|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 19th, 2011, 09:02 AM | #1 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York City
Posts: 523
|
A Vegas computer--in general terms
I'm contemplating splurging for a new editing computer. Previous computers have been mostly for Canopus Edius with Vegas running as an afterthought. Now, I'm shifting my focus to Vegas. Hmm. Better make that a 'limited' splurge--this computer has to have extremely high value rather than unlimited performance. I can only spend a max of $1k.
Sony doesn't seem to provide a lot of help in specifying a computer. What is really needed? I'm still using v9 (unless they have another sale on the upgrade...). How many processor cores? How much ram? What kind of video card? (Do I really need a video card?) Which operating system? At the moment, I'm contemplating a new Sandy Bridge i5. i7 just seems like it will be out of the question. I've never been an overclocker so I'm torn between a cheap H67--assuming the built-in video will be adequate and a 'real' P67--biting the bullet for an overclockable CPU and a cheap video card. I do want to wait for Sandy Bridge so I've got some time to think and research this. For comparison, I'm currently running an E6850 (dual core-no hyper, 3GHz) on an Asus P5k-e w. 2Gb ram and a Radeon x1950pro 256Mb.
__________________
Andy Tejral Railroad Videographer |
February 19th, 2011, 01:21 PM | #2 |
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rhinelander, WI
Posts: 1,258
|
|
February 19th, 2011, 01:47 PM | #3 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York City
Posts: 523
|
No, the question was more--how much video processing power do I need? Will the motherboard video provide an adequate solution? And is the cost saving worth the potential overclocking gains?
FYI, the H67 chipset allows on board video and no overclocking (h=home?) and the P67 requires a separate video card and allows overclocking with an appropriate CPU (p=pro?). However, ain't a whole lot of info out there since the mobo's ain't out yet... SATA problem with the chipset... Its seems that some users here have some inside info sometimes and I was hoping for some of that!
__________________
Andy Tejral Railroad Videographer |
February 19th, 2011, 04:12 PM | #4 |
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: upper hunter, australia
Posts: 1,410
|
most 'umphy' cpu + min 6gb ram (for 64bit) you can afford. mb with firewire (unless your cam is hd / card). cheap vid card with 2 dvi out (for dual monitors). your good to go.
__________________
www.lesliewand.com.au |
February 19th, 2011, 06:28 PM | #5 |
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rhinelander, WI
Posts: 1,258
|
It is hard to tell without knowing further details. You can try it and see if it works. If it does, fine. If not, add a video card.
That said, I would not put much trust in motherboard video. Then again, I do not even trust motherboard audio. |
February 19th, 2011, 09:56 PM | #6 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 2,211
|
And with good reason!
|
February 20th, 2011, 05:12 AM | #7 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 221
|
Cuda
Here is the recommended $2000 system from Toms Hardware
System Builder Marathon, Sept. 2010: $2000 Performance PC : The Quest For Six-Core Value By now, 5 mo later, the components should be much less than $1500 - for value vs Performance it seems AMD is the better choice. I wouldn't recommend saving money on the graphics card, more and more applications/filters/FX are now offloading to GPU processing, nVidia CUDA, so try a 9500GT CUDA-enabled card, available from $50 Some more reading from speed geeks, basically he's saying the the rest of the components have to be high-end to keep up the the faster i7/sandy bridge CPU's , else you get no speed gains... Quote:
/magnus
__________________
Magnus Helander, Crossmediageek on G+ |
|
February 20th, 2011, 08:26 AM | #8 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York City
Posts: 523
|
Quote:
And why do things have to be difficult. nVidia says that virtually all of their chipsets have CUDA but Newegg only lists the Quadro cards with that spec... Confusing. Yeah, because of the overclocking issue, I think I'll be going with a 'P' motherboard. We'll see what the prices are when they come out...
__________________
Andy Tejral Railroad Videographer |
|
February 20th, 2011, 09:00 AM | #9 |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 221
|
For a list of CUDA-enabled cards look at
CUDA GPUs It's a trend, today Vegas 10 can render AVC/H.264 using the Sony codec with GPU-acceleration, more applications move to gpu-processing every day... vegas11 could possibly have gpu-accelerated preview, somehow they need to motivate those upgrades, i don't thing 3D-features is really the thing ;)
__________________
Magnus Helander, Crossmediageek on G+ |
February 20th, 2011, 09:30 AM | #10 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York City
Posts: 523
|
Quote:
I really should wait until I can afford an i7 and upgrades to Vegas. But who knows when that will be... I am willing to accept donations... Just not a fan of AMD. Intel guy here.
__________________
Andy Tejral Railroad Videographer |
|
February 20th, 2011, 12:32 PM | #11 |
Sponsor: JET DV
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern Illinois
Posts: 7,953
|
With Vegas 9, it doesn't matter what video card you use. Vegas 9 won't use any of the special features of video cards.
With Vegas 10 (both Pro and Movie Studio), it will use CUDA support on some renders (i.e. Sony AVC). Who knows what the future will hold.
__________________
Edward Troxel [SCVU] JETDV Scripts/Scripting Tutorials/Excalibur/Montage Magic/Newsletters |
February 21st, 2011, 11:15 AM | #12 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lousana, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 146
|
Re: A Vegas computer--in general terms
You could buy a non-i7 quad core - they are quite a bit cheaper. I use a Q9550, 2.83 GHz intel Core 2 Guad processor with 8 gigs of ram and 64 bit vista (which will be replaced by windows 7 soon). Running Vegas 9. I noticed a huge difference when I upgraded from Vegas 6 on my old hyperlink PC. The rendering times have improved significantly and I have done audio mixes of over 24 tracks without any issues whatsoever.
__________________
Nature Boy |
February 21st, 2011, 02:09 PM | #13 |
Sponsor: JET DV
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern Illinois
Posts: 7,953
|
Re: A Vegas computer--in general terms
Vista which will be replaced by Win 7 soon???? When did this information come from? Win 7 has been out for quite some time now and is strongly recommended over Vista.
__________________
Edward Troxel [SCVU] JETDV Scripts/Scripting Tutorials/Excalibur/Montage Magic/Newsletters |
February 21st, 2011, 03:54 PM | #14 |
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rhinelander, WI
Posts: 1,258
|
Re: A Vegas computer--in general terms
|
February 21st, 2011, 05:54 PM | #15 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Melrose Park, Illinois, USA
Posts: 936
|
Re: A Vegas computer--in general terms
Quote:
Also, the current LGA 775 quad-cores are now way overpriced new (if they're even available at all any longer): The Q9650 still costs a whopping $250. As such I cannot recommend spending that much money for a processor that uses an already obsolete socket. In fact, if you're spending anywhere close to $200 for just a CPU, you're better off with a quad-core i5. (Though i5 will still lag behind an i7 in video editing performance because the quad-core i5's lack HyperThreading, and the NLEs do take significant advantage of HT.) |
|
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|