Getting PC ready for HD
 

Well, I just ordered my HMC40 and am sprucing up the ol edit rig for handling the HD footage. It'll be getting a Q9550 quad core, and a helping of Windows 7 64 bit to run CS4. Now it's currently running 4gb of RAM, and an 8800GTS card from EVGA.

My question here lies in whether or not I should upgrade the RAM to 8GB, in particular these:
Newegg.com - CORSAIR XMS2 DHX 8GB (4 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Quad Kit Desktop Memory Model Q2X8G6400C4DHX - Desktop Memory

Or if I should upgrade the graphics card to a true workstation card and get a CUDA powered Quadro, card such as this guy:
Newegg.com - PNY VCQFX580-PCIE-PB Quadro FX 580 512MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 Workstation Video Card - Workstation Graphics / Video Cards

I'm pretty sure I'll end up doing both, just wondering what would be more beneficial in the for starters here. I'm guessing it's the RAM.

Thanks
Paul

Paul,

As far as the ram is concerned if you like Corsair Ram, and I do, go to the Corsair web site and see what is recommended for your mother board. Also if you want to tell us what motherboard you have, maybe we could make a recommendation.

Also in regards to the video card you have selected, it has only average reviews. Do you have a single or dual monitor set-up?

Paul,

It would be very helpful if you can tell us which motherboard you are planning to use the Q9550 on. Not all Socket LGA775 motherboards can accept even a Core2 series CPU, let alone a 45nm quad-core version of that CPU. And even if a motherboard is an early model that claims "Core2 Compatible", it might support only the older 65nm versions of the Core2 series CPU, such as the Core2 Quad Q6xxx series. And if your existing motherboard currently houses an older pre-Core2 processor, such as a Pentium D (not to be confused with the more recent Pentium Dual-Core E2xxx series processors, which are cut versions of the Core2 Duo E6xxx series processors) or Pentium 4, it will almost certainly not support any of the 45nm Core2 processors at all.

Also, even if the motherboard of your choosing can accept a Core2 Quad Q9xxx series CPU, some motherboards have no way at all whatsoever to manually adjust the DIMM voltage (or put it this way, their DIMM voltage setting is permanently fixed at 1.8 Volts). The C4DHX kit requires a DIMM voltage of 2.1 Volts in order to even use the advertised latency timings on those modules. If the DIMM voltage is not up to those requirements, then you shouldn't run those modules at their advertised 4-4-4-12 latency timings - but instead, you should increase the latency timings to at least 5-5-5-18 (the modules' default SPD setting) in order to even work.

Third, many motherboards will default the memory speed down to 667MHz (PC2-5300) instead of the rated 800MHz (PC2-6400) if you use more than two modules. If that's the case, you might be able to manually set the memory speed to the full 800MHz, subject to the other limitations that I described in the previous paragraph.

Finally, if you find that you have to buy a new motherboard in addition to a new processor and new memory because you have a motherboard that's so old (with an Intel 915 or 925XE chipset or any other older Intel chipset up to the 975X) that it won't support the Core2 series processors at all (even though the processors will physically fit the socket), then maybe it's time to upgrade to an i-series platform (such as an i5 or i7 processor in either dual-channel LGA1156 or triple-channel LGA1366 form). But then, you will have to purchase DDR3 memory instead of DDR2 memory for that new upgrade.

In other words, if a complete motherboard and CPU replacement is required, then I would not spend any more money on an aging and outgoing platform (Intel is scheduled to abandon LGA775 entirely by the end of this year - and no new processors are being developed any more for this socket type). Instead, I would save up for the major components of a newer platform. On the other hand, if your existing motherboard can accept the Q9550 with a simple BIOS update, then buying that Q9550 and extra memory makes better economic sense than a complete overhaul.

I have to echo Randall on this one... if you plan on utilizing the Core2 chip you have stated and have already ordered it, then definitely go with a memory upgrade as your first option. NLEs absolutely love RAM.

However, if you find that you are going to need a motherboard upgrade (not all 775 chipset motherboards support the 45nm chips) and you haven't ordered that CPU yet, seriously consider the i7. Randall suggested the i5 and i7, but I'd say just look at i7 to maximize what you get for the money, because the i5's don't support hyperthreading.

For video cards, I have to ask what NLE you are using. If Adobe, then realize that CS4 won't really utilize any hardware acceleration so it's not going to give you much performance increase at all compared to memory or processing speed upgrades. Further, the card you listed is not one of the most current Quadro cards, so it will not be supported by CS5's Mercury Playback Engine. You will REALLY want your card to be able to use that. See in the Premiere section of this forum for more info on that.

If you end up needing a motherboard for the 9550, email me craig (at) wildflyproductions.com . I have a Asus P5K 64 WS board that I think was turned on just once. It was ordered "open box" from the major online computer retailer and didn't come with the metal I/O plate that connects to the case and covers the gaps between i/o ports. At the time those covers weren't available to order, so my client ordered himself the retail kit and this "open box" one went on my shelf.

You are correct on this one. Most NLEs prefer multicore and HyperThreading. The i5-7xx series is better for gaming than video editing/rendering work. With the i5, you can have quad-core but no HyperThreading support (7xx series), or HyperThreading support but only dual-core (6xx series with integrated video that's currently compatible with only the H55, H57 or Q57 chipsets; the 6xx series processors will work on a P55 or P57 chipset motherboard but with on-CPU integrated video support disabled); in other words, the i5 has only four logical cores (versus eight on the i7). Then there's the i3 which both lacks HyperThreading support and is only dual-core.

Also, the choice between the 1156 and the 1366 platform depends largely on how much money you want to spend on a large amount of RAM. Since 1156 platforms use only dual-channel, going to more than 8GB total will cost you a relatively astronomical amount of money (primarily because 4GB memory modules still cost about 50% more money per GB than 2GB memory modules) whereas you can go up to 12GB on a 1366 system without having to spend an arm and a leg. (Simply put, you can typically purchase 12GB of RAM, via two 6GB triple-channel kits, for a 1366 platform for roughly the same amount of money as what a single 8GB dual-channel kit costs for an 1156 platform.)

And if you want to run 64-bit Windows 7 or Vista with such large amounts of RAM, keep in mind that the Home Premium edition is limited to 16GB of RAM maximum. The Professional (Win7), Business (Vista) and Ultimate editions support up to 128GB of RAM. Thus, if someone wants to max out a 1366 platform's memory capacity by loading it up with six 4GB modules, that person would need to run 64-bit Win7 Professional, Vista Business or Win7/Vista Ultimate in order for the operating system to see all 24GB of RAM (Vista requires SP1 or higher or a software hotfix in order to work properly with more than 3GB of RAM). In my experience, I found the Professional slightly better suited to video editing work than the Ultimate (as far as Windows 7 editions go) due to the Professional having a little less "junk" in it.

Well then, I had considered myself to be pretty knowledgeable with this stuff, but I'm definitely glad I asked.

My motherboard is this model:
Newegg.com - EVGA 122-CK-NF68-A1 LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 680i SLI ATX Intel Motherboard - Intel Motherboards (Edit, and upon checking this out, looks like this Mobo only works with 65nm chips. Looks like it's time to get an RMA)

Also, in regards to the video card only getting decent reviews, if I end up buying that one later, I could save up for the next step up which I believe is a much nicer card.

I'll check with the RAM compatibility for my mobo as well. (Edit, upon searching this, Corsair says it is compatible.)

Also, I'll be using CS4, and eventually upgrading to CS5 I hope.

Thanks guys.

So as much as I would love to make the Jump to an i7, I just can't afford to right now, so I'm thinking that this motherboard would probably be the best purchase.

Newegg.com - GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3R LGA 775 Intel P45 ATX Intel Motherboard - Intel Motherboards

GA-EP45-UD3R (rev. 1.1) - GIGABYTE - Product - Motherboard - Specification

Supports 45nm chips, supports faster RAM, and is pretty decently rated as well.

Paul, I'm not entirely clear from this thread what parts you're keeping and what you're upgrading. You've mentioned a processor, mobo, RAM, video card, and new OS -- all the hardware is on the verge of being "legacy."

If you mean to replace all those components and add Win 7, with the intent of running CS4 and CS5, you're essentially building a new computer and I agree with the others that building an i7 will be a much better expenditure -- and not much more money at that if you're going for a 920 chip. IMO, it won't matter how little or much you spend on upgrading an older system; it will almost certainly still disappoint you when trying to edit HD.

Regardless of the rest of the system, a fast RAID for your data files will also make a big difference; no way around that (see the many posts by Harm Millaard about that topic).

Actually, I priced your intended upgrade versus my recommended i7 alternative. Your desired Q9550/DDR2 setup will actually cost $20 more than my recommended i7-860/DDR3-1333 alternative listed below (both with 8GB of total RAM) from the same vendor (Newegg) - and with the i7-860 setup I suggested as an alternative, you also get USB 3.0 and SATA III 6.0 Gbps support (albeit via onboard third-party controllers) should you need it (the P55 chipset natively supports RAID through its six associated SATA II 3.0 Gbps ports without the need for a third-party controller). Plus, with your originally intended setup, there is no guarantee that your intended motherboard could even run DDR2-800 memory at its full rated speed with all four memory slots filled; more likely, the memory speed will default to a slower DDR2-667 speed with such a full load of memory (plus, Core2 systems with DDR2 memory work best with memory that's running at exactly the same true clock speed as the true clock speed of the processor's front-side bus - DDR2-667 speed for an FSB1333 Q9550 processor). And even with more normal DDR2 memory totalling 8GB, the aged old Socket 775 upgrade will still cost you almost as much money as my recommended i7-860 upgrade package since part of the 775 package's high price comes from high-performance, low-latency DDR2 memory which in itself costs a bit higher than normal-latency DDR2 memory. Moreover, desktop DDR2 memory prices right now are increasing while desktop DDR3 prices remain flat due to the fact that fewer and fewer new systems still use desktop DDR2 memory which itself will hang around for just a little longer in low-cost, low-memory-capacity micro desktop systems powered by such embedded processors as the Intel Atom - a sign that DDR2 memory is now clearly past its prime. (And I could recommend an i7-860 upgrade package that's even less expensive than the one listed below simply by eliminating the nice-but-currently-unnecessary add-on SATA III and USB 3.0 controllers and ports.) This is exactly why I would not recommend spending a single penny on such an aged platform that's on the verge of being phased out of production when you can get a much more up-to-date platform for about the same price as what the older platform would cost you.

To be exact, my "recommended" i7-860 alternative is comprised of the following components:

Newegg.com - GIGABYTE GA-P55A-UD3 LGA 1156 Intel P55 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard

Newegg.com - Intel Core i7-860 Lynnfield 2.8GHz 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1156 95W Quad-Core Processor - Retail

Newegg.com - CORSAIR XMS3 8GB (4 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) Desktop Memory Model CMX8GX3M4A1333C9 - Retail

Note that I did not include the other i7 alternative, the i7-920, because the motherboards available for that processor are significantly more expensive than the motherboards available for the 860. A system I priced with one of the lower-priced X58 motherboards would have cost about the same amount of money as the other two setups I compared - but the 920 system will still have only 6GB of RAM versus 8GB on the other two setups for that total motherboard/processor/memory upgrade price.

On the other hand, if you have already ordered the CPU, then yes, go ahead with your originally intended motherboard and memory upgrade. Keep in mind, though, with the motherboard switch you will need to completely wipe out your system's hard drive and reinstall Windows from scratch because your existing motherboard uses an NVIDIA nForce 680i SLI core-logic chipset while the newer motherboard uses an Intel core-logic chipset.

Regardless, if you need a newer workstation-level graphics card, you will need to add the price of that card to the $650-ish total price of either the "legacy" or the i7-860 upgrade. And since your intended graphics card replacement will not be much, if any, of an upgrade from your current 8800GTS (since your intended replacement card still does not support the CS5's Mercury Playback engine), you might as well stick with your current graphics card until you save up enough money for the card upgrade to one which does support the Mercury engine.

Thus, my advice is to go for the motherboard/processor/memory upgrade now (whether you end up with your originally intended upgrade or the alternative i7-860 upgrade that I suggested), and save up more money for a truly up-to-date workstation-level graphics card later.

P.S. I did check the eVGA site for your current motherboard, and found that it does not support any of the 45nm Core2 Quad processors (Q9xxx or QX9xxx series) at all due to the limitations of the nForce 680i chipset. 45nm Core2 Duo (E7xxx or E8xxx series) processors, however, are supported with the most recent BIOS version.

I double-checked this again, and I was incorrect on the i3. The i3 is simply a version of the dual-core, HyperThreading-enabled i5-6xx series processors with the Turbo feature (as used on all i5 and i7 processors) disabled. The Pentium G6950 (also for Socket 1156) is the only dual-core processor with integrated graphics support which lacks HyperThreading support. All of those dual-core processors have integrated graphics support which works in conjunction with a motherboard using an H55, H57 or Q57 chipset. And as I said in my earlier post they will work on a P55 or P57 motherboard but with integrated graphics support disabled.

Wow thanks tremendously for that. I'm on my phone so I'll read it over more when I get home from work.

The biggest issue is that I do already have the processor in my possesion and Newegg doesn't allow RMA on it despite being a retail unused version of it. I may call them and plead my case and hope for the best. You're right though at this point it seems futile to upgade this pc much further.

Wiping my system drive is going to be performed anyhow when I install windows 7. The essentials are already backed up.

*Big sigh of relief*

Well, just got off the phone with Newegg, and they are super cool and are letting me return the processor. I'll be going with your setup there Randall, and then saving up further down the road for a Mercury compatible Quadro card. Thanks for everyone's help in this rather annoying process. I thought my skills were up to par but I built this machine over 2 years ago so things had obviously changed a lot since then haha.

I'll definitely ask for a review BEFORE I buy the stuff next time to see if everything checks out.

Thanks,
Paul

Unless I'm mistaken, the 1366 platform, although just slightly more expensive now, has a more robust upgrade path than the 1156 for video editors. You may find that in 6 months or a year you want to upgrade to a hexacore processor -- anticipated to be a significant leap in performance over the current i7 processors -- which doesn't appear will be an option for the 1156. I understand you are watching your budget very closely for this computer but you may be happier longer by spending just a few bucks more now. Just something to chew on.

Well, I just purchased my Gigabyte board already, and am waiting on the RMA from Newegg. If at the point of Hexacores coming out I decide I need one, then I'll go that route, but for now, I believe this shall do fine for me.

However, the forthcoming hexacore processors - if they are introduced to the market - will remain astronomically expensive for years to come (as had happened to Intel's first "x86" CPU, the 8086/8088, which had remained at relatively the same price over the feasible nearly-decade-long production life of those CPUs). This means that when such processors come out, no 1366 processor costing less than $1000 will remain in production (all sub-$1000 processors would move to 1156 by that time) - and the prices of the least expensive hexacore processor will remain at the $1000 or higher price point for many years. At that point, the 1366 platform will be moved further upscale to workstation status. (This is exactly in line with Intel's platform roadmap for the next several years.)

What that all means that if you want a 1366 platform for the lower price, better do so before the hexacore processors come out. Afterwards, the cost of the least expensive 1366 upgrade package will increase to about $1200 to $1300 even with only 3GB of RAM since all processors priced at less than i7 Extreme Edition levels will have moved completely to the 1156 platform. (A hexacore non-Extreme Edition i9 is not on Intel's current road map: These processors will only be sold as Extreme Edition processors - and therefore such an astronomical price tag - for the foreseeable future. Xeon versions will also be produced, at similarly high prices.)

And not all X58 motherboards will even support the hexacore processors at all. The hexacore processors will likely require an entirely new chipset (likely to be dubbed something like the X68 chipset) in order to even work properly due to substantial electrical differences between the hexacores (which will almost certainly use the 32nm process that's currently used by the Clarksfield-core i5-6xx and i3-5xx processors for the 1156) and the current i7-9xx processors. Hence, buying a current 1366 upgrade package is no guarantee that you can even upgrade to hexacore at all. (This is analogous to the NVIDIA nForce 680 chipset which could not support the 45nm quad-core processors at all even though it supported the older 65nm quad-cores and the 45nm dual-core processors.) In fact, if you currently have a 1366 system, you will likely have to also upgrade the motherboard if you want to upgrade to hexacore. This makes an upgrade to 1366 unwise right now since the new hexacores will likely use the same socket type but with some of the pin assignments switched around, making older 1366 processors completely incompatible with newer motherboards, as well as making newer processors completely incompatible with older motherboards (even though the processors will physically fit their sockets). If one ignores this warning and try to upgrade without also upgrading the motherboard, that person may very well end up with a system which refuses to even POST until the newer processor is removed and the older processor is reinstalled (or, if one buys a newer motherboard to replace a burnt-out older model while keeping the same older CPU, that system will refuse to POST until the owner upgrades to the newer processor). No BIOS update will even help solve this since this becomes a hardware compatibility issue.

It will definitely be prudent to do one's research and verify component compatibility before buying. Paul just got burned on that, I have burned myself on that before, and no doubt many others of us have. As always, caveat emptor.

However, currently available information does not support this opinion. Multiple sources indicate that the 980X will be pin compatible and will work in existing X58 mobos with a BIOS update. This is corroborated by timing: the 980X is expected to be released within the next month or two, while the successor to the X58 chipset (about which I can't even find much info online yet), is obviously some time further out. Intel isn't going to release a high-end chip that has no mobo to plug it in to.

As far as price, you can build an i920 system quite economically now and if you want some more horsepower later, just drop in a new processor. The high end chips have retailed in the +/- $1000 range for years. Intel seemed to have violated the "bang for buck" principle with the 975 vs 920, but in general, the "astronomical" price of the high end processors only fractionally add to the overall price of a high-end computer and in turn give an incremental speed increase over a slower processor. If it does happen that one's current mobo won't support a future super-fast xyz-core chip, then true enough, you'll add a couple hundred bucks for a new mobo to the price of the upgrade. Those are all choices the system builder/buyer can make.

It appears that any upcoming 1156 performance upgrades will be in small increments. The 1366 is poised to see 50% or more in overall CPU performance with the Gulftown (980X) processor.

There's always a three way dance between cost, hardware capability, and editing software performance. We are all excited about Mercury (presumably, but not definitely, slated for CS5 later this year), but we should all remember that the online demos were done with a top-end dual processor Xeon workstation with an expensive Quadro graphics card. I don't know what the disc subsystem was, but almost certainly was an expensive and fast RAID array -- what business is going to put out video of its upcoming wares that shows it in anything but the best light?

Six core chips aren't out yet, and Mercury isn't out yet. So this is merely a prediction, and not a fact, but here it is: I think anyone running Adobe/Mercury on an economy system (lacking ANY of these three components: high-end processor, expensive and compatible graphics card, and fast RAID array), will be disappointed trying to edit full raster HD. Especially if their workflow includes After Effects.

Myself, I was planning to take the i920 to hexacore path myself, but just haven't gotten around to it. So at this point, I'm saving my pennies and will build a new 980X with a ton of RAM, a Quadro card and fast RAID shortly after Gulftown hits the street...making due with my elderly QX6700 until then.

Although you ended up picking the system that I suggested, I will reiterate that the graphics card that you linked to is actually not one of the better ones. In fact, it is a significant step down in performance from your current GeForce 8800GTS because the Quadro FX580 actually uses the same GPU as the consumer GeForce 9400GT and 9500GT graphics cards. You see, although the Quadro FX580 is technically "CUDA-powered", it is no more so than your current card (which, by the way, also supports CUDA through software emulation like the Quadro FX580 and all other NVIDIA graphics cards using a G80 series or later GPU). And as I noted in another thread, the Adobe CS5's Mercury Playback Engine will work only with an extremely high-end consumer GeForce GTX2xx series graphics card or a version of the most recent Quadro FX line with hardware-based CUDA acceleration.

And don't even think about getting a GeForce GTX250: That card is not a true GTX2xx series card - but instead uses the exact same G92 GPU as the original 8800GT, the 8800GTS 512MB, the 9800GT and the 9800GTX. If you do, it would only be a sideways-step in performance from your current card.

By the way, from what I've read CS5 requires at least 12GB of RAM just to even run at all (although the exact minimum is not yet confirmed by Adobe). If the 12GB figure were correct, then with your chosen system the only way that you'll be even able to run CS5 would be to buy four 4GB modules for that system (this means a matched quad-module pack totalling 16GB). The system that you originally would have chosen would not have been able to run CS5 at all due to its maximum supported memory capacity of 8GB.

I agree with Randall that spending money now on a video card in anticipation of CS5 is not worthwhile. I'd wait on that.

Other than some blogging about graphics cards and the video demo, CS5 system requirements are not publically known, of course, but posts in the Adobe fora from people who appear to be well connected to development indicate requirements will be somewhat scaleable. In one of Harm's threads over there, a fellow talks about not even needing all 8GB his Mac laptop has for what he is doing (whatever that is). But of course it is intuitively obvious that the processing required for multiple layers of 4K footage with multiple effects would take a serious system.

A lot we don't know; there is no such thing as too FAST a computer but there is such a thing as a too SLOW computer. This is why I don't advocate buying/building a middle-of-the-road system now in anticipation of doing smooth HD editing over the next couple of years. I'm doubtful about the 12GB RAM as an official minimum requirement but as time goes by, new software almost always drives the need for faster systems. Time will tell.

Randall and Pete, more very solid advice. I've got the processor on the way and just waiting for the next check to order the ram, I think at this point I'll be set for doing my basic stuff.

I totally see what you are saying about the graphics cards, so I think I mentioned that I'll just save up for one of the top tier Quadro's and purchase that later down the road. This will hold true for CS5 as well if that ends up being the case of needing the 12 gigs. I'm pretty confident CS4 will do me right for the time being however.

It's also good to hear that the 1156 is a sound choice. And I can't really see myself needing a hexacore at all unless fortune smiles upon me and I find myself the owner of a RED one. A guy can dream though right?

Paul,

Socket 1156 is a sound choice although Socket 1366 would have been even better for this purpose. Then again, a lot of people might not be able to afford the proper platform for HD video editing for the foreseeable future (for example, the components needed for optimal HD editing performance in a forthcoming version of Adobe Premiere, CS5, would have cost well over $1,000). In that case, then I understand your getting merely the "best" platform that you can get with a sufficient amount of RAM for your somewhat limited budget.

And as I stated earlier, given your $650-ish budget, going with a 1366 platform upgrade would have left you with zero RAM (had you gone with the Asus motherboard that so many enthusiasts use) or only 3 to 6 GB of RAM (had you gone with one of the least expensive motherboard offerings for that socket). A P6T Deluxe v2 plus an i7-920 and 12GB (2GB x 6) of RAM would have cost you about $900 total.

Randall, - re components costing over $1000 for optimal editing performance, I am not interested in Raid, but would spend up to $1500 if necessary to get reliable AVCHD timeline editing in Vegas Pro 9 - socket 1366/i7-920 etc. I am interested in using Sata 3 but you don't seem to be in favour of these yet.

I use internal consumer drives mounted in removable caddies for my video files and I was going to have them all Sata 3 drives incl. the C drive in my next build which is to be probably the next 2 weeks.

What would you suggest ? (Not interested Macs.)

Tanks, (St. P. Day !)
RonC.

Ron,

The only reason why I am not yet in favor of SATA III is that the only current core-logic chipset which natively supports SATA III is the AMD 890 series chipset for AMD processors. And the fastest current AMD processor performs no better than an older Intel Core 2 Quad for video editing.

There will be no Intel chipset which natively supports SATA III until next year. Until then, any Intel processor-based motherboard with SATA III support will continue to use a third-party controller connected to the IOH's or CPU's PCIe 2.0 lanes.

The Asus P6X58D Premium supports SATA III through the Marvell controller, giving (2) SATA III ports. That should be fine if you want to run an OS drive with that spec. If you want to run ALL your drives like that, you'll need a dedicated controller such as the Highpoint RocketRaid 2720. The Highpoint RAID controllers are great for video editors.

Also, don't be scared away from a RAID controller utilizing PCIe 2.0 lanes... you won't hear anyone complaining about their Areca controllers that run through the same technology.

I personally feel your best gain from SATA III will come from your OS drive, especially if you are using a SATA III SSD. I wouldn't worry about spending the money for it on your video drives unless you plan on only using a 2 drive RAID 0 for heavy HD editing. You can easily gain disk read speed by using more drives in your RAID array.

Adobe has relaxed its official minimum requirements for Premiere CS5. I found this out on the day of CS5's introduction (today).

Premiere CS5 (Windows version) requires a minimum of 2GB of RAM to even run at all - but Adobe recommends 4GB or more RAM.

Also, the selected CUDA-accelerated NVIDIA cards are supported for GPU acceleration; otherwise, rendering is performed using the CPU. In other words, something faster than a Core 2 or an AMD processor, as well as 6GB or more RAM, is strongly recommended if one does not have a supported NVIDIA card in the system.

ANYOne KNOW ABOUT A PRODUCT CALLED TRICASTER ?
 

for sd/hd editing,post production work anyone know about this company (Newtek) Tricaster 850 looks
interesting? Anyone work with their products? are they xeon/i7 core based units?

New Killer Mobo "Hot"
 

those of you building new Editing workstations, you may want to check out
a new motherboard for your work/ home studio! Here's the link:
evga Classifiled SR-2 EVGA.COM
[url=http://www.evga.com/articles/00537/http://www.evga.com/articles/00537/]EVGA |
Enjoy!!!

Keep in mind that my statement in the first paragraph is what's officially supported by Adobe. There is a software tweak which allows almost any CUDA-powered card with at least 765MB of free (not total) graphics memory to be used with PP CS5's MPE GPU acceleration feature (768MB cards are very marginal because a graphics card set to display 1024x768x32bpp already eats up 3MB of graphics memory). Unfortunately, the Quadro FX 580 cannot use that feature at all because it has only 512MB of total graphics memory. Therefore, it must use the software-only feature of MPE just like any non-CUDA or non-NVIDIA card at present. And even if that FX 580 did have 1GB of RAM, it would not have been able to take any advantage at all whatsoever of MPE's CUDA feature because the GPU itself is relatively weak compared to the relative performance of almost any of the CPUs required to run PP CS5. In fact, the FX 580 has only 32 stream processors (versus 192 or more stream processors in the officially supported GPUs in Adobe's CS5 list), so it would not have performed any better than a vanilla GeForce 9500 GT in GPU-intensive applications. In other words, the FX 580 would have lost out to even a cheap GeForce GT 220 simply because the latter card has 48 stream processors (the FX 580 has only 32, just like the 9500 GT).

And even though the lower-end CUDA-powered cards can technically use the GPU acceleration feature of MPE, don't be surprised if the performance from those cards turns out to actually be slower than if that same system were using the software-only mode. And that can happen if the GPU is a GTS 250 or lower installed in an i7 system. The CUDA mode in MPE really requires an NVIDIA GPU with at least 192 stream processors in order to function optimally.