-of-spec CPU cooler just to keep the sensor's reading from coming anywhere near 38°C, especially in summer.

February 16th, 2010, 06:10 PM	#1
Roger Shealy Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fayetteville, GA Posts: 772	Computer Nerd Input Needed I'm looking to build a editing computer for Vegas 9 (i7 860 2.8GHz as the heart). I'd like to go with an SSD for the OS, editing programs, and active project media & files and several large HDD's to render to as well as store inactive projects and media. Would it appreciably faster to have a separate SSD for the OS+Vegas and a separate SSD for the active media, or one large SSD for OS+Vegas+Active Media & Editing files?

February 16th, 2010, 06:37 PM	#2
Brian Boyko Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 773	No. One of the advantages of solid-state drives is that there's no needle moving and no disc spinning, meaning it takes the same time to access the next bit over as it does to access one all the way on the "other side" of the hard disc. Splitting up the data and OS makes sense on a disc based system, because then you're not constantly switching between wherever you stored the data for the OS or swap file with wherever you stored the data for the project on the same disc. - no disc, no needle moving, no delay in accessing information. __________________ Equip: Panny GH1, Canon HG20, Juicedlink, AT897, Sennh. EW/GW100, Zoom H2, Vegas 8.1

February 16th, 2010, 07:55 PM	#4
Brian Boyko Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 773	It might be faster, but not appreciably so. __________________ Equip: Panny GH1, Canon HG20, Juicedlink, AT897, Sennh. EW/GW100, Zoom H2, Vegas 8.1

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

February 16th, 2010, 06:51 PM	#3
Roger Shealy Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fayetteville, GA Posts: 772	Brian, thanks for you quick response. I didn't know if a separate SSD would allow it to access simultaneously from OS and media and somehow make it faster. If I can go with a single larger SSD, it would be a much simpler set-up and slightly less expensive.

February 16th, 2010, 09:35 PM	#5
Bryan Cantwell Major Player Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Terre Haute, IN Posts: 277	I don't know much about using SSD's, but I can offer an important bit of information when building a PC for Vegas editing. That CPU will get HOT during rendering, so make sure you put a very efficient heat sink on there! Also make sure your power supply is >80% efficient and provides more power than you think you'll need. All obvious things, at least after you've replaced a CPU heatsink and blown a power supply! And, if money's not a problem, I would go for one SSD for the OS & Vegas, another SSD for active media, and a big disk for render/storage space!

February 16th, 2010, 10:45 PM	#6
Roger Shealy Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fayetteville, GA Posts: 772	I'm looking at a 950W supply and liquid cooling as one option. So far, however, my quick research points to liquid's biggest advantage is noise more so than temp. If so, I'll probably stay with a traditional heat sink and keep it simple. If I go with 2 SSD's, I'll use one 40G for the OS and program and 160 for the active media and probably 2 or 3 1TB's. I don't like to go bigger than 1TB, my experience is they run hot and are more prone to failure. Based on Brian's input, it may be fine just to go with the one larger SSD for OS/Vegas/Media and 2 or 3 1TB's for storage. I've found the Thermal Take removable drive bay an inexpensive and effective solution if you have good ventilation in the box and your drive doesn't run too hot: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-032-_-Product

February 19th, 2010, 11:55 AM	#8
Bryan Cantwell Major Player Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Terre Haute, IN Posts: 277	I actually do consider 140 degrees to be a little warm, and prefer to cool as much as possible. :)

February 19th, 2010, 09:59 PM	#9
Randall Leong Major Player Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Melrose Park, Illinois, USA Posts: 936	And some cool-running CPUs are actually too cool for their own good. In the past I actually had an older CPU which began throttling down at even 25°C (77°F) and shut down completely at only 38°C (100°F). That was an example of a cool-running CPU with an extremely low thermal limit. With that CPU, I could not even use that system in summertime without having it constantly run at molasses-slow performance levels. Granted, that CPU was too weak to even perform low-definition (320x240) video rendering, let alone standard- or high-definition video work. And that's not to mention that the first AMD CPU-based motherboard that I had had an overly sensitive thermal monitor, slowing down everything and destabilizing Windows XP (this was during that OS's early years) once the sensor's reading reached only 38°C. I needed a huge, extremely heavy, way-out-of-spec CPU cooler just to keep the sensor's reading from coming anywhere near 38°C, especially in summer.