Need a new computer - obviously budget-limited (who isn't?)

[magic612]

I bought a Canon Vixia HF-R100 camcorder back in December. Works great; with good lighting takes very nice video. But I can't edit the .mts files it produces on my present Dell computer, being a single-core processor. And with the recording I've been doing, I've found some potential clients who are asking me about offering some video recording /editing services. I found a good bit of info here at Videoguys, and though I can't afford a workstation, here's my present thinking:

Dell refurbished desktop (the Studio 540's are looking attractive to me)
Intel Quad-Core processor
Windows 7
6GB or more of RAM
7200rpm Hard Drive (maybe only 500GB for now)

And beyond that, being budget limited, I can add/upgrade some things later that I can't afford right now but will be able to once I have a few paying gigs under my belt. For example:

More RAM
Blu-Ray burner
Larger, dedicated hard drive for video files
Video card (I haven't completely decided on what software to use yet - I have an older version of Corel VideoStudio which will obviously need to be replaced, so that will depend on the software, at least according to the Videoguys link above)
Dual monitor

Basically I've been looking at some Dell refurbished desktop systems in the $500 to $600 range. They can be upgraded pretty easily to the options I've listed above, and I should be able to find enough raw processing power in that price range to get me started. Remember, I still need to save some money on editing software, authoring software, as well as some other things like mics/lights, etc, so I can't blow all of my budget on the computer itself. That's why I'm thinking once I make a few $$ I can add some of the other upgrades at that time.

Not looking for super-duper fancy - just basic HD editing and shooting type stuff for now. Having made some decent recordings from my Panasonic digital camera (thanks to recalling video techniques from college) with the right lighting and audio, I know it's more about using good techniques for lights / audio / editing than the most expensive equipment.

Any thoughts appreciated - thanks.

[jagabo]

I'd look at a Core i5 instead. Few people need more than 4 GB DRAM.

[jman98]

You may want to use 32 bit Windows 7. I'm using 64 bit Windows 7 and I'm OK with that, but I did have a very small number of programs that I can't get working under 64 bits. It's not a big deal to me as I found other programs to use, but it was slightly annoying. If you use 32 bit Windows 7 you'll be a lot more likely to have older programs work fine under it. Note that 32 bit Windows can't use more than 4 GB of RAM though.

If you ever get a really big disk drive, note that drives larger than 2 TB may have some issues to get them working correctly so I wouldn't get a drive larger than that unless you're pretty experienced at looking online for patches should you encounter problems. You may not have any problems, but some people do have problems getting those 3 TB drives to work.

[jagabo]

There's also the additional confusion of 64 bit and 32 bit software running in different environments under 64 bit Windows. 32 bit applications can't access 64 bit codecs, and vice versa. The only real benefit of 64 bit Windows is the ability to address more than 4 GB of DRAM (32 Bit Windows is limited to 3 to 3.5 GB depending on what hardware you have installed). 64 bit applications are not significantly faster than 32 bit applications -- with the exception of those that need lots of memory (which pretty much only includes large database and 3d rendering apps).

[magic612]

Microsoft's website says this:

Can I run 32-bit programs on a 64-bit computer?
Most programs designed for the 32-bit version of Windows will work on the 64-bit version of Windows. Notable exceptions are many antivirus programs.

Device drivers designed for the 32-bit version of Windows don't work on computers running a 64-bit version of Windows. If you're trying to install a printer or other device that only has 32-bit drivers available, it won't work correctly on a 64-bit version of Windows. To learn how to check for drivers, see Update a driver for hardware that isn't working properly or go to the device manufacturer's website.

From here: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/32-bit-and-64-bit-Windows-frequently-asked-questions

So what is Microsoft not telling me? Or what have others here experienced with respect to 32-bit software running on 64-bit machines?

[magic612]

I've being doing some poking around of new Dells and despite the VideoGuys not liking AMD processors, I did a bit of digging and found this:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Athlon_II_X4_645/7.html

Granted, not the most powerful things and not smoking everything, but they seem to do well and come on reasonably priced systems too. I used to understand computers fairly well, but the technology has seemingly moved at warp speed while I was still driving along at 55mph.

Anyone have any experience with the AMD processors?

[jman98]

So what is Microsoft not telling me? Or what have others here experienced with respect to 32-bit software running on 64-bit machines?

In my experience MOST 32 bit programs work under 64 bit Windows. Does that mean that there is a 100% guarantee that you won't have problems? Nope. But you can try to run problematic programs under a VM (Windows 7 Ultimate gives you a free XP VM and it works fine for almost every 32 bit problematic program I've had).

One thing I can't get working at all, which Microsoft talks about, is a 32 bit driver for capturing video from a cable box via firewire. 32 bit drivers don't work on 64 bit Windows.

[redwudz]

Anyone have any experience with the AMD processors?

A fair amount. I doubt you'd have any problems with a AMD processor. And most times you can get better performance than a equivalently priced Intel PC.

[jagabo]

Most 32 bit software does run under 64 bit Win 7. The VM that comes with Win7 Business and Ultimate (and the other VMs like VirtualBox and VMWare) can run some of those programs that don't work under 64 bit Windows. The stuff that absolutely won't run usually deals with hardware because the 32 bit drivers can't be made to work.

There's nothing wrong with AMD processors. But note that the TechPowerUp review only included a two core, four thread i5. Not a four core, four thread, Sandy Bridge i5. That turns the tables around:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500...2100-tested/16

[deadrats]

@magic612

you don't say if you're planning on cannibalizing your current system, which would go a long way to making sure you stay within budget and still get a good system.

i wouldn't buy a refurbished computer, but that's just me. if you're planning on starting from scratch, you should be looking at an AMD setup:

X4 840, under $100:

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0357031

am3+ motherboard, $55:

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0365090

1 stick 4gig ddr3, $40:

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0361034

blu ray burner, $100:

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0341580

you're at $295 (without the tax) with plenty of room to throw in a cheap case (with power supply), a decent low end video card, hard drive and windows license.

if you're going to be reusing parts from your existing setup, including if you have a copy of windows, you would be best served going with an i5 2300 or i5 2400, H67 motherboard, 8 gigs of ram and said blu ray burner.

with regards to using a 64bit or 32 bit OS, 64bit all the way. aside from the ability to address more ram and not limiting each apps ram usage, using a 64bit OS with 64bit apps allows you to use all the additional general purpose and specialized registers on a 64bit cpu; it's silly to buy a 64bit cpu (as all modern cpu's are) and then use an OS that doesn't allow you to make maximum use of said cpu.

[magic612]

Thank you for the information and thoughts everyone. Much appreciated.

[magic612]

Okay, so I ordered a computer that is similar in specs to the "budget" one listed in the "Videoguys" link in my first post.

Intel Core i5 processor
6 GB RAM
1 TB, 7200 rpm hard drive
Windows 7
23" HD monitor
Dedicated video/graphics card (inexpensive one, but I can always upgrade later)


System has 4 SATA, 3 PCIe and 1 PCIe-16x. I realize it's not the most blazing fast, super-duper system I could get, but then again, I'm not going to be pushing it hard for 40 - 60 hours a week. Most likely 10-15 hours a week for a while. So this should at least get me started.

Thanks for all the advice - I do appreciate all the thoughts.

[deadrats]

if you don't mind, a few more details would be nice:

which i5?

the 6 gigs of ram, is that 2x3gig sticks or 3x2gig sticks?

which motherboard?

how much did it all end up costing you?

all in all it looks like a very respectable system, depending on the motherboard and processor (if they support Quick Sync) would you be up to removing the dedicated video card and running some QS tests with various software that supports QS?

[usually_quiet]

the 6 gigs of ram, is that 2x3gig sticks or 3x2gig sticks?

I can't remember ever seeing a stick of desktop RAM with 3GB capacity.

The more likely combinations for 6GB is 3x2GB (good for triple channel RAM in combination with a MOB and CPU that use it) or 2x2GB + 2x1GB (good for dual channel RAM in combination with a MOB and CPU that use it).

[magic612]

Here's details:

Processor Intel® Core™ i5-2310 processor(6MB Cache, 2.90GHz)
Operating System Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium 64-Bit
Memory3 6GB3 DDR3 SDRAM at 1333MHz
Hard Drive 1000GB4 SATA hard drive (7200RPM)
Video Card AMD Radeon HD 6450 1GB DDR3

If it helps, I really wouldn't be comfortable trying to build a system from scratch. I don't mind installing PCI cards, RAM and hard drives, but that's about the extent of my comfort with playing around inside computers. I don't know what the motherboard is, honestly - I keep trying to get into Dell's website to copy some of the tech specs, and it won't let me in at the moment. My apologies - I'll see if I can track it down later.

[Tom Saurus]

If it is of any use to you, I purchased an i5 computer and I am quite pleased so far. It has surpassed my expectations and holds up well when encoding mpeg2 files to .divx with Tmpgenc Xpress 4.0 and also holds up well when using Freemake Video Converter to convert mpeg2 files to .mkv h.264 files.

[deadrats]

If it is of any use to you, I purchased an i5 computer and I am quite pleased so far. It has surpassed my expectations and holds up well when encoding mpeg2 files to .divx with Tmpgenc Xpress 4.0 and also holds up well when using Freemake Video Converter to convert mpeg2 files to .mkv h.264 files.

the i5 you have, is that a sandy bridge i5? basically i'm hoping someone could do some detailed Quick Sync tests, post results and sample encodes.

[aedipuss]

i have an i7 2600k, what would you like for tests? handbrake will use qs if you have something you'd like to use for an example.

[aedipuss]

sorry make that mediacoder, not handbrake.

[aedipuss]

here's the settings you can choose from(hang on wrong pic, that's better now)

[deadrats]

@aedipuss

first things first, i'm glad you corrected yourself, as soon as i read that hand brake uses QS i hit the site, downloaded the app and was going crazy trying to find where the hell the option for QS was, LOL.

with regards to media coder, i would like a 1080p source, preferably blu ray rip, transcoded to 720p, lets say at 4mb/s (which seem to be what all the scene releases found on the net are, i think that's too low, i would be happier with 8mb/s), with ac3 audio, i would like you to transcode using the intel sdk encoder for both mpeg-2 and h264, hardware acceleration enabled of course, on the highest quality settings, and do the tests with both d3d surfaces enabled and disabled.

i would like a report of the frame per second of each transcode and repeat the tests using the x264 included with media coder (probably the fastest implementation i have ever seen), i would like you to use the ultra fast settings and compare the speed of that beast of a processor against the QS speed and compare the quality (you don't have to post any screenshots, i'll take your word for it). if you find that the ultra fast settings produce lower quality results than the QS results, test with slower settings until the quality matches and then report the frame rates of that encode.

if you're up to it i would also appreciate it if you downloaded the demo for tmpg video mastering works and configure it to use the QS decoder and encoder and choose the highest quality settings but set the motion search range to 64 and report the encoder times.

then it would be great if you downloaded the demo for power director, movavi and ulead (i think it supports QS) and just report on what options are exposed, how fast and how high quality the encodes were, that sort of thing.

i know i'm asking for a lot but if you have the time i think many people here would find such a review from a regular user to be very interesting.

if i'm asking for too much and you just want to drop an F bomb, i'll understand.

thanks.

[aedipuss]

holy chit batman! i was thinking you'd like a test file you had handy for a quick comparison.... guess not, but as long as it's not a rush i'll work on your list. when i have some results i'll create a new thread.

[magic612]

If it is of any use to you, I purchased an i5 computer and I am quite pleased so far. It has surpassed my expectations and holds up well when encoding mpeg2 files to .divx with Tmpgenc Xpress 4.0 and also holds up well when using Freemake Video Converter to convert mpeg2 files to .mkv h.264 files.

Thanks Tom - that does give me a bit more confidence. The computer and monitor arrived yesterday, but I have not yet unpacked everything, as I am in the process of re-arranging the room it will go in before I get everything set up.

Interestingly, I was rendering a project in Corel and was thinking to myself, "This would have probably gone a lot faster with the CPU sitting in the box next to me."

[deadrats]

holy chit batman! i was thinking you'd like a test file you had handy for a quick comparison.... guess not, but as long as it's not a rush i'll work on your list. when i have some results i'll create a new thread.

i'm assuming you realize that in order for QS to work you must be using the integrated gpu (in your case HD3000) with either a H61, H67 or Z68 chipset.

[aedipuss]

no, i thought the encoder was still active even if the intel gpu wasn't being used. i have a p67 chipset and gtx570 vcard. you're right, mediacoder throws an error 14 encoder can't be started. sorry about that.

[jagabo]

Isn't there some software you can install that lets you use Quick Sync even with a graphics card installed?

http://www.lucidlogix.com/product-virtu.html

[aedipuss]

same motherboard restrictions.

Virtu has been design for Sandy Bridge platform H Series (H61/H67 and Z68 platforms) with 2nd Generation Core i5 or Core i7 CPUs.

and only some of those.

License
Virtu is a product available by license to motherboard manufacturers and requires a special BIOS lock/key. For inquiries regarding license on your own motherboard model, please contact to your motherboard maker.

[deadrats]

no, i thought the encoder was still active even if the intel gpu wasn't being used. i have a p67 chipset and gtx570 vcard. you're right, mediacoder throws an error 14 encoder can't be started. sorry about that.

bummer, intel really screwed the pooch with the way they implemented QS, the hardware resides on the gpu and in fact motion estimation is performed by the gpu's execution units, thus the best possible QS performance would be with the fastest gpu, in this case the HD3000.

the problem is that the only cpu's that use the HD3000 is the "k" variants but the big draw of the "k" series is that all the multipliers are unlocked, but to use said capabilities you had to mate the cpu with a chipset (the p67) that doesn't allow for QS. AH!!! who the f*ck at intel missed that simple fact?

the p68 fixes that to some extent though you still need 3rd party software to use it.

my only consolation is that ivy bridge is rumored to be pin and chipset compatible with sandy bridge and version 2 of QS is rumored to be twice as fast and it's rumored to bring better image quality as well. if this is true, omg does that change the video encoding landscape.

[aedipuss]

i couldn't pass up the "free" o/c of the k unit with a p67. i have been encoding with 8 threads @ 4.0GHZ 100% usage. it's nice. temps stay in the mid 60's c during encoding.

[deadrats]

i couldn't pass up the "free" o/c of the k unit with a p67. i have been encoding with 8 threads @ 4.0GHZ 100% usage. it's nice. temps stay in the mid 60's c during encoding.

what kind of encoding speeds do you see with that thing?