Best parts for building new encoding computer?

[usually_quiet]

@usually_quiet, gonca:

I'm strongly considering the Zalman CNPS14X CPU cooler at the moment. Zalman has always been quiet for me, and I like that it uses a 140mm fan.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835118133

Zalman has a good reputation. That model probably works very well, but it sure is massive.

I was looking at some of the Noctua CPU coolers for your build because the fans are supposed to be very quiet, although the colors they use for the fans look downright ugly when their products are installed inside a PC.

Liquid cooling is more effective than air if it is necessary to dissipate a lot of heat, but both the fans and the pump in a liquid cooling system make some noise. Air cooling is supposed to be potentially quieter than water cooling if the fan(s)and heatsink are designed for quiet operation not maximum airflow. ...but less airflow means less cooling.

@usually_quiet:

I'm actually considering the V550 or V650 from Cooler Master. I have good experience with them having near-silent PSUs. That's what in my capture rig right now.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817171093

I think EVGA's dB measurements were BS, as independent rated the the GS 650 almost the same as the Be Quiet Staight 10 600W. The Cooler Master V550 actually came in slightly less than both of them, though at a slight power decrease. I'm somewhat worried about EVGA making noise from an fan on/off, rather than a steady whir (if any) that can be ignored. An on/off is more disconcerting.

The Cooler Master claims to be "Skylake ready", while the others don't. I'm not sure if this is marketing or not.

The V550 and V650 seem like good products. I don't want to use a video card in my HTPC, so the biggest drawback for me is that the PCI-e cable isn't modular.

Yes, to some degree it is marketing hype, but Intel added new low power sleep states to their Haswell CPUs that are incompatible with some older power supplies, and Skylake inherited those same sleep states.

[redwudz]

))near-silent heatsink/fan: Simple, go with water cooling like the Corsair Hydro CPU cooler I've been using for about three years and two different CPUs and MBs.
The technology is dependable and silent. If you hold your ear to the pump, you might hear a slight hum. The newer models are probably better then my H-50.
Water cooling also really makes a difference on insternal case temps. The huge 'leaf blower' CPU coolers blow plenty of hot air around in the case.
The larger the fan the more leakage heat from it. Hydro coolers don't do that. I actually had a fair drop in case temps with the hydro cooler running.


))fanless video card: I'm using a fanless Nvidia GeForce GT610 Graphics card, Asus brand. OK for HD videos, but no good for gaming.
It does have HDMI and VGA, which I needed for my monitor and video projector.
Fanless video cards all run fairly hot, so have good case cooling. Adding a small 80mm very quiet fan below the card also helps with cooling.

For a 'silent' power supply, most put out some heat and I wouldn't trust one to work well just on convection cooling without a fan.
My last couple of OCZ power supplies, a 750W and a 550W use slow turning 140mm fans and I can't hear them from a couple of feet away.

Same with my 4 120mm case fans, two intake and two on the hydro cooler. They are all PWM (Pulse Width Modulated) and turn about 500RPM normally, but they can quickly adjust as the case and CPU temperatures rise. Still, very quiet even at 100% CPU on 8 cores for a 3 hour encode. PWM fan connections are on most newer MBs.

The main PC that's listed in my computer details is quiet enough that I usually have to look at the pilot light to tell if it's on if the monitor is off.
The PC is in my front room about 10 feet from me. The optical drives are the main source of noise.
Case temps are about 34C during a long encode and CPU temps about 47C, but it is a 125W CPU.

I use this one for the video card.
It's in a PCI slot mount and it's silent.
Also cools the NB, SB and the RAM some.

Enermax 80mm fan
• 1500 RPM 24 CFM
• Magnetic Barometric bearing
• 14 dBA

Four of these for case and CPU water cooling.
They also come apart for easy cleaning if needed.

GELID Solutions FN-PX12-15 120mm Case cooler
• Type: Case Fan with Intelligent PWM control
• Bearing Type: Hydro Dynamic Bearing
• RPM: 750 - 1500 RPM
• Air Flow: 58 CFM
• 12 - 25.5 dBA

[gonca]

I'm still not quite sure how water cooling works. I see the H60, but my primary concern is noise -- especially during encoding. Will this be better? Why? My main concern is the water cooled fan. What is the dB for it? Is the water cooler temp measured, so the fan will spin down when not needed?

It is connected to the CPU_FAN header.
CPU temp is measured and fan speed adjusted accordingly

[pandy]

@pandy
I can see how ram running at 4133Mhz is kinda slow and obsolete

Clock frequency is not everything - latency is also important but it is not a problem as my point was related to Skylake limitations i.e. regular DDR4 are sufficient and there is no need to go for higher clock (and more expensive) as it is not supported by Skylake anyway. That's all.
(And this mean that overclocking will not work to good also).

@pandy:

I'm looking to have a single SATA 1tb SSD for C:
I will look to get a new 4tb+ SATA around Christmas,
The new system will get 3x internal 7200 rpm SATA HDD, 2x internal SATA optical (Blu-ray burners), and the 1x IDE DVD burner.
All external drives are 5400 rpm eSATA.

IMHO there is no sense for large system partition (i always recommend to separate system partition and do not mix system files with data or particularly important applications) - I would go personally for some 120 - 250GB SSD for system and large hybrid HDD for rest (where video accessibility is particular important i would go for very fast and large but expensive SSD + some HDD stripping - RAW 4k solution - currently trying to select components for such machine in our lab).

[lordsmurf]

@pandy:

The large system drive is for video restoration work. Everything is Huffyuv. I need space.

@all:

My next question is about RAM. In realistic terms, and understanding that I do NOT play games (ever), what is difference between 2133, 2400, 2666 and 3000. The assumption is that 3000 is bigger, therefore better. But is it that simple? I'm guessing not. Each is about $100-125, so within budget.

I'm mostly familiar with Crucial and Corsair, not G.Skill.

Some RAM claims to be "z170" compatible, while others do not. But again, I'm guessing it's marketing, and nothing else. Any 288-pin DDR4 would work. Am I wrong?

This still looks the most attractive (Corsair 2400): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233833

[KarMa]

I love my new $100 FX-6300, seems to plow through x264 and the more recent versions of x265 with it's instruction sets. If I were you, I would wait and see what AMD's Zen brought to the table, as it requires a new AM4 CPU socket. But the release is set in the vague time frame of 2016, making my suggestion less than ideal.

Hope you get what your looking for lordsmurf.

[usually_quiet]

@all:

My next question is about RAM. In realistic terms, and understanding that I do NOT play games (ever), what is difference between 2133, 2400, 2666 and 3000. The assumption is that 3000 is bigger, therefore better. But is it that simple? I'm guessing not. Each is about $100-125, so within budget.

I'm mostly familiar with Crucial and Corsair, not G.Skill.

Some RAM claims to be "z170" compatible, while others do not. But again, I'm guessing it's marketing, and nothing else. Any 288-pin DDR4 would work. Am I wrong?

This still looks the most attractive (Corsair 2400): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233833

I looked at the specs, memory support list, and manual for the Asrock motherboard that you favor http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157627

Are you planning to overclock or are you buying RAM hoping to reuse it with a later generation of Intel CPUs? If not, use 2133 DDR4. All other types of DDR4 RAM supported by that motherboard require overclocking to run at their nominal frequency.

I found these models (on the memory support list for the motherboard above) at newegg.com.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233771
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231828
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820242093
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104531

That being said, I wouldn't recommend buying the HyperX sticks at this time. The bad review may indicate a QC problem

I would probably pick this Corsair memory, which is not on the list but is compatible with the Intel 100 series chipsets
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233831
I like the low-profile design of the heat spreader.

The Corsair memory you picked is likely fine too, but will not run at its rated frequency without overclocking.

[lordsmurf]

I've never liked overclocking due to increased heat output. So I've never done it. And I don't plan to start.
But does overclocking RAM, intended to be overclocked, have any heat effects?
And can I overclock the RAM and not the CPU -- ie, is RAM overclocking separate, not related to CPU overclocking?

I was reading this:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/198894-raming-speed-does-boosting-ddr4-to-3200mhz-i...ll-performance

It sounds as if 2400 to 3000 all performs the same, with only 2133 being "slow". That's one reason I looked at the Corsair that I had linked. But I'm not sure if it matters, for non-gaming, and when I'm throwing 16gb at it.

[usually_quiet]

I've never liked overclocking due to increased heat output. So I've never done it. And I don't plan to start.
But does overclocking RAM, intended to be overclocked, have any heat effects?
And can I overclock the RAM and not the CPU -- ie, is RAM overclocking separate, not related to CPU overclocking?

I was reading this:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/198894-raming-speed-does-boosting-ddr4-to-3200mhz-i...ll-performance

It sounds as if 2400 to 3000 all performs the same, with only 2133 being "slow". That's one reason I looked at the Corsair that I had linked. But I'm not sure if it matters, for non-gaming, and when I'm throwing 16gb at it.

The article does imply that DDR4 2400 would offer some advantages for video conversion (with Handbrake), but according to the technical specs for the Asrock motherboard, apparently DDR4 2400 won't run at 2400 MHz without a little help.

I can't answer your questions about over-clocking. I don't have any interest in doing that either. I have no air conditioning, so heat is a concern. I even bought a 65W TDP i5-4570S to keep things a little cooler. Everything seems to run fast enough.

Funny thing... I bought DDR3 1600 RAM for my Haswell system. I never bothered to check the frequency after installing it because my motherboard's specs indicated that I didn't need to overclock to get 1600 MHz. Today I checked and found it running at 1333 MHz.

[lordsmurf]

but according to the technical specs for the Asrock motherboard, apparently DDR4 2400 won't run at 2400 MHz without a little help.

I'm not seeing what you're referring to. Can you point it out?

I see a mobo review that says the G.Skill V series 2400 16gb is working for him.
And it's on the supported RAM list for the Extreme7+
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231888
I may just copy him, and not reinvent the wheel.
... but I still want to know what "little help" is -- that doesn't sound good (little is never little!)

EDIT: I'm getting the Noctua D14, not that Zalman. Quieter, easier to install.

My next post will list out what I've decided so far, and try to wrap up some loose ends.

The thermal compound is next on my list. What I have here is generic crud, and I need to buy a new tube of some good CPU goo!

I really appreciate everybody that's been posting here. Keep it coming...
I didn't know what I didn't know, which is never a good place to be in. I'm getting more up to speed now. Again. my last PC build was in early 2009! Things have changed in 6.5+ years.

[usually_quiet]

but according to the technical specs for the Asrock motherboard, apparently DDR4 2400 won't run at 2400 MHz without a little help.

I'm not seeing what you're referring to. Can you point it out?

I see a mobo review that says the G.Skill V series 2400 16gb is working for him.
And it's on the supported RAM list for the Extreme7+
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231888
I may just copy him, and not reinvent the wheel.
... but I still want to know what "little help" is -- that doesn't sound good (little is never little!)

I found the technical specs here: http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z170%20Extreme7+/?cat=Specifications

- Supports DDR4 3866+(OC)*/3600(OC)/3200(OC)/2933(OC)/2800(OC)/2400(OC)/2133 non-ECC, un-buffered memory

[gonca]

@lordsmurf
Yes, RAM overclocking can be done independently of CPU overclocking.
Be very careful as this requires voltage increases to RAM to stabilize it, and the CPU's integrated memory controller is apparently sensitive to voltages on the new i7 Cpus.
It can also lead to more hard errors which means data has to be re-read.
Amount (GB) and latency are more important, IMO, than sheer speed where RAM is concerned.

[lordsmurf]

So the 1.2V would be increased to overclock it, thereby negates any lower heat/energy output that was saved over 1.5V DDR3? I am understanding you correctly?
And if so, what sort of heat are we talking here? 1 degree? More?

So 2133 would be overall better, using a good brand, with low latency, and 16gb worth? Is that what you and usually_quiet are both saying?

I've read some things that allude to that same conclusion, and that's how it was many years ago.

[usually_quiet]

So the 1.2V would be increased to overclock it, thereby negates any lower heat/energy output that was saved over 1.5V DDR3? I am understanding you correctly?
And if so, what sort of heat are we talking here? 1 degree? More?

So 2133 would be overall better, using a good brand, with low latency, and 16gb worth? Is that what you and usually_quiet are both saying?

I've read some things that allude to that same conclusion, and that's how it was many years ago.

I'm just saying that if the information in the technical specs is accurate, then getting DDR4 2400 RAM to run at its nominal frequency will require you to tinker with your BIOS settings. If you don't want to fiddle with them, then the RAM will run at 2133 MHz.

I have no idea how much extra heat changing the overclock settings for the RAM will generate. I don't think you could (or would need to) raise the voltage very much. (A few Skylake motherboards have DDR3 slots, for which only 1.35V DDR3L is recommended by Intel, so the safe upper limit is probably 1.35V or less.)

(Off topic) I have a hunch that the i5-4570S CPU could be the reason the motherboard in my Haswell system doesn't automatically use 1600MHz for its RAM. I'm still researching how I should fine-tune my BIOS settings to use my Haswell PC's DDR3 1600 RAM at 1600MHz, but I would indeed need to go into the overclocking portion of the BIOS to do this. Even if I do figure this out, I don't think my system performance would increase noticeably

[Solution] With my motherboard and RAM, it turned out all that I needed to do was enable XMP (Extreme Memory Profile) and pick 1600 from the list. More about XMP http://www.anandtech.com/show/7364/memory-scaling-on-haswell/2

My memory ran at 1333 MHz because that is the setting for this memory that the motherboard selected by default.

[gonca]

So 2133 would be overall better, using a good brand, with low latency, and 16gb worth?

I think so
As far as the heat issue >>> don't know how much temp would be raised

[pandy]

So 2133 would be overall better, using a good brand, with low latency, and 16gb worth? Is that what you and usually_quiet are both saying?

That's why i provided links to report with conclusion that anything higher than 2133 is not supported by CPU correctly (Skylake DDR4 controller limitation) and as such is not recommended.
Latency is different topic - how flexible is Skylake DDR4 controller - if latency settings are limited then perhaps going for costly lower latency DDr4 have no sense either.
Before order just search for test - particular modules with particular CPU at particular MoBo.

[glenpinn]

The 4790 cpu is a quad core, with the built in HD4600 Graphics, so let the new system use that, instead of adding a dedicated graphics card.

You could then use Intel Quick Sync if you really wanted to, however we all know that CPU based encoding is a better option.

I currently have a Dell Inspiron 2330 All In One desktop computer (same as an iMac) that has a 3770 cpu with the HD4000 graphics, and it runs fantastic with all my editing and encoding work, and it has nothing special as far as motherboard and ram goes.

I have a 256gb SSD inside it (replaced the stock 2tb hdd that it shipped with) and i run my editing from that SSD over to one of my 2tb external portable hard drives that i have connected to one of my 4 USB 3.0 ports, and it works flawlessly.

My 3770 cpu runs at about 90% usage during a full on encoding job, and hits around 75 degrees, which is nothing, these chips are designed to run ok at much higher temps, so no special aftermarket coolers are needed.

As far as everything you are thinking about, well i personally believe that you are over thinking all this, and going way beyond what you really need just for an encoding system, you just need to keep it plain and simple.

Cheers

[usually_quiet]

The 4790 cpu is a quad core, with the built in HD4600 Graphics, so let the new system use that, instead of adding a dedicated graphics card.

I think lordsmurf settled on an i7-6700K with Intel® HD Graphics 530 (better than HD 4600) and a z170 motherboard. (There isn't a huge difference in price between a Haswell refresh build and a comparable Skylake build, so he opted to spend a little more for newer hardware.) He said would be using the GPU graphics if he bought a z170 motherboard.

If I get the z170 board, I'll be using onboard graphics. The system is purely for
- encoding video
- doing Photoshop work
- and serving as the 24/7 DLNA server with 4 connected 2tb USB drives (someday, moving those all internal with a 10gb RAID-1 mirror would be nice!).

I have seen no reports of significant problems with Intel® HD Graphics 530 yet, so chances are good that they will be enough even for Photoshop.

[glenpinn]

No problem, i wasn't really sure, but yes, a great choice, and he gets the latest hardware, future proofing himself even more.

Every video or photo editor that i know of uses a computer powered by a quad core cpu and only ever use the built in Intel HD or in some cases Iris Pro graphics, and many of these graphics chips can actually be used for gaming.

I use Photoshop quite a lot, and my HD4000 graphics is fine, so his HD530 will be fine.

@ lordsmurf, this may well be a bit too late by now to ask, given that it has been 12 days or so since you last posted, but did you consider building a Mini or Micro ATX system at all, rather than a full size ATX system ?

Many editing, and even gaming computers these days are built using the Mini or Micro ATX platform motherboards and cases (smaller is often better, and more portable) and my last editing pc was a micro ATX system in a small box, with just one 12cm extractor fan at the rear that sucked the hot air out of the case, using the stock intel 2600 cpu cooler, and the CPU could run for hours at 90 to 100% usage at 80 degrees and never miss a beat.

It had a 256gb SSD and a 2tb Hdd inside just for video processing, with further storage attached externally using portable Hard Drives when needed (i never store any personal files on an internal Hdd)

Regardless, you will not need a very big Power Supply, and a fanless one will be fine, as for Ram, just get whatever ram is specified for the particular motherboard, no need to spend a lot, just value select or maybe slightly better will do, especially if not overclocking the system.

As far as a CPU cooler goes, remember these Intel chips are capable of working hard at very high temps for long periods of time, so you won't need to go overboard on the cooler, something simple and basic such as a Zalman with an 8cm fan will suffice.

If an i7 quad core laptop, an iMac, or an All in One desktop computer like mine can do video editing/encoding without any problems, then so too can a basic I7 Mini ATX editing computer using basic hardware and cooling.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[lordsmurf]

As far as everything you are thinking about, well i personally believe that you are over thinking all this, and going way beyond what you really need just for an encoding system

I'm not the average VH user, and the system is not actually for simply 'encoding'. It's mostly going to chew on heavy Avisynth processing to restore video, as well as run Premiere CS4. Sometimes I'll use it for large Photoshop projects. It's not going to be idle -- my definition of overkill.

Price isn't the main concern.

Pre-built systems from Dell/HP/etc are out. Those always have old hardware and cheap hardware inside. I need to be careful with heat and noise. It's hard to restore audio in a wind tunnel, or with the AC pumping away. OEMs are more concerned with the $$$ than performance.

I do appreciate your input. In other situations, I'd probably agree with your overkill assessment.

I think lordsmurf settled on an i7-6700K with Intel® HD Graphics 530 (better than HD 4600) and a z170 motherboard. (There isn't a huge difference in price between a Haswell refresh build and a comparable Skylake build, so he opted to spend a little more for newer hardware.) He said would be using the GPU graphics if he bought a z170 motherboard.

Yep, I may as well get the newer hardware.

The Extreme 7+ board is on the floor here, in the box.
I opted for the G.Skill 2400, not 2133, as I read a good detailed review for that exact combo.
Most of my order isn't here yet.

Did you mean "not using the GPU", instead of "using the GPU"? Photoshop doesn't really use GPU, and most all encoding is the same. Photoshop (and Premiere) need to eat RAM, and encoding needs to chew on CPU.

I joined the Newegg Premier program, so I can always return anything I need or want.

I was going to post about it before ordering, but I was able to grab everything I needed for right at $1500. (And I'm glad I did, because the price shot up at least $100 the next day.)

E many of these graphics chips can actually be used for gaming.

I've read that about the Extreme7+ and Skylake. But I'll probably never play a game with it. Sitting at a computer isn't fun for me. In fact, I really don't play games at all. I'm part of the Atari/NES generation, and modern games are mostly crap.

@ lordsmurf, this may well be a bit too late by now to ask, given that it has been 12 days or so since you last posted, but did you consider building a Mini or Micro ATX system at all, rather than a full size ATX system ?

Too hot, too noisy. Been there, done that. Never again. (Though my Mac mini is silent.)

It had a 256gb SSD and a 2tb Hdd inside just for video processing, with further storage attached externally using portable Hard Drives when needed (i never store any personal files on an internal Hdd)

Yeah, I'd starve.

The 1tb SSD will be my main drive, and it will probably have 20tb of HDD connected at any given time. A 2tb is just a scratch disk for temporary files! Next year, I may look to add larger internals or 2tb+ SSD to cut down on both noise and heat even further. The older smaller HDDs would be retired. Right now, it's both a matter of the tech existing, and of budget.

Regardless, you will not need a very big Power Supply, and a fanless one will be fine, as for Ram, just get whatever ram is specified for the particular motherboard, no need to spend a lot, just value select or maybe slightly better will do, especially if not overclocking the system.

Yep, I agree with this. I grabbed a 550W from Cooler Master. I have a great experience with CM being silent, and it had a good price with a nice rebate. So that was one area where $$$ was not needed.

As far as a CPU cooler goes, remember these Intel chips are capable of working hard at very high temps for long periods of time, so you won't need to go overboard on the cooler, something simple and basic such as a Zalman with an 8cm fan will suffice.

I opted for the Noctua NH-D14 with the noise suppressor adapters. That was part of the aforementioned review I'd read, and it was working well even slightly overclocked.

I'll report back after it's built (or, hopefully not, if I run into problems).

[usually_quiet]

I think lordsmurf settled on an i7-6700K with Intel® HD Graphics 530 (better than HD 4600) and a z170 motherboard. (There isn't a huge difference in price between a Haswell refresh build and a comparable Skylake build, so he opted to spend a little more for newer hardware.) He said would be using the GPU graphics if he bought a z170 motherboard.

Yep, I may as well get the newer hardware.

The Extreme 7+ board is on the floor here, in the box.
I opted for the G.Skill 2400, not 2133, as I read a good detailed review for that exact combo.
Most of my order isn't here yet.

Did you mean "not using the GPU", instead of "using the GPU"? Photoshop doesn't really use GPU, and most all encoding is the same. Photoshop (and Premiere) need to eat RAM, and encoding needs to chew on CPU.

"GPU" is a typo. I intended to type "using the CPU graphics"

To use the G.Skill 2400 at its rated speed instead of 2133 MHz you may only need to go into the BIOS overclock settings, enable XMP (Extreme Memory Profile), and pick 2400 from the list.

Yep, I agree with this. I grabbed a 550W from Cooler Master. I have a great experience with CM being silent, and it had a good price with a nice rebate. So that was one area where $$$ was not needed.

I'm glad that suggestion worked out. Too bad I can't use it myself. I took my HTPC apart to look at the existing PSU and options for cable routing. It turned out the Cooler Master V550's non-modular PCI-e cables and the length of the modular cables would be a problem inside my Lian Li PC-C50 HTPC case. It looks like this Silverstone is my best bet. MATX cases often need PSUs with short cables.

[hello_hello]

I've been following this thread while planning my new build (which I'd hoped to put together this week, but other stuff got in the way, so it's next week now). I'm pretty sure I'll go with a i7-6700k, but I haven't decided on a MB yet. The Extreme 7+ looks very nice, but probably overkill for me. The ability to overclock to some degree would be nice, but I'm not wanting to push the CPU to it's limit.

I tend to boot the PC, open the programs I use regularly and leave it running for days/weeks at a time. Fast boot times and the ability to open a web browser in nanoseconds aren't a high priority, so I'm not planning on bothering with a SSD at the moment. Lots of storage/work space, and being able to move/access large files at a reasonable pace are more important, so I'll probably go with 7200rpm drives in a RAID-0 configuration again, unless someone has a better idea.

I'm partial to the MB having a VGA connector. I'm going to buy an LCD as my main monitor but I'd like to be able to connect my CRT as a secondary monitor and preferably without needing to add a video card.

At the moment I'm giving this Asus MB serious consideration, unless anyone knows why I shouldn't.
https://www.asus.com/au/Motherboards/Z170-K/overview/
Or this model from Gigabyte is the same price but I'm not sure if I should care about onboard USB 3.1
http://www.gigabyte.com.au/products/product-page.aspx?pid=5486#ov
If I should, this model has it but it's $50 more expensive than the other two.
http://www.gigabyte.com.au/products/product-page.aspx?pid=5499#ov

Any further MB suggestions would be most welcome. I've looked at enough of them now for it all to start become a blur.....

Cheers.

[lordsmurf]

@hello_hello

For me, the SSD is to help with encoding I/O and Photoshop filtering. Boot times and program load times are not a concern here either.

RAID-0 has always been too abusive to drives, and I've seen far too many arrays fail over the years. RAID-0 isn't really "RAID" at all, since it's not redundant. Honestly, RAID-1 can give similar read speeds, and is a true RAID. The software (or preferably) hardware controller matters most.

When not going Asrock, I prefer Gigabyte. They have some nice boards for z170.

USB 3.1 is just to future-proof myself. I don't even have USB 3.0 anything, only USB1/2 and eSATA. But since I tend to keep my systems for 5+ years, that may change.

@usually_quiet

I'd not be surprised if I need extension cables for something. This wouldn't be the first time.

[hello_hello]

@hello_hello

For me, the SSD is to help with encoding I/O and Photoshop filtering. Boot times and program load times are not a concern here either.

Have you found yourself giggling with delight due to the speed increase the SSD provides, or it the difference not as incredibly earth shatteringly massive as some suggest it should be? Or are you not at that stage of testing the new system yet? If a SSD performs miracles, I'm not completely adverse to using one.

RAID-0 has always been too abusive to drives, and I've seen far too many arrays fail over the years. RAID-0 isn't really "RAID" at all, since it's not redundant. Honestly, RAID-1 can give similar read speeds, and is a true RAID. The software (or preferably) hardware controller matters most.

I put RAID-0 volumes in three PCs about 7-8 years ago and they've given me very little trouble. Well... the oldest PC had a Via chipset (I think) and for whatever reason transfer speeds weren't excitingly fast. That PCs long since dead but the other two have Intel controllers and they've been pretty good. I had some performance issues with a pair of Samsung drives originally (they were obviously slower than the WD drives) but a driver update for the Intel chipset fixed that. Or maybe it was a BIOS update. It was a long time ago.
I had my first RAID volume failure about a month ago when one of the WD 320GB drives decided to call it a day, but I've had a pretty good run. Good enough to do it again this time around. Two drives running as a RAID-0 volume are definitely twice as fast at transferring large files as a single drive, and I have two RAID-0 volumes in this PC so I try to put the source on one and write to the other which pretty much cuts the transfer times in half again.

When not going Asrock, I prefer Gigabyte. They have some nice boards for z170.

My current PCs have Gigabyte MBs. There's been a few minor issues. One needs to have the PCI Express frequency in the BIOS adjusted down a tad when overclocking or it won't always boot (the other PC with the same MB and video card doesn't have that issue), and the onboard sound is a bit ordinary (it's noisy) but they've been reliable.
Do Gigabyte MBs notify you when they decide to reset themselves these days? Mine don't, so if one has an issue booting and decides to revet back to the BIOS defaults, which one of them will do every now and then, I'm often unaware it's done so. That's a bit annoying.

[usually_quiet]

@usually_quiet

I'd not be surprised if I need extension cables for something. This wouldn't be the first time.

Yes. Manufacturers do their best, but often the cables are too long for some customers and too short for others. I'm using some SATA power extension cables in the HTPC and I'll probably still need them regardless of the PSU I install because of the way the drive cages are arranged in the case.

[lordsmurf]

SSD vs. HDD for video production is something I'll be testing and publishing results on. (I'm tired of reading BS about boot times, program start time, video games, encoding with Handbrake, benchmark software, etc. Anybody older than teens/20s doesn't care about that crap. We use computers because they're tools for tasks, not game systems used by impatient twits. We need real-world results.)

The power/heat/noise costs of RAID vs. SSD makes it worth it to me. It's not just a matter of speed.

For me, both Asrock and Gigabyte have been known to "forget" things. I often think the CMOS batteries are to blame, even if "fine". And yeah, that is annoying!

[sophisticles]

SSD vs. HDD for video production is something I'll be testing and publishing results on. (I'm tired of reading BS about boot times, program start time, video games, encoding with Handbrake, benchmark software, etc. Anybody older than teens/20s doesn't care about that crap. We use computers because they're tools for tasks, not game systems used by impatient twits. We need real-world results.)

The power/heat/noise costs of RAID vs. SSD makes it worth it to me. It's not just a matter of speed.

Does someone really need to point out to you that all the "BS" about boot times, program start time, video games, encoding with Handbrake, benchmark software, etc" is a manifestation of I/O performance and that it directly shows how a system will handle sustained throughput as is experienced during rendering a lossless format or intensive I/O as experienced during capturing HD streams or working with any high quality intermediate format.

You come here asking for advice about building a faster computer for video editing and then you say that "It's not just a matter of speed".

So what you're telling us is you were bored and decided to waste our time offering you quality advice?

As for "The power/heat/noise costs of RAID vs. SSD" you really need to run "real world tests" to figure out that using 2 convetional hard drives, in RAID 0 is going to generate more heat and noise and require more power than using 1 SSD WITH NO MOVING PARTS!

This is too hard for you to guess, you need to run extensive tests to know what the outcome is.

I'm done, good luck with your build.

[lordsmurf]

is a manifestation of I/O performance and that it directly shows how a system will handle sustained throughput

But that's the problem ... it doesn't.
This is VideoHelp, and we should focus on real-world video applications.

You come here asking for advice about building a faster computer for video editing and then you say that "It's not just a matter of speed".

It's not *just* about speed. Quieter and cooler were also goals. Lower power consumption is also desired, since it affects heat, the UPS, and the power bill. Unlike the kiddies using mom&dad's house, bragging about boot times and gaming fps, I'm worried about the overall situation. Speed is meaningless if the other factors are not met.

So what you're telling us is you were bored and decided to waste our time offering you quality advice?

I'm not sure where you're getting that. I just spent $1500+ on new hardware, thanks to this thread and the one at digitalFAQ.

As for "The power/heat/noise costs of RAID vs. SSD" you really need to run "real world tests" to figure out that using 2 convetional hard drives, in RAID 0 is going to generate more heat and noise and require more power than using 1 SSD WITH NO MOVING PARTS!

That's my point. A pair of drives is noisy, hot, and wastes energy compared to a single SSD. So even if SSD costs a few $$$, it may yield better long-term results. I'm wanting to reduce my noise/heat/energy footprint, not make it larger. That's what I'm sharing with hello_hello.

[SameSelf]

USB 3.1 is just to future-proof myself. I don't even have USB 3.0 anything, only USB1/2 and eSATA. But since I tend to keep my systems for 5+ years, that may change.

I use my TV for video comparison instead of my monitor. Finally broke down and bought a USB 3.0 thumb drive for the purpose. Wow, what a difference compared to how long a 2.0 drive takes to copy! Admittedly, USB 3.0 wasn't even on my mind when I built my PC. But I am super happy my mobo has it.

[KarMa]

is a manifestation of I/O performance and that it directly shows how a system will handle sustained throughput

But that's the problem ... it doesn't.
This is VideoHelp, and we should focus on real-world video applications.

I can understand your dislike of other benchmarks other than x264 (Handbrake). I think that's a pretty valid thing for VideoHelp people, I know I looked into x264 performance when looking for CPUs.