I want to change my nearly 7 year old Dell Precision 650 for something new.

I have been sent a quote for a new system, could anyone comment on the choices?

The Ram seems a lot, but not the fastest. The SSD is expensive, but recommended. I am not just thinking of Liquid, but what might come along later.

Intel Core I7 920 D0 Processor overclocked up to 3.6GHz
Akasa Nero Quiet CPU Cooler
Asus P6T SE motherboard with Intel X58 chipset
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 1GB Video Card
Cooler Master Cosmos RC-1000 Case
Thermaltake Toughpower 750W
12GB PC3-10666 DDR3 Memory
LG Blu-ray Rewriter Drive (Supports burning to BD, DVD, CD)
160GB Intel X25-M SSD Drive
1000GB SATA 7200rpm Hard Disk

Internal Card Reader Drive

Windows 7 Ultimate

 

John,

Just out of curiosity, if the proposed computer is capable of handling both an SSD and a conventional HDD, but as you say the SSD is expensive, why not use two HDD's for now and when the SSD's come down in price to a reasonable level (one or two years), then add the SSD.

By the way, how do you justify the SSD?  I have heard that they are slow, but for video editing you need a fast drive (7,200 or 10,000 RPM is preferred).

Hi Igor,

I didn't want another Dell, so I have been looking for another independent PC builder in the UK.

The company I asked have a good reputation in the press here.

They recommended a SSD as a good move (although expensive). The latest types seem to have a better performance than the early ones. I looked at Tom's Hardware and Anandtech websites for the comparisons.

It was suggested that I use the SSD for a systems drive.

Isn't it the case that you need a fast drive (read/write) for the media and rendering and not the actual Liquid program?

So that is why I posted here, to ask about the spec. If the response is not positive then I would do what you suggest, and use two standard HDDs. I wasn't going to rush into a decision.

If you decide to use SSDs, get one that's based on SLC and not MLC. The MLC drives have a far lower life expectancy than the SLC drives. Of course this is also dependent on read/write cycles. If you build the system disk and move everything that's normally dynamic (e.g. the page file, applications settings, user doc's, etc.) to a different device than then life expectancy of any SSD goes up.

John,

Nice machine.  Just a couple of thoughts:

• Consider adding a 2nd optical drive for convenience.  Nero and other programs support simultaneous burning on multiple drives.
• Make sure there is sufficient case cooling, especially if you think you want to overclock (the merits of which for editing are very questionable IMHO).
• Consider another HDD.  I have a 10K RPM drive reserved for rendering and find that to contribute a huge benefit to reducing render times.

When facing the same strategy last year, the PC I built was dedicated 100% to editing and edit related work.  I kept the other PC for all browsing, email, MS Office applications and etc. and tie them together with an inexpensive KVM.  The strategy works as my editing machine is still "pristine." 

Hi Fred,

Thanks for the tips. I don't think I am clever enough to build my own system. That is why I got the specs from a PC specialist company.

They suggested the SSDs and the case/cooling etc. I am also not sure of the merits of overclocking.

Since Liquid only has dual threading caperbilities, perhaps someone can tell me if the i7 processor is overkill. But I do want to make the new PC last a long time. When I bought my Dell Precision it was very expensive, but has done me well for the last 6 years. I find it noisey and one of the SCSI drives has failed. I don't think it good sense to buy another SCSI now. It only has old IDE cables.

I already have another optical drive to add at some point.

Bearing in mind what others have said, I will probably go for 2 SATA drives and perhaps get a SSD when the prices fall.

John Hooper:

I don't think I am clever enough to build my own system. That is why I got the specs from a PC specialist company.

I too, am not clever enough to do it all myself, so I did the next best thing.  About 8 months ago I decided to get a new computer for HD editing (using Liquid 7.2) since my old P4 with Hyperthreading wasn't up to the job.  Reading the forums here and looking at what others have listed in their profiles, I compiled a wish list of components (see my profile) and went to my local computer Guru, an independent computer store which specializes in retrofits and repairs of computers.  I got a quote for my list of components, with some additional suggestions from him and had him assemble and test the completed computer.  The advantage of doing it this way is that I get everything that I wanted for HD editing, I have his warranty for parts and labour, and I know that I am starting with a clean, working computer.  The price for doing it this way was about 10%-15% more than if I had purchased the separate components myself and done the hair pulling assembly and software setup work at an hourly rate of $0.00!

I had a couple of hiccoughs with Liquid after I installed L 7.2, but it was entirely my fault due to forgetting about the Dx10 patch.  Once that was installed, Liquid has been rock solid on that machine.  This will keep me going well into the NextGen generation, at which time I can decide whether to switch away from Liquid or stay with it longer, depending on what work flow I decide to use (e.g.  stay with HDV or go for AVCHD, stay with DVD output or go with BluRay, etc.)

John,

Regarding your questioning if the i7 CPU is "too much?"  My thoughts are to buy as much CPU and MOBO capabilities as you can financially justify.  You will not be disappointed with the results.  The biggest benefit will be in the future when you get an application that takes advantage of all the capabilities you bought.

Projecting the future of our beloved Liquid, I would certainly NOT build a new PC around it.

--->  One more thing--ask about the memory they are putting in.  There is a bit of science in matching memory to the MOBO, and the wrong memory choice can restrict your performance.  It is not just about how much memory you have.  ASUS also publishes a list of memory DIMMs that they have tested their motherboards with and certify compatibility.  Might be something to ask about too.

--->  One more, more thing--I love ASUS MOBOs!  ASUS anticipates that many look to coax more performance from their hardware (overclocking) so they offer software utilities for one to gently and gracefully overclock using parameters that will not harm the hardware (assuming good cooling).  There is even an option to get the CPU to perform at the "next level up", as if you had bought the next most powerful (translated as expensive) CPU.  If your shop is touting an overclocked PC, I would want to know how they are overclocking in the even that you begin to experience stability issues and need to reset the BIOS to factory standards. 

Ok, another question now.

If I don't go for the SSD, which seems to be  suggestion here, will I benefit from having a 10,000 rpm drive like the WD Raptor.

There are many 7200 SATA drives, but could I notice the difference?

John Hooper:

Ok, another question now.

If I don't go for the SSD, which seems to be  suggestion here, will I benefit from having a 10,000 rpm drive like the WD Raptor.

There are many 7200 SATA drives, but could I notice the difference?

I chose a 73 GB WD 10,000 RPM Raptor for my system drive (C:) mainly because it was on sale for about the same price as a 160 GB 7,200 RPM drive.  For media streams a 7,200 RPM SATA drive with preferably 8 GB (or more) of cache memory is more than fast enough.  That type of drive can handle throughputs of about 3 Gbps.  I have two 500 GB drives (7,200 RPM) with 16 MB cache in a RAID configuration for my media and I have never experienced any problems with video streams.  Having an adequate amount of drive cache memory is more important than having a faster drive (over 7,200 RPM).

The current Liquid does best with a high core speed Conroe say E8500. This cpu, on a good mobo (Asus, Supermicro, Gigabyte,) with recommended memory can be nudged for a bit of conservative overclock.

TVJohn:

The current Liquid does best with a high core speed Conroe say E8500. This cpu, on a good mobo (Asus, Supermicro, Gigabyte,) with recommended memory can be nudged for a bit of conservative overclock.

I don't know much about overclocking, other than that gamers do it because they can (maybe it makes computer games faster?), but I am curious, is it of any noticeable benefit to video editing?  If so, in what context?  Rendering, DVD creations, or ...?

I guess the actual question is that I have an ASUS MoBo and so it is possible for me to overclock, but is there a real benefit?

I'm glad I am not the only one to be confused about various permutations to get a fast system.

I might have got this wrong, but I thought that the new i7 processor can vary it's own clock speed above it's normal rating?

The dual Xeon 3.0Ghz Dell that I have at the moment has a FSB which the i7s don't have.So is a processor clock speed still a good measure of performance, if the newer types are more efficient in other ways?

AMD's "factory overclock" utility

http://game.amd.com/us-en/drivers_overdrive.aspx?p=1

The i7 has a "turbo" mode to enable a modest bump. 

Most manufactured pcs limit what you can do with overclocking in the BIOS settings. Clock speed is performance relative to that familly of CPUs. Within a family ie i7 2.6gig is faster than 2.4. It would not be faster than a Prescott core 3.0 as the architecture of those cpus are different.

Successful overclocking usually depends on quality mobo,memory, cpu cooling above the standard. Modest gains are usually easy with low risk. Also in the case of AMD, a "Black" cpu is one with unlocked multipliers' which facilitates aggressive overclocking. There are many guides out there at Toms Hardware, Annands, and other places.

It is not recommended to tinker with the pci bus timings as that can cause instability with add-in cards.

If you are using the pc for serious production and income, I would not recommend any attempt to overclock unless you are prepared to accept the risks.  

WRT 10K RPM Drives....I did some informal testing in 2008 with a system I had just built.  Having a brand new and clean system afforded me the opportunity to compare rendering times on a 7200 drive to that of a 10K drive.  Here's a copy & paste from a much earlier post:

I took a 5 minute clip to which I made some color adjustments using the Base Color Correction filter   On a recently defragged 7200 RPM drive, rendering was 2 minutes, 13 seconds.  On the new 10K drive, rendering was 1 minute, 31 seconds.  Same clip, same filter setting, so the best that I can tell, the only difference was the RPM of the render drive.

You make the call.  If I had it to do again, the system drive would be 10K too.  For the test, it was simply rendering, change the render drive in Liquid's control panel and render again.

 

Oh yeah--overclocking.  Gamers do it all the time knowing that the risk is that if something goes wrong, they don't get to play again till things are fixed.  An editor's situation is different.  If something goes wrong, you don't get paid (or whatever) till you re-do whatever got smoked.  Is the risk worth it?  Not for me.

FIMoore:

WRT 10K RPM Drives....I did some informal testing in 2008 with a system I had just built.  Having a brand new and clean system afforded me the opportunity to compare rendering times on a 7200 drive to that of a 10K drive.  Here's a copy & paste from a much earlier post:

I took a 5 minute clip to which I made some color adjustments using the Base Color Correction filter   On a recently defragged 7200 RPM drive, rendering was 2 minutes, 13 seconds.  On the new 10K drive, rendering was 1 minute, 31 seconds.  Same clip, same filter setting, so the best that I can tell, the only difference was the RPM of the render drive.

Fred,

I read somewhere (Geeks.com?, Tom's Hardware?, or ...?) that having more read-ahead cache in a drive's controller did more for speed than 7,200 vs. 10,000 RPM.  Did your test drives have the same cache size?  If so, then the answer is obvious and we can kiss good bye to slower drives.  I am very happy with my Raptor (10,000 RPM) system drive and in the next computer upgrade will probably go with Raptor drives for media too.

Fred has some excellent advice on here.  Do not build a system around what Liquid can do.  Nextgen and every other NLE along with many other production tools take full advantage of multiple cores.  Since Liquid is getting up there in age you could buy a great dual core system today that works well with Liquid but then if you move to Nextgen you could find it greatly under powered for what you may want to do which would leave you in a position of wanting yet another new system.

The subject of SSD is an interesting one.  Are they faster?  oh heck yes they are.  Some SSD drives can read data as fast as a 4 drive raid-0.  A SSD drive for media is almost a waste of money at this point because they are so small.  SSD's are better suited for OS drives.  Even then however they only really help out with system boot up times and how fast Liquid will open up once you double click the icon.  You really have to ask yourself however if it is really worth the money to have Liquid open up in 10 seconds instead of 20 seconds (just random numbers I threw out.)  SSD's in my opinion make a lot more sense in a laptop.  Laptops of course have a limit to what kind and how many hard drives you can use.  You can always use ESATA if a laptop has it but then you are dealing with a cumbersome external drive which doesn't always work on the road.  A SSD in a laptop means that you can have raid-0 performance internally that performs very well.  Laptop users also tend to use the same internal drive for graphics and project materials so a single SSD makes sense.  On a Desktop (unless it is built by Apple) you have plenty of options to add internal storage to your system and using an external ESATA isn't really a big deal.  Almost every motherboard out there has some form of raid built in so for a very low cost you can have a internal raid that performs almost as well as a SSD and gives you a lot more storage space.

Igor,

While I am not 100% positive which drive in the system was the "old" 7300 RPM rendering drive, all of the 4 physical drives in the system have 16K buffers, including the "new" 10K RPM render drive. 

Given the above, the buffering seems the same.  If you look at the 3.5" HD comparison charts at Tom's Hardware http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/3.5-hard-drive-charts/benchmarks,24.html you will see that there is more to performance than just RPMs and buffering size.  In some of the tests, drives with 8MB buffers out performed drives with 16MB and even 32MB buffers, so I am not sure that is the key indicator to drive performance.

All I will testify to is my measured performance improvements on my system.  Perhaps the acid test is that if I were building another new system, I would have a 10K system drive too.

FIMoore:

Igor,

While I am not 100% positive which drive in the system was the "old" 7300 RPM rendering drive, all of the 4 physical drives in the system have 16K buffers, including the "new" 10K RPM render drive. 

Given the above, the buffering seems the same.  If you look at the 3.5" HD comparison charts at Tom's Hardware http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/3.5-hard-drive-charts/benchmarks,24.html you will see that there is more to performance than just RPMs and buffering size.  In some of the tests, drives with 8MB buffers out performed drives with 16MB and even 32MB buffers, so I am not sure that is the key indicator to drive performance.

All I will testify to is my measured performance improvements on my system.  Perhaps the acid test is that if I were building another new system, I would have a 10K system drive too.

Technology marches ever onwards and upwards (as far as speed is concerned; downwards as far as price is concerned).  I remember when my old editing computer with a 40 GB system drive and a 160GB media drive (both 7,200 RPM with 2 MB cache buffer) was the peak of technology.  My current 10,000 RPM Raptor system drive and two 500 GB RAID media drives became top of the line last year, with a huge improvement for editing HD footage.  Maybe by next year the 15,000 RPM drives with some new, as yet undiscovered electronic technology will become the editing standard.