New Computer Build with questions

[Frankehr]

So I am about to build a new computer:
MoBo: Asus Z170-A CPU: i7 6700K GPU: Asus GeForce GTX 4GB Strix 970 RAM: G Skill Ripjaw DDR4 -3000 16 GB BootDr: Samsung 850 Pro 256GB SSD Project Dr: Samsung 950 Pro 512 GB PCIe M.2 SSD
Storage Dr: 2TB WD Black SATA 6Gb/s 7200rpm VS Pro X9 when released

1) Any suggestions on different hardware? 2) Do I put VS "Working Folder" audio and video on the same HD ( the "Project Dr" listed above)? 3) What HD should have the "Proxy" folder?

It almost seems like I need two project drives, one for the source material, and one for the rendering (?). Comments please. I am looking to get the most computer efficiency for my money...which HD's are most important for VS?

[TonyP]

I am still using mechanical drivers because of the limited space they have at the moment, or the cost is just too high to justify the few moments I would save in loading/writing/saving.
But, I do have the main program on the c: drive. I am my storage/render/proxies on another drive for drive space only.
The rendering takes more time than anything else, and any hard drive can write faster than the files can be rendered.
256gigs for a boot drive? For me, that's too small. Consider how much software you will have on it. Some require being installed on the c: drive only. I personally would have the larger drive as c:, but that's me and my needs. I would bypass the 256gig SSD totally and take the money and get a 1TB SSD system drive instead of 500gigs. I would use a 2 or 3TB for everything that has to be written and stored with each project. Maybe consider a backup USB drive for archival purposes. I have several editors on my computer with other graphic software and of course, games. They take up a lot of space on the system hard drive. I would rather have a safety margin of space than be wondering what I have to delete or move for room.
Many options and decisions to make.

[dans]

take a look at the i7-5820K it's almost that same price as the 6700k, and it has 2 more processors. the clock speed is slower, but it has more cache and more total processing power. Are you going to overclock? if not you don't need ddr4-3000, Intel only supports up to 2133. You might get better performance by dropping down to 2400, or 2133, and going with something that has lower latency.

[TonyP]

@dans... I was thinking along the same lines with you and the CPU. But, without any hard evidence with CPU's, it's hard to tell which to go with. VS says it supports the latest Intel's. If that makes a difference between the latest quad core vs the last 6 core, only someone doing the test can tell. I would like to know how much does VS use in a multi core processor... taskmanager can certainly point the way, but I don't have Intel or computers to compare. Either way, he can't go wrong. But the latest Intel with DDR4 is the future...

[dans]

taskmanager can certainly point the way, but I don't have Intel or computers to compare. Either way, he can't go wrong. But the latest Intel with DDR4 is the future...

a lot of benchmarks exist for these to chips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFNhlq2b518

[TonyP]

There is a "give and take" in the video on both processors. DDR4 is becoming cheap and is the future for RAM, whether we like it or not. I would say that the Skylake motherboard might last longer too, with a possible 6core "consumer" model in the future. But with Intel, who knows. AMD is not pushing them to do anything special except charge a lot for sometimes, marginal gains.
It is tough to decide which to choose, but I would opt for something that is possibly more "future" proof... at least for the moment.

[dans]

I'be been advised by my brother and several coworkers (all hardware people, I'm a developer) that i should wait for Intel to release the Broadwell-E chips in a few months.

if i had to build a machine today, these are the components i would use.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 19-117-403 (40 pci express lanes)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6813130840 (8 ram slots, can handle up to 128gb)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820233791 (low latency)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820147467 (The best consumer grade speed you can get in a single drive, also more than enough for source and proxy files)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6822236624 (long term storage)

[TonyP]

I'm personally waiting until the end of the year to decide if I build new again. My machine has been around for a little over 3 years. It works just fine. I am in no rush to spend money at the moment. There will always be something new on the horizon....

[dans]

There will always be something new on the horizon....

True,

Thankfully the rate at which components reaches obsoleteness has slowed down a lot. I can remember the mid 90's through the mid 0's, every 6 to 12 months performance was doubling.

[Davidk]

One of the things you will find running apps that are compute intensive with time related data - as video studio - is that computational time and the small delays in disk access really really build up. So if you are serious about "performance", do things which minimise those elements. Despite the advances in hardware (multi-threads, multi core) that enhance and improve compute times, the main thing that makes a cpu faster is the clock rate. The second main thing is available RAM so it doesn't have to go searching for things on a disk, with delays that entails.

64bit RAM also halves (compared to 32bit RAM) the time required to access to same amount of data - 50% less memory cycles, because each cycle gets double the data.

I have a fast multi-core cpu motherboard and multiple HDD (SSD being at this time not a size or economical proposition - yet) in a desktop, so my suggestions for a performance platform are:
1. get the fastest multi-core 64bit platform (cpu and motherboard) and at least 8gb RAM (but more is better: the reports I've seen on VS in a multi-core system with 32Gb RAM were absolutely spectacular, but I could not afford that much memory) you can afford.
2. attach several physical HDD say 500Gb each and with the fastest interface available SATA3 or 6? (motherboard defines this)
3. use those HDD as follows:
a. reserve one just for the operating system (C:). And for the cases where the vendor allows you no options about where to install any applications, there's enough space here that files are not going to get fragmented and thus fragmentation delays which are in essence just extra access time delays are uncommon.
b. one (D:) for the applications (video studio). Install all your applications in separate named folders on this drive whenever that option exists in the install wizard.
c. one for the data (E:) the application is using (the project files, video clips, photos, voiceover, music etc). Make sure that you have separate folders for each data type - so you can remember where they are -and configure preferences in VS accordingly
d if you can afford it, put the working folder (see VS preferences) on a separate drive again (F:).

What this approach gives you is a disk situation where - when you load the app (VS) and the data file it needs (the vsp and clips) - the heads on all the disks that are involved in operations are sitting on the right cylinders and surface needed. Thus for an operation like VS massaging a data file and then displaying the result with little or no access delay per drive:
- VS program file available under the heads on D drive
- data under the heads on E drive
- can be supplied readily to the OS function on C drive
- and the working result temporarily stored of F
- before display again using the OS on C drive.

If you only do this with one drive, consider the case where you have all a company's data in a single filing cabinet. To find anything means a time consuming large drawer by drawer search and the file tables are huge. That's what a single C drive system is. And however large it is, every time there's a function call to another software or data part (the OS, app, data) the heads on the drive have to make a massive shift to the right place and get the necessary data. And that access time is measured in milliseconds - not many, probably around 2-4 per access - but the number of times an access is done is astronomical. And so the time delays also mount up. So delays of seconds or many of them should be expected. Especially when rendering.

This multi-drive approach has side benefits. Backup by drive can be constrained only to those whose data is realistically changing frequently (eg, a data drive organised like this might change significantly only every 6 months or more (after a local holiday of family event) - so back up this drive that often. OTOH, the C drive changes often and is also the one drive most likely to suffer failure (the OS getting hacked or corrupted, or the hardware failing thru use) so backup that drive frequently (weekly/monthly?). And if it does happen - you only have to replace or restore just that drive, in a far shorter time than the case when the C drive has everything and the kitchen sink on it.

Davidk

[TonyP]

I agree with most of what David is saying. I have a system drive and storage drives that I set up specifically for rendering, saving, etc., and a multi-core CPU. Again, we have had some testing done in this forum with a 4K file and exporting it. There was also questions raised on how effective VS accesses and uses those cores. Is Intel Quicksync utilized too? Corel is vague in their marketing adverts on this. Same with whether a video card increases rendering speed of certain effects that can be used.

About the 64bit RAM. While theoretically David is right, I don't think that VS makes use of it as halving the memory data and spreading it out over more "lanes". I know in the PS forum, using a 64bit version vs 32bit version, there was no speed increase in editing. None. Where it came into use is when you exceed the RAM limit of 32bit (3.25gigs RAM total). Then, with a 32bit system, it creates a "virtual RAM" disc out of your slower hard drive, causing a lot of hard drive accessing, which in turn slows down video editing. With the 32bit limitation removed, now you can access more RAM for "faster" editing. For short projects, I believe there won't be any difference between 32bit and 64bit.

[Davidk]

My backups go to a dedicated large attached drive (thus, portable between machines if need be) and one aspect of my back up regime has been to burn backup files to 25gb bluray disks as data about once a year. But this year - finding bluray recordable disk blanks has been like finding gold plated chickens teeth. Not just expensive, just unavailable - the stores aren't stocking them any more. But lowly old DVD's as still cheap as dirt and available everywhere - but a machines worth of backup data using those would take so many its not funny.

So now, the latest in fast and hi capacity disks are like the dinosaurs, and the DVD ants are still ruling the earth.

[Frankehr]

Thank you all for your interesting comments...