New PC spec for Vegas 12?

OldSmoke wrote on 11/15/2013, 12:45 PM

Here are my thoughts:
1.) CPU: go with a 3930K which is almost half the price. You can run it at 4.0GHz without breaking a sweat and it's as easy as 1,2,3 to get it there. http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-3970X-vs-Intel-Core-i7-3930K
2.) GPU: Get 1 or 2 second hand GTX570 or 580 and you will have so much more fun with Vegas.
3.) MB: Make sure it is Ivy Bridge ready and does support 2x GPUs at PCIe x16; most LGA2011 do.
4.) PSU: 750W is a better choice; it can handle 2x GPU if necessary
5.) Cooling: get a closed loop cooling system (single 120mm or dual 120mm fan) or better air cooler.
6.) Thermal past isn't equal thermal past. get one of the better ones, Noctua or Arctic Silver 5.
Missing on your list is a UPS. I haven't run a PC without for the past 15 years, it will safe you a lot of headache.

But, nothing is more important then 2.)!

ritsmer wrote on 11/16/2013, 2:31 AM

Some other 2 cents:

Processor: Have just finished a machine with a i7 4930K – decided for the 4930K because its much lower power consumption – also when idling. See: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4960x-ivy-bridge-e-benchmark,3557-9.html
Besides the CPU actually does not run the specified 3.4 GHz – but runs full 3.9 GHz as long as it is cool enough – and with a Corsair H80i liquid cooler it remains cool enough even after long time of rendering at over 80% CPU usage.

Mobo: Make sure you get a Mobo with 4 RAM channels and use 4 x 4 GB RAM modules.

GPU: With such a fast CPU the GTX 650 (I have one too) will slow rendering down heavily – in this forum somebody started to write about the new AMD 280 / 290 – which seem to be the right thing - Or go for the great OldSmoke 2 x 570 solution.

Disks: I have 1 x 128 GB SSD for system and 1 x 500 GB SSD for current projects. Works very well. Remember to place the page file, the temp files and rendering output on a normal HD.

PSU: If you get a Corsair 850 or 860 its fan will not/hardly run by normal use of your PC - and you have plenty power for i.e. the 2 x 570s.

Cooler: Strongly suggest the Corsair H80i – keeps the CPU below 55 C even after long time rendering at over 80% CPU usage. It is even cheap and very easy to install.

Arthur.S wrote on 11/16/2013, 7:24 AM

Interesting thoughts. Should have added that this is being built for me by a company, it's not self build. If using 2 graphic cards, how do you set them up? presumably you are only using 1 for monitors? Is the other just 'plugged in' and Vegas detects it and uses both GPUs? I'm a bit loathe to downgrade the CPU, purely because of the inconsistency with GPU rendering. But if the 2 GPUs mentioned are reliable, it makes sense. Don't really understand the cooling options, but I'll look into it.

OldSmoke wrote on 11/16/2013, 7:42 AM

Even if you render CPU only you won't notice the difference between the extreme version and the standard CPU. Both have the same amount if cores and at best you get 5% more performance but for double the price.

There isn't much to it setting up 2 GTX 570/580. I run the SLI bridge installed and I select in the a Nvidia control panel "Activate all Displays". This way I can utilize all 4 monitor outputs, 2 each card and still have both cards's CUDA support. Enabling SLI doesn't improve performance and you also lose the ability to connect any monitor to the second card. I must add here, that due to the rather wide,3 slots, card design of the Asus GTX570, my second card is in a PCIe x8 slot. I will test SLI again when I have modified my cards to watercooled which slims them down to 2 slots and both will fit in a PCIe x16 slot. If you get GTX570 from EVGA then it would be only 2 slots wide; those are reference design cards.
Btw, 2 GPU rendering only works with MC AVC codec.
Anyhow, even one GTX570 will outperform the GTX6xx, GTX7xx and Titan. Sony Vegas can not utilize the later Keppler based cards which might be a Nvidia driver issue and not SCS fault.

Arthur.S wrote on 11/17/2013, 7:22 AM

I think what I'll do is email the company with your suggestions, and see what they come up with. Thanks for the advice!

JohnnyRoy wrote on 11/17/2013, 8:37 AM

I would recommend against the Extreme processor as well. I did this once and I regretted it. Because I spent $1,000 on the CPU, I wanted it to last to get my money's worth out of it so I kept the PC for 5 years. What I had in the end was a really slow 5 year old PC. Had I bought a $500 CPU, I would have been more likely to upgrade after 2.5 years and had a much faster processor after 2.5 years at the same $1000 price (2 x $500). Extreme CPU's don't have enough added value to be worth the money. Get the regular CPU and upgrade more often.

~jr

Arthur.S wrote on 11/18/2013, 9:31 AM

I think the vital item now with Vegas is probably the graphics card. Given that no PC builder is going to install second hand items, what are my best alternatives?

ritsmer wrote on 11/18/2013, 9:42 AM

Maybe wait a few days until we get the first user experiences with Vegas and Radeon R9's.
If promising maybe ask that user to test some rendering to your mostly used format.

OldSmoke wrote on 11/18/2013, 9:44 AM

It isn't that difficult to install one yourself. If you don't have a card at all you could get a very cheap one and replace it. The other option is to get an AMD FirePro card or Quadro 5000/6000 (not a "K" type) but all these will cost a lot lot lot more. I personally don't have experience with AMD FirePro but there are users in this forum that have good experience with it. Take some time and read this thread http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=874761&Replies=40

Arthur.S wrote on 11/18/2013, 9:54 AM

Anyone with experience of these?
3GB AMD RADEON™ R9 280X - DVI, HDMI, DP - DX® 11, Eyefinity 4 Capable

OldSmoke wrote on 11/18/2013, 10:05 AM

I think the link I provided there is a user testing the 290 model; seems promising.

Arthur.S wrote on 11/18/2013, 10:23 AM

They also test the 280X which is very close performance wise. Looks very good value.

Arthur.S wrote on 11/18/2013, 10:27 AM

So, at the moment, it's looking like this:

InWIN G7 BRUSHED EFFECT DARK GREY CASE

Processor (CPU)Intel® Core™i7 Six Core Processor i7-4930K (3.4GHz) 12MB Cache

Motherboard ASUS® P9X79 LE: INTEL® SOCKET LG2011

Memory (RAM) 16GB KINGSTON HYPER-X GENESIS DUAL-DDR3 1600MHz, X.M.P (2 x 8GB KIT)

Graphics Card 3GB AMD RADEON™ R9 280X - DVI, HDMI, DP - DX® 11, Eyefinity 4 Capable

Memory - 1st Hard Disk 500GB WD CAVIAR BLACK WD5003AZEX, SATA 6 Gb/s, 64MB CACHE (7200rpm)

2nd Hard Disk 2TB 3.5" SATA-III 6GB/s HDD 7200RPM 64MB CACHE

RAID NONE

SSD CACHE DRIVE NONE

1st DVD/BLU-RAY Drive 15x BLU-RAY WRITER DRIVE, 16x DVD ±R/±RW

Power Supply CORSAIR 650W VS SERIES™ VS-650 POWER SUPPLY

Processor Cooling Corsair H60 Hydro Series High Performance CPU Cooler

Extra Case Fans NONE

Thermal Paste ARCTIC MX-4 EXTREME THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY COMPOUND

Sound Card ONBOARD 8 CHANNEL (7.1) HIGH DEF AUDIO (AS STANDARD)

Wireless/Wired Networking WIRELESS 802.11N 300Mbps PCI-E CARD

USB Options MIN. 2 x USB 3.0 & 6 x USB 2.0 PORTS @ BACK PANEL + MIN. 2 FRONT PORTS

OldSmoke wrote on 11/18/2013, 11:07 AM

You may want to still consider getting a Nvidia GTX570/580; read this thread: http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=875713&Replies=0
Also your disk configuration doesn't allow for more complex editing. The cooler should be a slightly bigger one, H80i or H100i. No UPS?

Arthur.S wrote on 11/18/2013, 11:50 AM

Just when I thought it was safe to get back in the water..... :-(
This graphics card thing is depressing. It's actually putting me off buying a new PC. Why oh why can't Sony add some clarification I don't know.

Disc config will be changed by myself with the addition of two more internal HDDs.
I've changed the cooler to the 80i. (Had to change case to fit in).

OldSmoke wrote on 11/18/2013, 12:06 PM

With regards to graphics card. When I build my system to have GPU acceleration , that was when VP11 came out, I looked at their website and what SCS used to test the system and that is why I bought a GTX570; 580 was out of the question at that time.

How about the UPS?

Arthur.S wrote on 11/18/2013, 12:38 PM

Never used a UPS. I can see the benefit though.

OldSmoke wrote on 11/18/2013, 1:17 PM

An item overlooked by the majority of users. I see the battery backup as an added benefit; the main function for me is a stable supply of voltage and current which in turn improves system stability.

lewist57 wrote on 11/19/2013, 11:01 AM

I rebuilt my machine this past spring, and focused on the drive storage. The main drive is Win7 x64 Ultimate on a 256G SSD. I put in two different drives for the files. The first is another 256G SSD for "temporary" storage. SSDs do not like for you to do a lot of writes to them, so I use this drive when I am actively editing and working on a file. Once I am complete with it, I move it over to a 2TB 72000rpm SATA3 hard drive for long term storage.

Sounds like a lot of work, but the SSDs really speed up the processing, and the 2TB hard drive was less than $100. Works for me!

ritsmer wrote on 11/20/2013, 3:32 AM

RAM: why not use 4 x 4 GB - Your mobo does support 4 RAM lanes.

Disks: Why not use at least 1 SSD? (an OCZ Vertex 4 128 GB will do wonders as system disk).
I have the OCZ and an Samsung 840 EVO 512 GB - and with Samsungs own "Samsung Magician" disk test program shows that the OCZ is significantly faster when writing: 423 vs 224 sequential writing and 81749 vs 5754 (!!!!) random write (IOPS).

Cooler: The Corsair H60 i gets much better reviews - I had to install it on the outside of the case so that the fan is inside - but no problem. (Edit: see that you already noticed)

Disks: why go for 2 TB when 3 TB cost nearly the same? - and 4:2:2 and 4K etc. are looming in the horizon...

Wireless: Why not use 1 Gbps cabling and skip the wireless ? a 1 Gbps cable to your backup NAS does wonders.

Arthur.S wrote on 11/20/2013, 6:30 AM

Thanks for the input.

What difference does 4 x 4 make compared to 2 x 8 RAM?

Thought about SSD, but the small size puts me off. 128GB? I'd fill the thing in no time. Really don't want to go back to worrying about disc space on the system disk.

I'm nearing retirement, so 4K won't touch me. ;-)

Good point re 3 TB. But...you can go on forever with these things. You have to set a budget.

The wireless is just for the odd software update. All of my backups are to external HDDs. With USB 3.0 this will be VERY fast!

At the moment, the biggest 'IF' is the graphic card.

OldSmoke wrote on 11/20/2013, 7:32 AM

4x4 vs 2x8:
The P9X79 supports quad channel memory. Quad channel is a bit like RAID0, the information gets written and read from 4 memory banks at a time increasing speed. I also prefer to get a bit higher on the spec of the memory then required. In this case the 3930K supports 1600MHz but I would buy memory certified to run a level or two higher but still use it at 1600MHz. Many RAM manufacturer like to spec their chips on the edge of what it can do to get an edge in the market. Same for motherboards FSB and supported RAM speed; use it at least one level lower.
128GB as a system SSD is a bit small, I have a 256GB and it is more then sufficient provided that all you do is putting software on it. Personal files, projects, all data as such is on a different drive.

ritsmer wrote on 11/20/2013, 11:30 AM

4x4 vs 2x8: agree fully with OldSmoke.
Actually he was the one that made me realize that difference just before I started ordering the parts for my new build about 2 months ago. Btw: Thank you, OldSmoke.

128GB: I keep the C: drive as lean as possible. That means no data, no media, no pictures, no projects, no paging file, no temporary files, small Windows restore area, no download directory, no intermediate space when using the New Deshaker etc. and then I mostly use about 60 GB on it - and so 128 GB would suffice.
Of course 256 is better - but also more expensive - and - LOL - to tell the truth: I just checked and actually I do have 256 GB too (sorry I forgot that at mounted my "old" 128 GB into my wife's email-laptop and got myself a 256 GB some time ago :-)

FPP wrote on 11/20/2013, 11:28 PM

Some of the specs posted here could have launched a rocket to the moon back in the 1960's.. After reading this topic I found myself wondering how much is enough to run VP12.
I mean, what else can you get Vegas pro 12 to do with all those nuclear warheads in those computers.
I run a system with slightly lower specs than the ones described here in and I have a wonderful experience with my workflow.
Overkill seems to come to mind as I wonder why would I need anymore juice when I'm producing very good finals with what is essentially an off the rack cpu.