You are on the right track. Get an nVidia graphics card so Vegas can offload rendering to the GPU. Get a 2nd HDD so you can use one for input media and one for rendered output. You will also like using 2 monitors if you have not tried that before.

A good place to get a custom built system is

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/

Don't let the gaming focus scare you; pick an i7 based desktop system and customize it. Their prices are about as good as NewEgg and you get a system that is completely built and tested instead of having to build it yourself.

Don't care about 3d at this point. Shooting short instructional/educational videos with Youtube as the target output.

New Panasonic camera shoots MTS files which are kiling me with Vegas 9 and my old computer. Vegas 11 won't install on XP, so it is time to take the jump to 64 bit and Win7.

Kirk

Thanks, I will look there.

Do you live near a Microcenter?

They have the 2600K for $279 and an $80 discount on Z68 boards when purchased in-store.
They have good pricing on the Crucial M4 SSD, and will price-match the major e-taylors on all components .
I would go with a video card that has the most CUDA processors that fits your budget .
DDR3 RAM is pretty cheap right now, and Z68 platforms don't really benefit much from the faster, higher priced RAM; so I would recommend 16gb of 1066 or 1333 RAM.

There was a recent thread about a member who put together a Z68 system from Microcenter .. I'll try to dig it up for you ..

Here it is:

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?Forum=4&MessageID=783825

The OP had a budget of 3K.. I think he came in well under that ...

Regarding the video card, I would get an MSI 6870 Hawk. Price was 199 - 20 rebate for 179 total at Fry's (about 20 cheaper at NewEgg). Nvideo 570 will render somewhat quicker, but most in retail are 560 which is about 40% slower (and slower than the AMD 6870). The 570's were about $290 (so not as good price/performance). However, the AMD is faster with preview.

The MSI card was the editor's choice for the 6870 against the Diamond, Sapphire, OXE (?), etc. It was slighly (as is 31 out of 32 for rest) lower in some of the scores, but it has two fans and was the quietest and the coolest. When overclocked even further (it is already overclocked OCX from the factory but includes software to make it easy to overclock more ), it was the fastest.

I also checked out the 6770, but it is about 35% slower and only about $30 cheaper.

I hope this helps.

Awesome info thanks.

Thanks, good info there.

This is what I have in my Newegg wishlist right now.

ASUS P8Z68-V PRO LGA 1155 Intel Z68 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard with UEFI BIOS

MSI R6870 Hawk Radeon HD 6870 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card with Eyefinity

Intel Core i7-2600K Sandy Bridge 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Turbo Boost) LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 3000 ...

Crucial M4 CT128M4SSD2 2.5" 128GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

Patriot Extreme Performance 16GB (4 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model PGD316G1600ELQK

Microsoft Windows 7 Professional SP1 64-bit - OEM

The Sandy Bridge-E is on the street today if you're considering a six-core processor.

Newegg

Cool, almost double the price though.

Plus, it won't work with that motherboard or that memory; otherwise, a no brainer! ;-)

No brainer? please explain? Are you of the opinion that it would be better to spend double on the cpu, get different mobo and memory for that core 6?

I usually build a system a step down from bleeding edge, bleeding edge is usually just too expensive.

The last computer I bought was a MacBook Pro and it was bleeding edge. i paid premium for i7 8Gig Ram, all the goodies and a month later they came out with quad cores and Thunderbolt port for the same price. Owch.

Buy the NEW 6-core Sandy Bridge i7-3930K for $600 and a NEW Socket 2011 motherboard, you won't regret it. We based our last upgrade on the Socket 1366 when it was first released and it was a snap to upgrade to the 6-core 980X 6 months later. Our 980X workstation will still churn-out half of our HD renders for several more years even after we update one of our oldest workstations to Socket 2011 and an i7-3930K or better...

For personal computers, always choose the best bang-for-the-buck. For systems that earn money for you, buy the newly released Socket & hold onto it longer. You pay more up-front but do not upgrade as often. This way you have less down time & glitches. It helps to have more than one workstation so that you can alternate upgrades. If one fails, you always have a backup, etc...

"No brainer? please explain?"

With the 2011 chipset, aside from offering six cores today, better buss bandwidth USB 3, etc.: you might, just might be able to get a 22nm 8 core in two years for less than $600. That wouldn't even require a reload of the system.

One item to change--your amount of memory.

DDR3 is three channel memory. If you don't get a multiple of 3, it runs slower (sort of defeats the purpose of three channel). I run with 6 GB and it works great--I don't use 8 GB because it slows down the memory (DDR2 is multiple of 2 (not 3)). I would go with 12 GB (3 banks of 4 GB each) rather than 16 GB.

Seriously 16 will be slower than 12? If it runs in multiples of three, why don't all ddr3 mobos not have multiples of 3 for the memory slots? Seems weird.

I first heard this when I was building my first (of many) i-7 systems with ddr3. Here are some links that verifies it (the three channels).

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1467268

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/269247-30-ddr3-slots

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-870-1156,2482-9.html (benchmarks - but note the 2009 date - newer systems should take better advantage of the memory). Mine are 1600 (don't remember the timings, but about avg at the time).

If you need more memory to run an application before it uses the harddrive, then obvious a multiple of two will work better than a multiple of 3 that isn't enough. I.e., 3 GIG versus 8 GIG (the 8 GIG may make a faster system, but the memory speed will slow down (but faster than cacheing to the hard drive). My understanding is that a multiple of 2 will run similar to a DDR2 machine (but there is a LOT of speed difference with the DDR3 memory).

Regarding why some four memory slots, I assume it allows the user and the manufacturer to claim a higher amount of ram (regardless of whether it will be faster at maximum capacity).

BTW, my board will default to 1060, so be sure to run optimal settings in the BIOS which brings them up to their rated 1600 automatically.

Some of the discussions are pre-quad core, but on a quad you will see a speed difference. I can't use all my 6 GB right now (usually only use about 4.5 at most), so 12 GB should be fine (and faster speed overall than 16 GB since you won't have problems running low on memory with either 12 or 16).

I see what you are saying. News to me. I didn't realize that one benefit of DDR3 was the ability to run triple channel.

So, if I fill all four, I will have more memory, but have less bandwidth? Makes sense.

Thanks for pointing that out. I can live with 12 Gig of memory. :)

Kirk

Now I am getting confused. The only Asus board that I found that actually said that it supported Triple channel is a socket 1366

and bear in mind ati vid cards don't do cuda......

cuda????

I think that we should keep in mind that the OP is talking about a Sandy Bridge mobo and i7 2600K CPU. This configuration uses multiples of two memory modules...that is, you install two modules or four modules. It is a different architecture to the triple-channel architecture of the previous generation of i7 CPUs.

Most mobo manufacturers equip the slots in two different colours so that the system builder can see that the memory should be fitted in pairs - and in the correct slots.

Memory timing will not be an issue regardless of whether 4 GB (2 x 2), 8 Gb (2 x 4), 8 Gb (4 x 2) or 16 Gb (4 x 4) is used. If the OP can afford 16 GB then he should go for it.

Cheers

Russ

http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_home_new.html