New computer

[lassegus]

My old computer has crashed and I am in the situation to buy a new one.
I am using Videostudio X4 and want a computer that can handle the load of authoring and rendering my HD videos from my JVC camcorder.

What shall be important to think of regarding the capacity of the computer? Processor I5 or I7? More?

As my old computer crashed because of the mothercard I also hope my old problem with not being able to create 3D will be solved with a new computer...

[pepegota]

Get an I7, Sandy Bridge with the Z68 MB and 16 GB Ram-FAAASSSTTT. I got mine custom built from AVADirect. What a machine!

[teknisyan]

Just like what Pepegota said, get an core i7 process and all the works. If you are getting a laptop, just get one of those Gaming Laptops, since they usually are configured to have the best specs for laptop and usually have a bluray burner included.

[UncleBoo]

If you have the budget, by all means, get the i7. If you have limited budget, then IMHO for a given dollar amount, a i5 with higher clock rate is better than an i7 with lower clock rate, because VS editing is "single threaded" and the higher clock speed i5 will actually preform better.

[lassegus]

Thank you all,

I will certainly go for a new desktop computer with an i7 processor.

[Joe Linn]

I was wondering about the same thing. My computer is 4 years old with a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Quad processor. I was looking at an i7 with a 3.4 GHz processor. Would I only see a 50% improvement going from 2.4 Ghz to 3.4 GHz or do the newer processors do more work with each tick of the clock? If VS is single-threaded, can it only use one processor at a time? I read that Mercalli can make use of the multiple processors. I have been using Mercalli a lot with VS Ultimate. I was also wondering if editing HD video is going to be CPU-bound or with such large amounts of data is it going to be IO-bound so that a newer computer won't help much? It would be disappointing to spend a lot of money on a new high-end computer and not see a noticeable increase in speed.

Computers were doubling in speed every couple of years for so long that it seems like the improvements now are no longer so dramatic.

Joe

[marco_42]

any 6 core will do.

[UncleBoo]

I was wondering about the same thing. My computer is 4 years old with a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Quad processor. I was looking at an i7 with a 3.4 GHz processor. Would I only see a 50% improvement going from 2.4 Ghz to 3.4 GHz or do the newer processors do more work with each tick of the clock? If VS is single-threaded, can it only use one processor at a time? I read that Mercalli can make use of the multiple processors. I have been using Mercalli a lot with VS Ultimate. I was also wondering if editing HD video is going to be CPU-bound or with such large amounts of data is it going to be IO-bound so that a newer computer won't help much? It would be disappointing to spend a lot of money on a new high-end computer and not see a noticeable increase in speed.

Computers were doubling in speed every couple of years for so long that it seems like the improvements now are no longer so dramatic.

Joe

Answering your questions out of order:
VS editing is single-threaded. VS rendering is multi-threaded.
This is oversimplifying but yes, for a given thread, for a CPU-bound process, you're going to see ~50% improvement going from 2.4 GHz to 3.4 GHz.
Computers are still doubling in speed every 18 months or so, but the catch is that the "Law" now assumes 64-bit multi-threaded apps. For single-threaded apps, as you've inferred, not so much. (Full discussion requires one also look at CPU cache, memory/memory bus architecture and speed, etc., but let's not go there.)
I can't speak to what Mercalli does during the editing process as opposed to rendering.
Your editing is going to be CPU-bound. Remember that: a) VS is only modifying the VSP file, not the original data, and the VSP file is very small; b) the video file(s) use mostly streaming I/O, and even a 7200 RPM SATA drive streams data very quickly; and c) HD video is compressed, and the time-consuming activity is the decompression for reads, and real-time rendering during preview, which is all done by the CPU (and GPU). It's also possible to be memory-bound during editing when dealing with Very Large amounts of video, but until VS editing is 64-bit, there's not much you can do about that.

HTH

[Joe Linn]

Thanks for the thorough and informative response!

I do have one follow-up question. I was sloppy with my terminology. What I was mainly curious about is rending speed. Rendering a 15 minute HD video might take me hours. Since rendering is multi-threaded, would I see a noticeable improvement with rendering speed going to a 64 bit i7?

Thanks again!

Joe

[UncleBoo]

I do have one follow-up question. I was sloppy with my terminology. What I was mainly curious about is rending speed. Rendering a 15 minute HD video might take me hours. Since rendering is multi-threaded, would I see a noticeable improvement with rendering speed going to a 64 bit i7?

The short answer is yes. Also, although I can't speak from personal experience, many posters are reporting faster rendering speeds using X4, so you might want to consider upgrading to X4 if you haven't done so already. And if you do that, look at getting one of the graphics cards that X4 can use to help with rendering.

[39_Steps]

Get an I7, Sandy Bridge with the Z68 MB and 16 GB Ram-FAAASSSTTT. I got mine custom built from AVADirect. What a machine!

For the first time in perhaps ten years, I have been studying computer component specifictions. Twenty years ago I spent a lot of time in the library reading computer magazines. As late as August 2011, I had not even heard of Intel's Sandybridge. Now I am considering "building" a computer again.

So I am trying to understand the Intel buzzwords with an eye to checking out AMD terminology and prices for PC tower systems before giving up and just buying the first Laptop that will barely edit AVCHD 1080i files at under 18 Mbit/s on Visual Studio X4.

Having said that, I see a possible discrepancy between pepegota's P67 and Z68 chipset/motherboard recommendations. Others can try to explain, as I am out of my element here. But I did browse across some potential serious issues that Intel began to try to rectify in January 2011. Asus seems to have an appropriate warning link on one of their P67 motherboard URLs.
http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/

Good luck in trying to sort all this out.

[pepegota]

There was a problem with SATA 6 ports with the early Sandy Bridge machines. That has been fixed a while ago with the B3 revision, which I have. I have the H67, which uses Intel's Quick Sync technology for rapid video processing. However, you must use Intel's integrated graphics, with the H67, as a Video card would disable Quick Sync. The Z68 makes it possible to use a Video card and Quick Sync, where as the P67 does not. Get a Z68 machine for the best of both worlds.