Thanks very much TB!
He said that in the systems he builds, AMD *always* outperforms comparable Intel systems;

I've heard that a lot too but I was thinking that this forum has been leaning more toward Intel lately...saying that V8 likes Intel better.

but the second system has two hard drives...., while the first has one HD

Here's what is probably a dumb question. I am presently running a Raptor 10K RPM (with a P4 3ghz with HT enabled). I am still in SD land and have more hard drives than I need. I don't know how RAID works except that it's safer?

Also can you please tell me what the difference in this one for $529 is from the $499 AMD? The only thing I can see is the model number and the price but maybe someone else can see a difference?
Thanks again TB!
Randy

There are several different RAID systems, and each uses a different number of hard drives, and provides varying levels of "safety." I am not an expert in RAID systems by any stretch of the imagination--but to answer your question...yes, RAID systems are safer (in terms of guarding against data loss) than a non-RAID system. However (and I mean no disrespect her at all Randy) you are buying a $500 system--I wouldn't worry about a RAID system too much. If you back up your video data on a separate HD (non-system) and then get yourself an external drive to back up critical data yet again, then I wouldn't worry about going with a RAID system.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID this [/link] link to learn a bit more about RAID systems. I think you'll find that setting up a RAID system might easily cost you more than you thought. It looks to me as though there is an empty 5.25" internal bay in that AMD system, and you could install your Raptor drive in there and have three drives. This would give you quite a bit of redundancy to make multiple back-ups.

I looked at the RAID systems, but ultimately decided against them at this time. Talk to me in 6 months, and things may be different I suppose...

TB

I think you'll find that setting up a RAID system might easily cost you more than you thought. It looks to me as though there is an empty 5.25" internal bay in that AMD system, and you could install your Raptor drive in there and have three drives.

Good point my friend although my existing editing machine (with the Raptor with XP OS) will be going to my wife. No big deal though as I have a Maxtor SATA drive and an external 500 GB drive.

Thanks again TB,
Randy

Then you are good to go. Get the second system, and you'll have two HDs plus your external drive. I would immediately install 4GB more RAM though--shoot, I think my extra 8GB cost me around $50, give or take.

I would have no worries with that AMD system. Deactivate User Account Control (UAC) or it will drive you nuts, lol. Here's a link to a page that shows how to deactivate it, if you don't already know: http://flyelite.com/support/faq.php?cmd=view&faq_id=74 link[/link]. Disregard the flight simulations aspect of the page--it's a site for a company that I work with but that has a lot of customers that seem to have problems with Windows issues; especially Vista-related!

Also, and I think I mentioned this before...make sure that you are getting Vista with SP1 included! Do NOT accept a pre-SP1 version of Vista, or you'll regret it. My laptop is pre-SP1, and there were tons of issues. My new version has SP1 included and it's much more efficient, from what I can tell. So if the AMD system does not have SP1, make sure that it's eligible for installation--otherwise I would seriously consider buying Vista 64 with SP1. Mine cost $100 from TigerDirect. I would NOT run Vista without it--I've simply had too many problems with my laptop.
And if you can install SP1 prior to putting any of your applications on the machine, you won't risk losing any data.

So have fun with the new machine! I just installed version 8c alongside 8.1 on my Vista 64-bit system, and they both work perfectly. Apparently Vista 64 will indeed allow 32-bit plug-ins to work in 8c, but not in 8.1. I am not sure I understand it yet, but that's what folks are saying. So you might start with version 8c if you run many plug-ins. But version 8.1 handles AVCHD files VERY well on my machine; at least in my limited experience over the past 3 days. Just some things for you to consider once you get the system.

TB

Also, and I think I mentioned this before...make sure that you are getting Vista with SP1 included! Do NOT accept a pre-SP1 version of Vista, or you'll regret it.

So if it isn't SP-1 can I not just download/install the patch from MS (before installing anything)?

Thanks again,
Randy

Well, you'd think so! But with my laptop I remember reading that it had to be "offered" as an upgrade. This was some time ago, and in fact when it was offered to me through the "Find Upgrades" utility on the MS site, I chose it--but was then told that my machine did not have all the proper driver support, so I couldn't install it. OK, no problem I thought; ust wait a few months, and give it another shot. So in about May of this year, about 3 months later, I tried again. This time the MS site didn't even offer it to me, so I didn't try it. Then about 1 month ago a friend told me to download it myself and install it, and he even gave me the link. So I did that, and on the install it hung up and my machine froze! Well I was finally able to get back to safe mode and restore my system back to its pre-SP1 configuration--and everything works fine again...whew. But I will never try to install SP1 again, and the funny thing is that after that first offering from MS, my machine has never told me it still needs SP1. And I've looked repeatedly--it's not installed, lol.

But looking again at the system I told you I would buy, it does say that it's SP1; so you are good to go! The other system doesn't mention it anywhere I can see--so that's just another reason to go with the AMD system. And if you look at the reviews of the Intel-based system, you'll see that the one reviewer listed the RAM issue I mentioned as a "Con" in their review.

Seems the decision is pretty clear to me!

TB

You mentioning the heat factor made me start wondering about running the extra HDs and my Delta 1010. I don't know if these are even heat factors but I do remember losing a HD 6 months ago because I was told the power supply fried because it wasn't enough power.
Is 300 watts okay to run everything I mentioned? Or maybe I should just try to get another fan in there somewhere?
Thanks TB, I'll leave you alone after this one.
Randy

No sweat... Sundays are lazy days around here anyway, and I am just watching the football games while surfing. NO, in my opinion 300 watts really is not enough. It might be enough for what you want to do right now, but it really is the minimum for a power supply. I would think that 500 watts is really the smallest PSU you'd want to use, IMO.

When I built my new machine two months ago, I installed a 750 watt PSU, and even then I worried if I should have went with a 1KW PSU! I installed 4 hard drives and a DVD-RW to start with, and tonight I am installing a fifth hard drive (gotta love the sales on 1TB drives!) and another DVD-RW. And then there'll probably be a Blu-ray burner at some point as well. I believe that you can never have too much power, but really I suppose that it depends on the amount of space you have in your case. In my instance, my case holds 6 hard drives and 5 peripheral drives. So if I fill all of those at some point, 750 watts of PSU power doesn't seem all that big...lol.

Seriously though, you get what you pay for in PSUs. I use Corsair, as I have had real good luck with them--as have some friends. I am sure there are other good brands (Antec is a name I have heard), but I haven't had the need to try something else. I am sure that 300 watt PSU in that AMD machine will do what you need it to do--but how much reserve is there for future add-ons? And at what per cent of total capacity is the PSU running at now? If it's at 80-90% of total rated power output, you're going to be in trouble at some point; not only is there VERY little room for future expansion, but it will run hotter and not last as long--simply because it is operating at near-capacity output. It will also be louder.

I hired an audio consultant to help me pick the final components for my machine, and his opinion (after literally building hundreds of systems and advising countless others who built their own) was that you shouldn't operate at more than about 50-60% of maximum rated output on the PSU. I might be a bit above that with my 750 watt PSU after I add these other two components tonight, but some of his rule of thumb allows for future expansion as well as optimum performance. And you have to remember that he is building machines for high-end customers who demand ultra-quiet operation in their machines. So keeping PSU demands down to a minimum will be paramount, as it is probably THE loudest component in a PC. So you actually asked an interesting question...hence the verbose answer!

If I were you, I would get the machine and put in 4GB more RAM. Use it right now as-is, but plan to replace the PSU when you install another component of some sort. That way you'll not have to spend more than about $600 with extra RAM and tax, and you can then save up a bit of cash to expand the system later.


TB

If I were you, I would get the machine and put in 4GB more RAM. Use it right now as-is, but plan to replace the PSU .....
So you are suggesting I install 8.1 right? I'm still on 8b after reading all the complaints but maybe that's changing?
I'd like to explain my work process and you tell me if you think I will benefit from 8.1 or even another 4 GB RAM.
I am still shooting SD (on a couple of Canon XL1S'). BTW, I know I need to upgrade but that will be a while for me as I just can't see getting little HC7s or something.
I also don't do a lot of FX, only color correction, and a few simple transitions (ie Wax...will it work in 8.1?).
As I understand the threads here 8.1 utilizes the extra RAM but not if it's not needed (very intense rendering).
That said, do you think 8.1 and 4 more GB of RAM will make a noticeable difference for me?
BTW TB ,thanks very much, you've been very helpful!

Randy

EDIT: dang I guess it's been a while since I've upgraded...RAM is now dirt cheap...any suggestions on brands for this machine?

I don't know what to tell you about 8.1 vs 8c on 64-bit, as I just found out today that 8c works on the 64-bit OS! It does in fact, as I have those two versions installed side-by-side in Vista now, but haven't tried to experiment with the same project in each version--working on that tonight, maybe. Why not install BOTH of them and try them...then decide for yourself?

As for RAM, I have been using Corsair with this machine as well. I would get whatever brand is in the machine when you buy it. Just buy a matched pair of whatever they've included--or have them install it for you, if it's cheap enough. Like I said, mine cost about $50 for 4GB just this past week.

Back to the power requirement topic for a second... Here is a pretty good http://www.cheap-computers-guide.com/pc-power-supply-requirements.html article[/link] with a table of power requirements for different components. Note how much a higher-end CPU uses...up to 100 watts by itself! And how about RAM? 7 watts per 128MB? Wow...I didn't know it was that much!

Let's see... 8000MB / 128MB = 62.5 units * 7 watts/unit = 437.5 watts, just to power all that RAM! Quite frankly I am so sure I believe that number; I'll research it some more, because I just have never heard that RAM takes that much power.

Still think that 300 watts is enough for that machine?


EDIT: Well, I haven't found anything concrete in terms of a rule of thumb, but I did find a test using my RAM (Corsair PC-6400, 800MHz) showing 2GB of RAM used 205 watts under load. The good news is that it doesn't seem to take nearly as much power to add extra GB of RAM as it does to add extra DIMM chips, so if your system is able to handle 4 DIMMs and you want to increase the RAM value of those DIMMs, then you are probably OK. But in your case, you need to add two sticks of RAM, so it is indeed going to take additional power. The other thing is that you aren't very likely to use anywhere *near* 8GB of ram either, for most projects.

So if you just want to get the thing now and try it out without adding RAM, then run it with the PSU it has. Then you can upgrade the PSU when you add more RAM and another HD in the future--but I *would* upgrade the PSU, and I think you can see why.

TB

I think some numbers are way off in that power estimator. Here's a recent article by Tom's Hardware showing that even dual-core systems from Intel and AMD don't use that much power, with AMD eating up considerably more.

Another way to estimate actual power requirements is to use one of those power meters you can buy for $20 or so off the Internet. Run your PC through it, then estimate that your power supply is around 75-80% efficient, so your actual power needs are somewhat less. My overclocked AMD3800x2 with 7 drives, 2 burners, and a basic graphics card uses about 240w running Prime95, the ultimate CPU+ram torture test.

Also, I am mystified by claims of "needing" 3,4, or 8GB of ram. I've always advocated using RamPage to see what your actual real-time usage is, but here's a simpler method--just open up the Windows Task Manager and look at the Commit Charge data under the Performance tab. The "Total" number is what you're currently using, the "Limit" is the absolute max your system can deliver (ram + paging), and the "Peak" number is the most your system has ever needed since it was last booted. Go ahead, render some challenging veg file and see what your system needs. If your Peak number is bigger than your installed ram, you're paging, and you can go faster if you install additional memory. But I'll wager that for 99% of the systems out there, ram just isn't a constraint. I have 2GB installed and have NEVER maxed it out.

My memory comments above are directed at systems with XP. Vista eats more memory, and I'm not sure if the Task Manager layout is the same.

Great link. That was the same site I found with the results of the RAM testing using the same Corsair 800MHz PC-6400 that I use in my machine. The reports on that site are very thorough, from what I can tell. Though I have read the link all the way through, I haven't yet taken the time to study a couple of the figures and compared them to the data values. But given values provided for the average power consumption of the AMD system with 2 cores, I have to wonder how much higher it would be if there would have been FOUR of them? So the system that Randy is contemplating seems even more under-powered (in terms of PSU size) now that I see this. At the very least it seems as though the PSU will be operating at near max-capacity much of the time--especially when he's trying to render a fairly large project.

I rendered a large project (for me anyway) last weekend, where I had 38 HDV files that had been transcoded from AVCHD files using UpShift. The project was about 4 hours long, and I rendered three separate sections to MPEG-2 using the "render loop" function. Watching processor loads with CPU RightMark, I was seeing 85-90% load on each core much of the time, and nearly 100% some of the time. Now I wish that I'd had one of the power meters you mentioned, because I would be very interested to see my total power consumption.

But I am aware of the Prime95 application you mentioned. When I overclocked my CPU, I used that app to load the cores for 12 hours straight to check whether or not my core voltages needed to be increased at all. Luckily, each core performed flawlessly at the default 1.25v, and the task was completed in the first run-through. But you are 100% correct--that application took my 4 cores from zero to 100% load in about 0.5 seconds, and held them there for 12 hours straight! It is quite impressive, actually.

Interesting stuff...

TB

EDIT: I meant to add that I have been told by a couple Vista-knowledgeable folks I know, that the OS can use more than 2GB of RAM by itself. While XP doesn't use nearly that much from what I can tell, it appears Vista is a hungry dog. I have no proof that it uses that much all the time, mind you, but I am certain it uses way more than XP. My newer duo-core laptop with 2GB of RAM and pre-SP1 Vista crawls in comparison to my single-core relatively older laptop running XP with 1.25GB of RAM. My new studio PC runs very nicely with 4GB on the XP side (only 3.25GB available) and 8GB on the Vista side. In all fairness to the previous poster, the Vista side ran just fine with 4GB of RAM, so it isn't like I had to add another 4GB. However when it costs about $50 *with shipping* and I was going to open the case to do some work anyway, it didn't seem like a stretch to just go ahead and max it out with RAM. And that's where I was coming from when I made that recommended that Randy install another 4GB of RAM. It's cheap and once it's done...it's usually done.

This thread has become worthy of bookmarking!
I've decided to get the AMD system as TB suggested and run some of the tests mentioned. Like I say, I don't run a lot of effects and I'm still shooting SD...so hopefully it will be fine at least until I upgrade to HD.

Thanks so much TB and riredale,
Randy

Yes, I think so Randy. I wouldn't think you'd need more RAM until you got into SD. My quad core running XP with 3.25GB of available RAM ripped through SD processing like nothing.

But on that note, I just posted the results of my informal rendering test in another thread here in the forum. I grabbed the HDV rendering test folks here have been using and ran the test with VP8c (both 32- & 64-bit) and VP8.1 (64-bit). Version 8.1 smoked both of the other variations--it was really pretty impressive. Take a look at it when you get time. Here's the http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=619201 thread[/link].

TB

Can't wait to run that test when I get my new machine.
Thanks TB,
Randy

I could be wrong, but I think the quad-core chips from Intel use LESS power than my older dual-core AMD chip. It's because Intel has smoked AMD (Ha!) in migrating to ever-smaller chip geometries, so even as transistor counts have increased, the net power consumption has decreased.

As for ram needs, just do a render and see what your Task Manager numbers are before running out to buy more ram, no matter what the price. If you have extra ram slots on your motherboard, I know all too well the strong desire to fill them up, but if doing so makes no difference, then what's the point?

I understand your argument regarding the RAM, and it's well-taken. However I personally prefer to put in as much RAM as I can afford, for a simple reason--it's usually never cheaper to do it than when you buy the machine. Now given the recent decline in the cost of RAM sticks, this may no longer be true...but how much can we expect the cost of RAM to decline? Mine cost a bit under $50 with shipping. TigerDirect had 2GB of the same RAM (2x1024MB) for $19.99! I think the 4GB was about $39.99 or so, and then shipping was about $8 give or take.

I agree with watching RAM use as you pointed out, but you also have to take into account machine efficiency in the equation. If a person is vigilant about watching RAM utilization, then sure--they would see when more RAM is needed. But if they aren't watching it and start multitasking their PC and maxxing-out the thing, then the machine is working harder and longer, and overall power consumption increases as well. So does the extra RAM pay for itself at some point? I can't prove it, but I personally think it does. In my case I was doing some more work inside the case anyway, so I decided to just fill the other two slots and be done with it. I got the exact same brand and part number as my first two sticks, for about $40. It's done.

I certainly don't mean to tell anyone what they have to do with their machine--I'm just stating my opinion on adding RAM. I have noted that increasing total RAM seems to make the machine run more efficiently, and I hypothesize that this will translate into cheaper operating costs and longer PC life. Therefore I pulled the trigger and got more RAM. To each their own, I suppose...

TB

The "Total" number is what you're currently using, the "Limit" is the absolute max your system can deliver (ram + paging), and the "Peak" number is the most your system has ever needed since it was last booted.
I have a veg that is about as intense as I ever get (chroma key, CC, and chroma blur).
I am currently running a P4 3 ghz (HT enabled) and 2 GB Ram and judging by your statement above I am definitely paging and my external monitor is getting 1 or 2 fps set at "Preview full".
I am hoping this new system will make a BIG difference?
Thanks riredale,
Randy

I just and ran the HDV render test (mentioned in that thread I referenced) on my older laptop that I keep here in my office in the hospital. I hadn't installed Vegas on it yet, because it's an older P4 with a 2.8GHz CPU and 1.25GB of RAM running XP SP2. It runs SONAR version 4 fine, with only 4-5 tracks of input and no demanding plug-ins. (Actually, it would be a great laptop for remote recording to an external HD, and in fact I hope to do that with the FX1 I just bought.)

So anyway, I ran that render test and it took nearly 25 minutes(!). But I watched the Task Manager performance tab, and the page file use went from the 340MB baseline up to about 890MB while the project was rendering. So I simply figured I had exceeded max RAM and hit the page file. However the way that riredale's post reads, my "Peak" number should have exceeded 1.25GB RAM, my installed amount. But the instead it was only about 827MB...

I suppose what he might have meant is that you'll hit the Page File when the amount of RAM needed exceeds the available RAM...which is pretty much the purpose of the Page File. Maybe I misunderstood his post? Anyway, if you hit the page file, you are hitting the hard drive and performance suffers--and the other thing to remember is that the OS decides when to hit the PF, and (the way it has been explained to me) it may not be when the RAM runs out. Now if the project is pretty small and rendering doesn't take more than an hour or so, maybe it's not such a big deal to hit the PF. But if it's a huge project, or you are running a script to do batch rendering, your machine might be rendering for days. In a case such as this, I wouldn't want my OS to hit the PF at all--certainly no more than is absolutely necessary. I realize that most of us may never have a project this big or complex, so the PF may not be an issue. But it might be...

Well, I'd say that we've beaten this horse well beyond death at this point. But it's an interesting discussion anyway. Thanks for the posts Riredale...

TB

As I understand it (always to be taken with a grain of salt), you look at the numbers in the Commit Charge box to get the real lowdown on what's happening. Right now I'm doing a bunch of things simultaneously on my PC, including a render, and here is the data from Task Manager:

Commit Charge (K)
Total 626044
Limit 2986640
Peak 779388

So this is telling me that, currently, I'm using only 600MB of my installed ram. This dovetails nicely with my little RamPage window, which says "1317," which is the amount of ram sitting idle. Since I have 2GB installed, that makes sense.

The Limit number above tells me that my machine will crash if memory needs exceed 3GB, which also makes sense because I have 2GB of ram and have set up a 1GB pagefile.

Finally, the Peak number says that, at no time over the past few days (the time the machine has been up continuously) the most memory ever needed at any one time was about 800 MB, well below my installed ram. So I take from this that Windows has never needed to page.

Now it may be that the OS pages to disk regardless of the amount of installed ram. But I do know you don't need a pagefile at all if you have enough ram. I've run renders successfully with just 1GB of ram and no pagefile, just to see what happens. Turns out, nothing happens; as long as all the various processes don't demand more than what you have installed, the system is perfectly happy with no pagefile at all.

Yes, I believe that's exactly what happens--the kernel manages memory use, including page filing. So while I would have to ask someone better at programming than I (haven't done much low-level memory allocation stuff myself), I believe that in fact you could see the OS write to the page file *without* having used up all available RAM. I am sure there are different circumstances involved, and I know for a fact that C++ allows for some "safe" memory management (and hence does things a bit differently) while C (the language that many programmers use to write low-level code) requires very explicit memory management practices--else the application will go crash. Still, depending upon the active processes, I can see how the kernel might need to utilize the page file before the available RAM has been depleted.

My cousin writes low-level code in C, and also tells me how much of a pain it is to manage memory so intensively. I'll ask him about more specifics when I talk to him later on tonight--I have never done anything requiring nearly that level of memory management, to be honest.

But the Performance tab in the Task Manager is pretty nifty, if you watch the information it's giving you.

TB

Just FYI the Vista 64 drivers for the Delta 1010 are _still_ in private beta (6 months now) and no news as to when they'll be released.