Would this computer system be good to buy for video editing?

[True Colors]

I have a Tivo Premiere. I offload a lot of content from the Tivo onto my PC. Then I edit it with VideoRedo.

My current system is a dual core Dell(2.8 Ghz processor). I have a very good video card and lots of ram.

My PC is able to edit the HD content as long as the output files are straight up MP2.

However, unfortunately, if I try to transcode the .tivo files to anything other than MP2(such as MP4/h.264) then my system just can't do it. The horsepower is just not there.

I have been thinking of buying a new PC. Here is one that I found on sale. What do you think of this? What it be good for the HD video editing? Or would you recommend any tweaks to this?

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?prodid=11762149&whse=BC&topnav=&cm_sp=RichRelevance-_-categorypageHorizontalTop-_-PopularProductsInCategory&cm_vc=categorypageHorizontalTop|PopularProductsInCategory

One thing that I might want different from the standard specs is a solid state drive. Part of my reasoning is because SSD is faster. Another part of my reasoning is that the ONLY stuff that goes on my C drive is application data. I do not store personal photos or anything else on my C drive.

I do not do any gaming and I do not care about that. The only high end processing that I do is the video editing.

Anyway, what do you think of this?

Thanks,

TC

[dlfl]

That system looks good to me. Regarding SSD, it appears the jury is still out on how that might improve VideoReDo encoding performance. Take a look at this thread:
http://www.videoredo.net/msgBoard/showthread.php?t=30448
In particular look at post #6.

[lillevig]

I have a Tivo Premiere. I offload a lot of content from the Tivo onto my PC. Then I edit it with VideoRedo.

My current system is a dual core Dell(2.8 Ghz processor). I have a very good video card and lots of ram.

My PC is able to edit the HD content as long as the output files are straight up MP2.

However, unfortunately, if I try to transcode the .tivo files to anything other than MP2(such as MP4/h.264) then my system just can't do it. The horsepower is just not there.

I have been thinking of buying a new PC. Here is one that I found on sale. What do you think of this? What it be good for the HD video editing? Or would you recommend any tweaks to this?

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?prodid=11762149&whse=BC&topnav=&cm_sp=RichRelevance-_-categorypageHorizontalTop-_-PopularProductsInCategory&cm_vc=categorypageHorizontalTop|PopularProductsInCategory

One thing that I might want different from the standard specs is a solid state drive. Part of my reasoning is because SSD is faster. Another part of my reasoning is that the ONLY stuff that goes on my C drive is application data. I do not store personal photos or anything else on my C drive.

I do not do any gaming and I do not care about that. The only high end processing that I do is the video editing.

Anyway, what do you think of this?

Thanks,

TC

Can't say for sure but that is the biggest, baddest, processor currently available from Intel for us consumer types. If that won't do it I don't know what would.

[stevel]

The processor is indeed the best you can get in a regular PC and the graphics adapter has features your video editing software may be able to take advantage of. The CPU also has Intel's "QuickSync" which software may use, though I'm not sure if it works when a discrete graphics adapter is required.

Looks like a well-rounded system that should serve you well. I just put together a system based on the same processor. I do like SSDs and have one in mine.

[SNJpage1]

take a look at a site called cyberpowerpc.com I bought my quad 4 from them years ago and they have good prices and lots of sales. You can even pick out the parts that you want installed in the PC and it gives you a running price along one side as you add and remove parts.

[lrhorer]

However, unfortunately, if I try to transcode the .tivo files to anything other than MP2(such as MP4/h.264) then my system just can't do it. The horsepower is just not there.
Actually, recoding. Transcoding takes rather little horsepower.

I have been thinking of buying a new PC. Here is one that I found on sale. What do you think of this? What it be good for the HD video editing? Or would you recommend any tweaks to this?
For recoding, you can do much better for a much lower price.

One thing that I might want different from the standard specs is a solid state drive.
Why? It's not going to help significantly with recoding video.

Part of my reasoning is because SSD is faster.
'Not really relevant. The rate at which any consumer CPU is going to be able to recode HD video from MPEG-II to h.264 is far, far below the capabilities of even a single SATA drive. What's more, for the cost, implementing a RAID array will give you better speed and vastly greater storage for a lower price. SSD definitely has its place, but I don't think it has one for your stated application.

Another part of my reasoning is that the ONLY stuff that goes on my C drive is application data. I do not store personal photos or anything else on my C drive.
You lost me, there. First of all, things like personal photos, etc. are application data. Do you perhaps mean binary / executable files? If so, then there seems even less reason to want an SSD.

The only high end processing that I do is the video editing.
Here are some fairly nice machines in that price range:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229291
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229323
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883157329

If it were me, I would go for the CyberpowerPC Zeus system. It doesn't have a BluRay drive like the HP does, but it has more memory and the memory is faster, plus it has a liquid cooling system and an auxiliary fan. Nice. A BluRay drive is only about $100 - $150, still making it less expensive than the HP.

Those are 8 core systems with lots of RAM. Of course if you really want performance, you can go with a dual GPU server board in the range of $600 or so plus a couple of 8, 12, or 16 core server GPUs. Those puppies could recode a 3 hour, 1080p x 60 movie in a matter of minutes. Get out your wallet.

[lrhorer]

The processor is indeed the best you can get in a regular PC
Oh, nonsense! Even Intel produces a number of hotter 6 core processors, and AMD produces a couple of 8 core procesers with nearly the same clock rate. Of course the Intel 6 core CPUs can cost more than the entire system listed above, but the AMD processors, both 6 and 8 core, can be had starting below $200 and going up to no more than $300.

For some applications, especially single threaded ones, a CPU with a faster clock and larger cache can make a significant difference, but when recoding video, the number of cores reigns supreme.

Looks like a well-rounded system that should serve you well.
Not really. It looks to me like an eye catcher designed to deplete one's wallet.

Again, a machine that performs far better for a much lower cost can easily be had. An AMD Zambesi 8 core processor with a good chunk of 1866 MHz dual-ported RAM and an ASUS Crosshair V Formula motherboard can be the basis of a much faster recoding workstation for about half the price. Add a low priced boot drive and a couple of 1.5 - 2T hard drives for an array, and you have a real video workhorse. If the unit is to be used for video display, not just editing, then a fast video board is suggested, but for editing only, an inexpensive graphics card will be fine. Since gaming is not being considered, a really high end video board is just a waste of money, although the bundle price for a gaming PC may be better even with a monster video board than a roll-your-own.

[stevel]

Sorry, I say nonsense to your "nonsense". Yes, Intel has 6-core processors with more overall compute power, but they are not as fast per core and take a lot more power. They also don't have the new Ivy Bridge instructions.

As for AMD, just go look at any unbiased benchmarking of those systems - even the so-called 8-core (really only 4) AMD processors can't keep up with lower clock rate and less expensive Intel processors with 4 or even 2 cores.

[lrhorer]

Sorry, I say nonsense to your "nonsense". Yes, Intel has 6-core processors with more overall compute power, but they are not as fast per core and take a lot more power.
That was not part of the question. The question involved overall performance, not performance per core or power consumption. For re-coding (or any application), both power consumption and Performance per $ may be of considerable concern to the user. Performance per core is not.

They also don't have the new Ivy Bridge instructions.
Which has minimal impact on recoding.

As for AMD, just go look at any unbiased benchmarking of those systems - even the so-called 8-core (really only 4)
What the heck are you talking about? It is Intel that implements virtual cores, not AMD.

AMD processors can't keep up with lower clock rate and less expensive Intel processors with 4 or even 2 cores.
I suggest you go back and look at those reports, again. (I have.) For flat out arithmetic and floating point operations, the AMD processors running a standard clock often essentially match or beat the Intel processors with the same number of cores even when overclocked. Of course, the benchmarks and reviews tend to gloss this over, since as one reviewer put it, "there are few real-world applications that gamers and enthusiasts use that will fully exploit it; in fact, as you can see from many of these benchmarks, even programs designed to spawn multiple threads frequently do not scale their performance well past four cores." Translation: gaming, web browsing, and word processing can't keep even four cores busy, let alone eight. The OP and I, however, are not talking about gaming, web browsing, or word processing. We are talking about coding h.264 video, which will flat out peg as many cores as are available for hours, or even days and weeks on end. Unlike the performance for gaming, which does not scale at all beyond at most 4 cores, video coding can scale directly with the number of cores well past 32 cores. Replace a 2 core CPU with a 6 core CPU of the same family and speed for gaming, and the performance will increase only a modest amount, if at all. Do the same for video coding, and performance will at least triple.

Now, I'm a bit uncomfortable making direct statements on this, since I don't have two sets of PCs available to actually test myself, but based solely upon the reported benchmarks, a six core AMD system is a much better value for a recoding platform. If one wants to get as much coding done in a minimal amount of time for the cost, AMD is the way to go. If one wishes to sit in a recliner all day playing with one's joystick, buy Intel - if one can afford it.

less expensive Intel processors with 4 or even 2 cores
Again, what are you talking about? There ain't no such animal. The very top end 3.6GHz 8 core FX-8150 goes for $189, while the lest expensive 3.4GHz quad core i7 is $294 at NewEgg. Feature for feature, Intel compatible motherboards also tend to be more expensive, with some number of exceptions.

[stevel]

You don't seem to have been keeping up with what AMD is doing. Their "Bulldozer" line of processors count integer functional units as "cores", even though there are half as many real cores on the CPU.

Some reading I suggest you do:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-7.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-19.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-17.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-3.html

What Is A Core, Anyway?

But now AMD is going to have to hop off of its high horse because the Bulldozer module doesn’t incorporate two complete cores. Instead, it shares certain parts of what we’d expect to find as dedicated resources in a typical execution core, including instruction fetch and decode stages, floating-point units, and the L2 cache.

Intel's HyperThreading doesn't inflate the core count - they will tell you how many cores and how many threads.

[True Colors]

Thanks for all of the responses. Lots of good information here for me to digest.

For the record, I lean towards Dell and Intel for a few reasons. I have had good luck with those brands in the past, and also, Dell systems have always been easy for me to work on myself when they need to be upgraded or repaired.

One additional question........ does anyone have much experience using AMD video cards with Intel CPU's? Anyone ever have a problem with that?

I ask because I did have such a problem before regarding compability between an AMD card and an Intel CPU. It caused me to switch over to Nvidia.

Thanks,

TC

[stevel]

I have used both AMD/ATI and Nvidia cards with my Intel CPUs - never a compatibility issue. Heck, Intel supports both on its motherboards.

[ggieseke]

If VideoReDo ever gets Cuda support off of the drawing board, Nvidia might be a better choice.

[stevel]

MediaEspresso can use the Intel QuickSync feature in the CPU - very fast. If you get a motherboard that supports Virtu MVP, it can use the CPU's support while other programs use the discrete graphics card.