Config new PC - importance of CPU speed, L3 cache, RAM?

[OldAmateur]

I'm planning to buy a new PC and would appreciate advice on the relative value of
--CPU speed (say, 2.6 vs. 2.8 vs. 3.0 GHz)
--L3 Cache (2, 4, 6, or 8 Mbytes)
--system RAM (say, up to 9 Gbytes)
that is, where among those should I allocate my available funds to get the most bang for my bucks?

My primary goal is speed in
--converting high-def (720 or 1080 lines of resolution) .mpg files to Xvid or high-def .mkv
--authoring DVDs

I would also value your opinion on the relative merits of CPU chips: Intel 17-920 vs i7-950 vs. AMD Athlon X4 620 vs. X4 820 vs. X4 920.

Many thanks.

[lacywest]

One idea is to look at the other posts and wave your mouse under the Computer Details ... tab ... of other folks who have been posting there stuff.

You definitely have a rather old PC ... from what I saw from your Computer Details.

If you want a system with 9 Gigs of ram ... you will be thinking of Vista or WIN 7 64bit OS. Then you will have to hope the programs you use will run in 64bit mode to take advantage of the extra RAM you have installed.

L3 Cache ... will be the newer CPUs ... check out ... www.newegg.com ... to get an idea of prices.

[rallynavvie]

My primary goal is speed in
--converting high-def (720 or 1080 lines of resolution) .mpg files to Xvid or high-def .mkv
--authoring DVDs

For this specific purpose you are going to want CPU cores and clock speed. Memory is almost irrelevant to encoding speeds and authoring as long as you have enough to keep the OS happy. You'd also do well getting multiple HDDs (not RAID) for encoding projects. Since you're doing simple conversions or ISO authoring get some of the large 1-2TB drives as they get the best sustained I/O speeds.

[ocgw]

My primary goal is speed in
--converting high-def (720 or 1080 lines of resolution) .mpg files to Xvid or high-def .mkv
--authoring DVDs

For this specific purpose you are going to want CPU cores and clock speed. Memory is almost irrelevant to encoding speeds and authoring as long as you have enough to keep the OS happy. You'd also do well getting multiple HDDs (not RAID) for encoding projects. Since you're doing simple conversions or ISO authoring get some of the large 1-2TB drives as they get the best sustained I/O speeds.

rallynavvie's advice is sound, also L3 cache in higher end AMD cpu's may speed up some apps and games, but does nothing to help encoding speed, for that reason a Athlon II X4 Propus core is "clock for clock" just as good as a Phenom II X4 Deneb core in encoding and does it in a cooler running package ('bout 10c* in my experience)

I have both, I put my Propus 630 X4 (2.8Ghz@3.8Ghz) in my main PC, and moved the Deneb 940 X4 BE (3.0Ghz@3.8Ghz) to my 2nd Pc

Not really sure how much L3 cache effects encoding speeds w/ Intel architecture

ocgw

peace

[redwudz]

I'd agree with most all of that, high CPU speed, multiple core CPUs, 4GB RAM for a 32bit OS, lots of hard drive space. The boot drive doesn't have to be large, but you could partition it to maybe 200GB for boot and 300 for archive if using a 500GB HDD. Then two more HDDs, 500GB or 1TB for editing and storage.

Then a decent case with enough air circulation and a 500W or so good brand of power supply. Add a couple of optical drives, maybe on a BD ROM drive and the other a burner, all drives SATA interface and you should have a good system. For a CPU, something between 3GHz and 4GHz would be a good choice, depending on your finances. AMD is historically a bit cheaper, but that's another discussion. Video card depends on what you do with the PC. Not much if any effect on encoding, depending on the card used.

I choose the CPU first, then the MB, then RAM, then the video card, drives, PS, and finally the case.

[edDV]

Video encoding quickly reduces to CPU speed and an optimal disk system.

Today 2GB or 4GB is enough RAM memory for general use. More allows loading more simultaneous apps.

More L2 Cache is nice for other than encoding apps. L2 Cache helps for repetitive data.

[jagabo]

How much multiple cores helps depends on the encoder you use. Some don't scale well past four, or even two, cores. It's sometimes the case that a high clocked two core system can beat a lower clocked four (or more) core system. You should check the encoders and software you use.

Xvid, in particular, does run faster with four cores compared to two, but not twice as fast. x264 scales better:

https://forum.videohelp.com/topic357460.html#1893993

[ocgw]

edit:

[jagabo]

One nice thing about the Intel i5 and i7 CPUs is that their turbo mode kicks in when an encoder can't use all the cores. That gives older single or double threaded encoders a significant boost.

[lacywest]

One nice thing about the Intel i5 and i7 CPUs is that their turbo mode kicks in when an encoder can't use all the cores. That gives older single or double threaded encoders a significant boost.

Hi Jagabo ... hey any chance you could post your PC Details ... would be interesting to see what you have under your hood

[ranchhand]

One thing that new buyers chew their fingernails over is the operating system; go with Windows7/64 bit if you are going into multi-core CPUs and 4gig of RAM is totally enough memory for the average user. Unless the operating system is geared for high memory and multi-core apps you are wasting your money. Do not be persuaded to go with a downgrade to Windows XP or Vista; both are headed for the trash bin, they just haven't arrived yet. And... don't forget that your software must be written to take advantage of muti-core applications. Older versions of popular software will run nice & fast, but will not take advantage of dual or quad core CPUs. The reason that I suggested 64 bit operating system is that it is the wave of the future, and will take advantage of larger amounts of memory. Very few software apps will not run on 64bit systems now. I have been actively experimenting with W7/64 and virtually all my old software runs just fine on it, with the single exception of Pinnacle Studio 12 which will not load (but that is another discussion!). All my son's older computer games load and run just fine. He plays the older Mech Warrior (Microsoft versions) and those games are 10 years old! He has a DOS emulator, and he runs old DOS games just fine on W7/64! Just a thought....

[rallynavvie]

Do not be persuaded to go with a downgrade to Windows XP or Vista; both are headed for the trash bin, they just haven't arrived yet.

Windows XP SP3 has a ways to go before security support ends for it, Vista has even more. A more accurate statement would be that updates for XP SP3 are ending soon, Vista's are ending sometime after 5 years, but Windows 7 is the current operating system and thus has the longest update lifespan ahead of it. I don't immediately recommend a new Windows OS until a service pack has been released for it as historically that has been the biggest step forward for a new OS (not the initial RTM). However Win7 was released as an open beta and had a lot more exposure than previous versions, but I'm still holding off making it my primary OS until after SP1. That said, for most consumers the most recent OS is going to be the best bet simply from the update lifespan ahead of it.

[jagabo]

Hi Jagabo ... hey any chance you could post your PC Details ... would be interesting to see what you have under your hood :-)

In the computer I use most for encoding (it's also a file server, PlayOn server, and HTPC) I have an Intel quad core Q6600, 4 GB DRAM (3.5 available to 32bit XP SP3), and Nvidia 8600GT. 500 GB boot drive, and two 1.5 TB storage drives.

Saw this at Tom's today:

"Comparing Four Quad-Core Architectures At 2.8 GHz"
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/quad-core-cpu,2499.html

[ranchhand]

rallynavvie said:

updates for XP SP3 are ending soon, Vista's are ending sometime after 5 years

Like I said... why buy into stuff that already has the death sentence?? All software starting from this point forward is going to be W7 oriented, that has been SOP since Windows 3.xx back in the stone age. Anything else will be an afterthought.

[OldAmateur]

Thanks to everyone for your helpful comments. I have not decided yet--other issues (e.g., Blu-Ray, eSATA ports) remain--but you have clarified things on the questions I asked.

[lacywest]

I'd agree with most all of that, high CPU speed, multiple core CPUs, 4GB RAM for a 32bit OS, lots of hard drive space. The boot drive doesn't have to be large, but you could partition it to maybe 200GB for boot and 300 for archive if using a 500GB HDD. Then two more HDDs, 500GB or 1TB for editing and storage.

Then a decent case with enough air circulation and a 500W or so good brand of power supply. Add a couple of optical drives, maybe on a BD ROM drive and the other a burner, all drives SATA interface and you should have a good system. For a CPU, something between 3GHz and 4GHz would be a good choice, depending on your finances. AMD is historically a bit cheaper, but that's another discussion. Video card depends on what you do with the PC. Not much if any effect on encoding, depending on the card used.
I choose the CPU first, then the MB, then RAM, then the video card, drives, PS, and finally the case.

You mentioned the boot drive not being that large ... I only have a 80GB in my tower but I have seven [7] 500GB USB Drives sitting outside my tower. Two of the 500GB drives are sitting on top of a shelf above my PC Tower. They are each connected to two Seagate controllers that were part of a Seagate External USB enclosure. They each had a 320 GB drive inside of them.

The 80GB inside the Tower is partitioned half and half ... WINXP Media Center Edition and the other boot OS is WIN 7 Build 7600 64bit.

On one of the Maxtor 500GB External USB Drives ... I have it labeled as my D Drive and I install all my games to it and the games play just fine ... Crysis WarHead, Wolfenstein 2008, F.E.A.R. 2 ... etc ... etc. Since these USB Drives idle down when not being used ... I am getting longer life from them.

[ocgw]

I have never needed more than a 50GB partition for the OS and programs even when I still used to run a swap space

Peeps have way to much unused junk on their systems

ocgw

peace

[redwudz]

200GB for boot is probably a bit large. My Vista laptop boot uses 46GB and the W7 PC in my computer details uses 44GB. The 150GB Raptor on that PC is a bit more than 1/3 full. 100GB might be a better choice. But I usually store my downloaded programs on the boot as it's handy, so that's probably what's using some of the extra space.

And some programs like to use the boot for temp files, though those should be deleted at the end of the session. Normally I don't use multiple partitions, but small HDDs are getting harder to find. And you can always use the extra room on the boot for archival files that don't need constant access.

[ocgw]

200GB for boot is probably a bit large. My Vista laptop boot uses 46GB and the W7 PC in my computer details uses 44GB. The 150GB Raptor on that PC is a bit more than 1/3 full. 100GB might be a better choice. But I usually store my downloaded programs on the boot as it's handy, so that's probably what's using some of the extra space.

And some programs like to use the boot for temp files, though those should be deleted at the end of the session. Normally I don't use multiple partitions, but small HDDs are getting harder to find. And you can always use the extra room on the boot for archival files that don't need constant access.

Small boot partition backup images load quickly

Everything I save goes to my documents, my documents gets its own partition

Temp files always go to a drive other than my OS, just as you would a swap file

If I don't use a program every month and it is small i just delete it

Not the right way or the wrong way, just my way lol

cheers red

ocgw

peace

[lacywest]

If you or someone else wants to learn about Windows 7 ...

... this website has a lot of info http://win7vista.com/index.php