Hey guys!

Newbie here and wanted to ask some of you more computer savvy people for some advice.

I need a new PC for video editing and was wondering if I could buy one for around $400-500 from this site: http://www.tigerdirect.ca/

They’re a local store in my area.

Thanks and really appreciate your help.

Alex

would something like this be sufficient?

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2410569&Sku=V133-7110

The link you posted is for a barebones computer, it does not have a hard drive, operating system, etc.

Depending on what kind of video you are going to be working with, you might have to expand that budget range a bit.

Standard def DV doesn't place too many demands on a system so any in the $500-$700 range (less if you can build your own!) with a firewire port, fast processor (in AMD line 4000+ or faster) , and plenty of hard drive space can work OK.

If you are looking to edit hi def content you're looking at more horsepower. I shopped Dell's online outlet and looked at "refurbs" until I found a model with Intel Q6600 quad core processor, 4GB RAM and a dedicated graphics card. Ran me a bit over a grand but being in Texas they had to hit me up for sales tax, too.

If you do shop the "refurbs" the minute you find something you want to consider, toss it in your shopping cart. Someone else will if you don't.

What about the graphic card? I will build a pc to work with HD content, and the graphics cards I have seen which fit into my budget are the Nvidia quadro 1500 or 1700, and the new Nvidia GeForce 9800 GX2.

Which is better and why?

Thanks in advance.
And sorry for my english ;)

Anybody???

Not knowing exactly what you are going to do here are my recommendations for a system.

I would recommend the Quad Core 6600 for the processor.

OS I would try and get a copy of XPpro and wait a bit longer for Vista if you can.

2 gig of ram. More can cause performance problems.

For the best compatibility with your editing software find a good DX9 compatible graphics card, Avoid DX10 cards because not all editors are compatible with them yet. Ones to consider would be an ATI 1950 (not being made now but can be found) or the Nvidia 7900 or the Quattro 1500. These have broad compatibility. If you can find the 512mb versions of the card, get them.

Hard drives.. You will need plenty of room. I personally prefer Seagate and only buy the Enterprise class drives. More expensive but also less trouble. I replace them yearly even if they show no signs of failure. My main machine has about 3 TB of hard drives set up into two RAID0 arrays. One for storage and one for rendering. My software likes it that way.

A realistic budget for a good editing machine with drives is more like $1500. That would get you started. Your budget puts you into a machine with maybe an AMD 4000 processor and not much hard drive space. I have such a machine here for logging and it does work fine. It is a good bit slower than the Quad core machine.

Without knowing more about what you intend to do or which software you are going to run its hard for any of us to offer advice. This is only my very general thoughts.

Chris

thanks guys!

from reading your posts i'm realising that i can't buy a $500 computer for video editing. i'm obviously going to have to increase my budget. thanks again

alex

I have the Nvidia 1500. it's a great card, but I think overkill for video editing. I'm using it in a Windows PC with a 30" Apple monitor attached and it will actually drive 2 of these monitors at top resolution.

Processor speed, memory, drive space and performance are where I'd put the money before getting the 1500

Thanks guys for the answers. But why is that difference between the different graphics cards?. My intension its to build a pc with a quad core 2,8 (its new) 2 gigs of ram (I'm thinking go the adobe way), but when i come to the graphics begins my problems. Almost everyone is running a quadro 1500, but if you compare with the 1700, the first one have only 256 Mb gddr3 (Dix9) and the quadro 1700 have 512 Mb sdramII (dirX10) for almost the same amount of money. But here comes the true question, when you compare those cards against the Nvidia 8800 Gtx with 768 of Mb gddr3 (dirx10) or the newer Nvidia GeForce 9800GX2 With 1 gig (dirx10, pci 2.0), WHICH IS BETTER FOR VIDEO EDITING? (all are in almost the same price)

I can understand why to stay away from Win Vista, but why stay away from the dirX10 cards? (premiere now support the 8800gtx "or vice versa", I assume that premiere maybe supports the newer cards in the future)


Thanks in advance!!!

To build a low budget system, motherboards built on AMD's 780G offer a lot of bang for the buck:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010200022+107191003+1071937261&name=AMD+780G

It's the first chipset that actually offers onboard video with some kick (and decent acceleration for the major HDTV codecs).

Combine one of those boards with a dual core processor like the X2 5000+, and you've got the core components for a decent entry level video editing system at around (or under) $200. You can usually get 2GB of high quality dual channel DDR2 800 for under $30 if you watch for good rebate deals.

One thing not to skimp on at all, from the get-go, is the power supply. Cheap power supplies will come back to haunt you (and cost you in the long run). Nowadays, I only use Corsair power supplies (but Seasonic and PC Power & Cooling also make premium quality power supplies).

Thanks guys for the answers. But why is that difference between the different graphics cards?. My intension its to build a pc with a quad core 2,8 (its new) 2 gigs of ram (I'm thinking go the adobe way), but when i come to the graphics begins my problems. Almost everyone is running a quadro 1500, but if you compare with the 1700, the first one have only 256 Mb gddr3 (Dix9) and the quadro 1700 have 512 Mb sdramII (dirX10) for almost the same amount of money. But here comes the true question, when you compare those cards against the Nvidia 8800 Gtx with 768 of Mb gddr3 (dirx10) or the newer Nvidia GeForce 9800GX2 With 1 gig (dirx10, pci 2.0), WHICH IS BETTER FOR VIDEO EDITING? (all are in almost the same price)

I can understand why to stay away from Win Vista, but why stay away from the dirX10 cards? (premiere now support the 8800gtx "or vice versa", I assume that premiere maybe supports the newer cards in the future)


Thanks in advance!!!

As long as you know for sure that your software supports DX10 there is no reason to exclude any of the good DX10 cards. I use Avid and they currently only support DX9. That is supposed to change for Avid soon. Microsoft significantly changed things between DX9 and DX10 so there is no backwards compatibility at the hardware level between the two. Choose carefully.

Chris

Thanks again guys!! but sorry for be a little persistent but, everybody are screaming about the goodness of the new graphics cards on the gaming arena (like the Nvidia 8800gtx or the newer geforce 9800gx2) but it will be the same performance or horsepower in video? or is better the quadro way?
Anybody know about that and can explain a little?

Sorry again for be so insistent, bu I need to do a good decision in the election of the graphics. hehe ;)

PS: thanks Chris for your kindness.

DX10 is totally different from DX9. The DX10 cards are not backwards compatible with DX9.

My editing software is designed for DX9 so none of the new cards like the Nvidia 8800 will work with it. DX10 cards cause green flashes in every other video field. This seriously limited my choices recently when buying a laptop since most of the manufactures had already converted over to DX10 video cards. I did find a DELL that had an Nvidia 1500Quattro in it and it works GREAT with my software.

What software are you going to be using for editing? If it supports DX10 then I would say to get a new card. Video editing isn't an area where having the fastest card is going to make a lot of difference in system performance. Having plenty of memory on the card will make a difference. You can save some $$ by buying a mid level card with 512meg of memory and put the difference into a nice hard drive array. That will likely improve your overall system performance more than a top level graphics card.

One last piece of advice.. Is it a gaming box or is it an editor? I see all too often people looking at an editing machine as a general purpose computer. I HIGHLY recommend you dedicate the job of editing to the computer and if you like games - build a gaming computer for that and DON'T EDIT ON IT. I can't say this strongly enough. You are headed down a road of aggravation here. Editing software puts demands on a computer that most users don't have a true appreciation for. I know its tempting to put a hot game on your new and fast editing computer.. DON'T DO IT! If you must use the computer for everything then at least do dual boot with one boot for editing and one for everything else. Even this I admit to not being a fan of but its better than a single boot for everything.

More than anything, get editing and show us some good stuff! :)

...Having plenty of memory on the card will make a difference. You can save some $$ by buying a mid level card with 512meg of memory and put the difference into a nice hard drive array. That will likely improve your overall system performance more than a top level graphics card.

A few things to add here. Having a boat load of graphics memory on a card will really only benefit 3D apps and/or Open GL, etc. I seriously believe that for editing video, anything over 256 is overkill, but many newer cards have 512 now anyway.

One last piece of advice.. Is it a gaming box or is it an editor? I see all too often people looking at an editing machine as a general purpose computer. I HIGHLY recommend you dedicate the job of editing to the computer and if you like games - build a gaming computer for that and DON'T EDIT ON IT. I can't say this strongly enough. You are headed down a road of aggravation here. Editing software puts demands on a computer that most users don't have a true appreciation for. I know its tempting to put a hot game on your new and fast editing computer.. DON'T DO IT!

Also, there's a reason workstation cards (Nvidia Quadro series for example) are recommended for editing apps & are above par in that respect to gaming cards. It's one of the things they are designed for. Same with gaming cards... they're designed for gaming. To reiterate what Chris said... if you want to play games, throw a gaming card in your box... if you want to edit video without headaches, throw a workstation level card in there. :)

Thanks Chris an Bill, what I meant to say is that is very big woahh about the graphics cards (to gamers) that are 1GB of memory (geforce 9800 gx2) and my question was if those were so good for editing in comparison to those who are specialized to editing systems but smaller in memory like 512MB (Quadro 1700). Because those who I named was in the same price range.

To clarify a little I think go with premiere cs3 in Win XP, maybe 4gig of ram, a Quad core processor and I was wondering about which graphic card to chose, with yours answers Im little more convinced to acquire a Quadro and maybe the 1700 because its dirx10 and perhaps in one year the vista platform could be good to go with almost all the software for post-production and I wont spend more money to change the Dirx9 card that i have used only a year. :)

Am´I in the right path??

PS:I have the sony ex1 if someone ask about what I`m going to edit. :)

A few things to add here. Having a boat load of graphics memory on a card will really only benefit 3D apps and/or Open GL, etc. I seriously believe that for editing video, anything over 256 is overkill, but many newer cards have 512 now anyway.


Hi Bill,

I certainly agree that 256mb for editing is plenty. Where I have found a bit more is desirable is when you are doing titling and graphics. The frame buffer of the video card is used in most titling/graphic applications and when you are doing HD titles and especially 3D ones (which use the card much the same way games and engineering applications do) and having a little more memory is better.

Chris

Thanks Chris an Bill, what I meant to say is that is very big woahh about the graphics cards (to gamers) that are 1GB of memory (geforce 9800 gx2) and my question was if those were so good for editing in comparison to those who are specialized to editing systems but smaller in memory like 512MB (Quadro 1700). Because those who I named was in the same price range.

To clarify a little I think go with premiere cs3 in Win XP, maybe 4gig of ram, a Quad core processor and I was wondering about which graphic card to chose, with yours answers Im little more convinced to acquire a Quadro and maybe the 1700 because its dirx10 and perhaps in one year the vista platform could be good to go with almost all the software for post-production and I wont spend more money to change the Dirx9 card that i have used only a year. :)

Am´I in the right path??

PS:I have the sony ex1 if someone ask about what I`m going to edit. :)

I think you are on the right path. If you are going to run XP then only put 2gig of ram in the box. Due to how XP allocates memory any more than 3gig can cause performance decreases. Buy 4gig as 4 1gig modules and put 2 in now to make sure you take advantage of the full DDR capability of the chipset. Save the other 2gig for when you install Vista.

Chris

Thanks Chris for your answers, I kept on investigating and I have found this. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/250013-15-quadro-1700-geforce-9800
I leave the address if others have the same question as I'm.

You guys are missing an important point. I do not see which NLE Alfredo is using. That is KEY when selecting a card. I think Chris is a Avid Liquid guy like me, so ATI 19xx series it the best for Liquid. 2xxx, 3xxx cards are a problem because of what Chris outlined with DX10. That applies to Avid Liquid because of how it uses the GPU intensively. AL abhors nVidia too.

Sony Vegas seems to like the gamer nVidia cards and may even like the hottest DX10 cards. Its performance is not DirectX related. Same for Adobe, but Adobe even has specific cards made for it and does like some Quadros. Avid's main series likes very specific Quadro cards. And it goes on.

What NLE?

... I do not see which NLE (Non-Linear Editor) Alfredo is using. ..... AL dislikes nVidia too.

Changed the words readability and I cannot edit because of a code filter at work.

Yes George, I think I said in a couple of messages that I will use the Adobe suite, with premiere, after effects, etc. (for the time with Win Xp, but in the future I will go Vista)
So, what do you think is the better option? (I have already an inclination to a Quadro 1700, but I have my mind open for more opinions)


Thanks!

What would you think about using one of each kind of card in the same editing computer? Use the OpenGl card (like a Quadro from nVidia) for the support of the editing application and After Effects of course but use a not top of the line gaming style card (like the nVidea PCIe 7950 GX2 1GB two in one card) to have more screen real-estate with multiple monitors?

This could save a lot of money instead of buying a nVidia Quadro FX 4500 X2 for 3599.95!

Or does having any DirectX card interfere with say After Effects?

Has anyone tried this? Has anyone heard anything from nVidea or ATI about this idea?

Aloha from Honolulu
Grayson