Motherboard for video editing question

Glenn Chan · December 2nd, 2003, 06:40 PM

The Intel boards have the least configuration problems. All the hardware vendors make sure their stuff works with the Intel board. With the other board you might get some weird incompatibilities (maybe a certain hardware card doesn't work in certain PCI slots??????). newegg.com reviews will show you the kinds of problems people are having with non-Intel boards. On the other hand, non-Intel boards can offer better bang for the buck.

Quite a few of the non-Intel 865P boards have PAT enabled (performance boosting feature). The main advantage the 875P boards have over 865P is that they have PAT.

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.html?i=1831&p=30

Bogdan Vaglarov · December 3rd, 2003, 10:51 AM

Well I don't have the practical experience but everything on the net concerning motherboards usually lacks reviews on Intel boards .

Why? Simply I think they keep close to their own standard which shouldn't favour overclocking. Why Intel will show to the common user that instead of buying P4 3.2 for 400$ he can buy 2.6 for 200 and reach simmilar performance?

All hardware reviews show makers using Intel chipset drawing much more potential from the system - it includes BIOS settings flexibility, etc., etc.

Now Intel conforms to the standard - lets say 200 MHz FSB. Then Gigabyte would be 201.5, while MSI may be 204 by default. That immediately leads to higher scores for this board over Intel but in general chipset is same and performance of all makers doesn't differ more than 5%. Let's say if you wait for render with Intel 5 minutes it'll be done by Asus for 4:54 - Asus is the winner!!!

Here has to be said not everything is in a single component. If your HD or memory are low quality they will be the botleneck, not the MoBo.

Asus or Abit will give the entusiast the ultimate power to tweak and overclock. MSI seems not so good for hard overclocking but they will allow dynamic overclocking through Windows (not BIOS) up to 10% which will be very easy for not advanced users to get higher performance.

And finally as I mentioned the MoBo itself is not everything so if you go with vendor (not building by yourself) you can be sure they know what they do. If Intell is their chose don't push them to change it as they are acustomed and trouble free with what they use in their regular systems.

I might be wrong but just wanted to say my opinion from what I've learnt recently.

John Britt · December 3rd, 2003, 11:02 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Bogdan Vaglarov : Well I don't have the practical experience but everything on the net concerning motherboards usually lacks reviews on Intel boards .

Why? Simply I think they keep close to their own standard which shouldn't favour overclocking. Why Intel will show to the common user that instead of buying P4 3.2 for 400$ he can buy 2.6 for 200 and reach simmilar performance?

All hardware reviews show makers using Intel chipset drawing much more potential from the system - it includes BIOS settings flexibility, etc., etc.
-->>>

Actually, the "Bonanza" (as the D875PBZLK is called) allows for overclocking (called Burn-In Mode) -- a first for Intel. From what I understand (I will try and find and cite my source this evening when I get home) it doesn't let you make major adjustments, but it does allow for minor overclocking -- sort of like overclocking with a safety net.

That said, I feel that overclocking is for gamers and tweakers, not for serious video work. Overclocking requires extra special and extra careful cooling (ever see the Screen Savers episode where they had to cool the CPU with liquid nitrogen?) and can cause instability in some cases. If you are doing serious video work, why would you want to have to deal with these variables when trying to meet a deadline? Equipment that "conforms to standards" is very good when you need it to be reliable -- just ask any Mac user (they'll talk your ear off for ages!) Just my 2-cents.

Glenn Chan · December 3rd, 2003, 05:34 PM

The Anandtech roundup of various mobos (including Intel's) says this:

Quote:

UPDATE 6/13/2003 We forgot to mention that there are, in fact, some FSB tuning options available in the D875PBZ's BIOS through a "Burn-In" mode option. The adjustments are only available as high as 4% of the FSB in 1% increments however. AGP/PCI adjustments are available as well, up to 73.60MHz/36.80MHz.

4% overclocking... haha.

Overclocking can save you quite some time by improving rendering speeds. A 20% improvement in speed would reduce a 6 hour render by one hour. Stability can be tested after you make changes and you can get extra margin by not trying to get that last 100mhz. Air cooling isn't that hard to do (you can even get with stock cooling). But you can definitely get along fine with a stock system.

An Intel board should be a good choice for a stock system. It's going to be the most compatible board out there.

Bogdan Vaglarov · December 3rd, 2003, 06:49 PM

Exactly!
Well said Glenn - just confirming my thoughts.

John Britt · December 3rd, 2003, 07:01 PM

Just b/c I said i would...here's what I was citing off the top of my head: "Outfitted to appeal to the moderate tweaker, Intel has included a burn-in mode that's really just an overclocking switch. Sure the feature offers just a 5% overclock, and the switch doesn't let you juice up your voltage, but that protect nut cases from frying their CPUs, and maybe that's for the best." Maximum PC Magazine, "Build the Perfect PC," Fall 2003

Glenn, you are right about improving render times and increasing stability, but personally that's just not a chance I'll take. I feel fairly comfortable handling the hardware in my PC, but when someone comes to me needing an ad that has to be completed within less than 24 hours (as seems to happen often recently), I want stabilty -- and for me that means I'll buy the fastest CPU and most memory I can afford and work with that. Of course, you know what they say opinions are like... :)

Julian Luttrell · December 4th, 2003, 03:19 AM

Ken,

just a bit more about Matrox. I'm with Yi Fong Yu on this one.

They may have a nice mid range video card now in the RTX100, but they have stopped a lot of support for their high end Digisuite range (at many thousands of dollars a pop) without offering a replacement. I can assure you that people who spend that sort of money on video hardware are _seriously_ underimpressed by that sort of behaviour.

I know. I have a Digisuite DTV card, with no Premiere Pro support.

I won't buy Matrox again - video or graphics. Decklink anybody?

Regards,

Julian

December 4th, 2003, 03:19 AM	#22
Julian Luttrell Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Cambridge, UK Posts: 164	Matrox again Ken, just a bit more about Matrox. I'm with Yi Fong Yu on this one. They may have a nice mid range video card now in the RTX100, but they have stopped a lot of support for their high end Digisuite range (at many thousands of dollars a pop) without offering a replacement. I can assure you that people who spend that sort of money on video hardware are _seriously_ underimpressed by that sort of behaviour. I know. I have a Digisuite DTV card, with no Premiere Pro support. I won't buy Matrox again - video or graphics. Decklink anybody? Regards, Julian

December 2nd, 2003, 06:40 PM	#16
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	The Intel boards have the least configuration problems. All the hardware vendors make sure their stuff works with the Intel board. With the other board you might get some weird incompatibilities (maybe a certain hardware card doesn't work in certain PCI slots??????). newegg.com reviews will show you the kinds of problems people are having with non-Intel boards. On the other hand, non-Intel boards can offer better bang for the buck. Quite a few of the non-Intel 865P boards have PAT enabled (performance boosting feature). The main advantage the 875P boards have over 865P is that they have PAT. http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.html?i=1831&p=30

December 3rd, 2003, 10:51 AM	#17
Bogdan Vaglarov Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 366	Well I don't have the practical experience but everything on the net concerning motherboards usually lacks reviews on Intel boards . Why? Simply I think they keep close to their own standard which shouldn't favour overclocking. Why Intel will show to the common user that instead of buying P4 3.2 for 400$ he can buy 2.6 for 200 and reach simmilar performance? All hardware reviews show makers using Intel chipset drawing much more potential from the system - it includes BIOS settings flexibility, etc., etc. Now Intel conforms to the standard - lets say 200 MHz FSB. Then Gigabyte would be 201.5, while MSI may be 204 by default. That immediately leads to higher scores for this board over Intel but in general chipset is same and performance of all makers doesn't differ more than 5%. Let's say if you wait for render with Intel 5 minutes it'll be done by Asus for 4:54 - Asus is the winner!!! Here has to be said not everything is in a single component. If your HD or memory are low quality they will be the botleneck, not the MoBo. Asus or Abit will give the entusiast the ultimate power to tweak and overclock. MSI seems not so good for hard overclocking but they will allow dynamic overclocking through Windows (not BIOS) up to 10% which will be very easy for not advanced users to get higher performance. And finally as I mentioned the MoBo itself is not everything so if you go with vendor (not building by yourself) you can be sure they know what they do. If Intell is their chose don't push them to change it as they are acustomed and trouble free with what they use in their regular systems. I might be wrong but just wanted to say my opinion from what I've learnt recently.

December 3rd, 2003, 11:02 AM	#18
John Britt Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 621	<<<-- Originally posted by Bogdan Vaglarov : Well I don't have the practical experience but everything on the net concerning motherboards usually lacks reviews on Intel boards . Why? Simply I think they keep close to their own standard which shouldn't favour overclocking. Why Intel will show to the common user that instead of buying P4 3.2 for 400$ he can buy 2.6 for 200 and reach simmilar performance? All hardware reviews show makers using Intel chipset drawing much more potential from the system - it includes BIOS settings flexibility, etc., etc. -->>> Actually, the "Bonanza" (as the D875PBZLK is called) allows for overclocking (called Burn-In Mode) -- a first for Intel. From what I understand (I will try and find and cite my source this evening when I get home) it doesn't let you make major adjustments, but it does allow for minor overclocking -- sort of like overclocking with a safety net. That said, I feel that overclocking is for gamers and tweakers, not for serious video work. Overclocking requires extra special and extra careful cooling (ever see the Screen Savers episode where they had to cool the CPU with liquid nitrogen?) and can cause instability in some cases. If you are doing serious video work, why would you want to have to deal with these variables when trying to meet a deadline? Equipment that "conforms to standards" is very good when you need it to be reliable -- just ask any Mac user (they'll talk your ear off for ages!) Just my 2-cents.

December 3rd, 2003, 06:49 PM	#20
Bogdan Vaglarov Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 366	Exactly! Well said Glenn - just confirming my thoughts.

December 3rd, 2003, 07:01 PM	#21
John Britt Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 621	Just b/c I said i would...here's what I was citing off the top of my head: "Outfitted to appeal to the moderate tweaker, Intel has included a burn-in mode that's really just an overclocking switch. Sure the feature offers just a 5% overclock, and the switch doesn't let you juice up your voltage, but that protect nut cases from frying their CPUs, and maybe that's for the best." Maximum PC Magazine, "Build the Perfect PC," Fall 2003 Glenn, you are right about improving render times and increasing stability, but personally that's just not a chance I'll take. I feel fairly comfortable handling the hardware in my PC, but when someone comes to me needing an ad that has to be completed within less than 24 hours (as seems to happen often recently), I want stabilty -- and for me that means I'll buy the fastest CPU and most memory I can afford and work with that. Of course, you know what they say opinions are like... :)