New computer: quest for the perfect spec for High Def

Moderator: Ken Berry

Post Reply
maxfrost01
Posts: 274
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:49 pm
operating_system: Windows 7 Home Premium
System_Drive: C
32bit or 64bit: 64 Bit
motherboard: Intel Corporation DX58SO AAE29331-501
processor: Intel i7 920 2.67GHz
ram: 6 GB
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GS
sound_card: High Definition Audio Device
Hard_Drive_Capacity: 2.2 TB
Location: London

New computer: quest for the perfect spec for High Def

Post by maxfrost01 »

Hi,

My kids have finally convinced me that I should quit hogging the family computer for editing video and have my own.

That means I have the chance to start with a blank sheet of paper (well, more like an empty box).

Can't exactly say 'money no object' but I do want something that makes high def video editing reasonably quick and easy (power wise). You can see the spec of my current machine under profile.

Things on my mind include:

Processor speed?
RAM?
Hard drive size?
XP or Vista?
DVD burners?
Firewire/USB ports?
Other stuff I don't even know of that might be really, really useful!


CAn anyone help me design the perfect machine? :D
Max
sjj1805
Posts: 14383
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:20 am
operating_system: Windows XP Pro
System_Drive: C
32bit or 64bit: 32 Bit
motherboard: Equium P200-178
processor: Intel Pentium Dual-Core Processor T2080
ram: 2 GB
Video Card: Intel 945 Express
sound_card: Intel GMA 950
Hard_Drive_Capacity: 1160 GB
Location: Birmingham UK

Post by sjj1805 »

Youre starting point is to look at the MINIMUM specifications required and then work from there upwards.

Whatever computer you buy this week will already be out of date next week and so you need to get the best computer that your pocket can afford.
jchunter

Post by jchunter »

If you are not in too much of a hurry, by the end of this year, I think the Quad processor chips will be affordable and will probably be good for quite a long time. Video editing software probably can't make use of four CPUs, yet, but IMO, will be among the first to be able to take advantage of the extra horsepower for transcoding the highly compressed video codecs such as AVCHD, DIVx, Xvid, H.264, ... The Intel Core2 Extreme QX6700 extreme is available at Dell (for example) for $1999 in the Dell 710 - http://www.dell.com/content/products/pr ... dhs&~ck=mn

Edit: Oops, when I configured the 2.66GHz QX6700 Quad, the price went up to $3160 :shock:
BTW, this is the one that I am waiting for. :) 8)
sjj1805
Posts: 14383
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:20 am
operating_system: Windows XP Pro
System_Drive: C
32bit or 64bit: 32 Bit
motherboard: Equium P200-178
processor: Intel Pentium Dual-Core Processor T2080
ram: 2 GB
Video Card: Intel 945 Express
sound_card: Intel GMA 950
Hard_Drive_Capacity: 1160 GB
Location: Birmingham UK

Post by sjj1805 »

To add to the reply by John, again if you're not in too much of a hurry it may be worth waiting a couple of months due to the imminent release of Microsoft Vista.

OK most of us are happy with our XP system and do not intend to do an upgrade - myself included. This isn't just a matter of whether or not our machines and hardware will run with Vista, but I am sure that many users like myself have highly tuned machines where many programs cross reference other stuff on the machine.

This could include data files, web servers for a local Intranet and many other things too complex to go into detail about here.

If you're going to start off with a new machine then you might as well wait and get one that will no doubt have Vista pre-installed.

Like it or lump it Vista is coming. In fact Microsoft are already working on its replacement Microsoft Vienna.
htchien
Advisor
Posts: 2013
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:10 pm
operating_system: Mac
System_Drive: C
32bit or 64bit: 64 Bit
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Contact:

Post by htchien »

jchunter wrote:If you are not in too much of a hurry, by the end of this year, I think the Quad processor chips will be affordable and will probably be good for quite a long time. Video editing software probably can't make use of four CPUs, yet
To make a best use of the Quad CPU you would need not just a fine-tuned video editing software, but also Windows Vista. It's been told by Tom's Hardware Guide that Windows XP cannot handle the Quad CPU well.

The followings are quoted from the article on Tom's Hardware Guide:

As soon as Microsoft Vista arrives, things will change a bit. Windows XP is unable to tell physical processors apart, and it will distribute the processing of threads to all CPU cores as they are available. Whether the cores are located on one, two or multiple CPUs is irrelevant here, which can cause inter-processor thread-switching. This should be avoided, as it might entail the relocation of thread data as well - isn't that a nice new bottleneck!

Threads that were processed on one physical core might be handled by a different unit the next time they are being executed. If you now think of an Intel quad core created by putting two dual core processors into one physical processor package, you will realize that the Front Side Bus is the only way for inter-processor communication and main memory access.

In a worst case Windows XP scenario, processing unit A has to wait until unit B completes memory access. Then A accesses the memory to fetch data, which it stores in its L2 cache to provide it locally for processing. If, however, Windows assigns the thread to CPU B, it will have to fetch the current data from A's L2 cache, causing additional Front Side Bus traffic. For coherency and performance reasons, data cannot be fetched from the main memory again at this point, since it was already processed. In the end, all of the elements involved are slowed down by this maneuver.

Windows Vista Ultimate Edition will be able to tell processors or nodes apart from simple processing cores. This allows the operating system to assign threads in a more resource-efficient manner: one large task can be executed exclusively on CPU A, while another huge workload runs autonomously on CPU B. Inter-processor task switching is eliminated due to the enhanced hardware awareness of Vista Ultimate, and performance will scale much better with increased core count per processor.


The article is in http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/30/ ... page2.html
jchunter wrote:BTW, this is the one that I am waiting for. :) 8)
I'm also waiting for a Quad CPU, however it will be a MacBook Pro....
maxfrost01 wrote:That means I have the chance to start with a blank sheet of paper (well, more like an empty box).

Can't exactly say 'money no object' but I do want something that makes high def video editing reasonably quick and easy (power wise). You can see the spec of my current machine under profile.
Maybe you can start from letting us know your budget range?

H.T.
Ted (H.T.)

[color=red]The message is provided AS IS with no warranties and confers no rights. For official tech support please contact Corel Tech Support.[/color]

[url=http://www.youtube.com/htchien]My YouTube channel[/url]
jchunter

Post by jchunter »

htchien wrote:Threads that were processed on one physical core might be handled by a different unit the next time they are being executed. If you now think of an Intel quad core created by putting two dual core processors into one physical processor package, you will realize that the Front Side Bus is the only way for inter-processor communication and main memory access.
...
Windows Vista Ultimate Edition will be able to tell processors or nodes apart from simple processing cores. This allows the operating system to assign threads in a more resource-efficient manner: one large task can be executed exclusively on CPU A, while another huge workload runs autonomously on CPU B. Inter-processor task switching is eliminated due to the enhanced hardware awareness of Vista Ultimate, and performance will scale much better with increased core count per processor
HT,
Thank you for posting that article. I had been looking for some architectural info. I will be fascinated to watch the performance of four processors when they are microseconds apart in time rather than tens of milliseconds, as they used to be back in the days when CPUs were as big as refrigerators (Am I giving away my age again?). Multiprocessor and multiprocess synchronization are very difficult operations and even more difficult to make work fast. Getting the execution units physically closer will offer 3 - 4 decimal orders of magnitude improvement in the speed of the sync semaphores - so chances are good for a a continuation of performance improvement beyond four CPUs (the choke point, back in the stone age). :)
maddrummer3301
Posts: 2507
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:24 pm
Location: US

Post by maddrummer3301 »

.
Post Reply