Spec advice for new build, please.

Sasso Palmieri

Sasso Palmieri

Sasso Palmieri

Associate
Joined
13 Dec 2007
Posts
8
Ahoy-hoy,

I've decided I need a new work machine and am a little confused about spec.

Quick history: my most recent machine was a leased Dell laptop 3.04GHz/512Mb/80Gb. Then it died and was replaced with one of these PoS dual core machines - 1.73GHz/1Gb/160Gb. Every machine I've ever used - right back from a AMD K6II 350 - has been perfectly adequate in performance terms for my needs. And my needs are graphic design and video editing. However, this dual core machine is nigh-on useless. Rendering five mins of MPEG2 footage in Sony Vegas 6 now takes three-to-six hours. That's like waiting an hour for a Word doc to print, for those unfamiliar with video editing.

I've tried all the usual fixes and maintenance but to no avail. In any case, it's not the reason for this post.

What I'd like, is for someone to advise me on a new system spec. I can spare 500 sovs, ideally - 700 at an absolute max. Time was, I'd pick a machine based on the CPU and the RAM. The higher the numbers, the faster it was, generally-speaking. But comparing dual or quad-core brains is impossible without eating benchmark reports for breakfast.

I've earmarked three machines on OCUK that all seem to be suitable on paper. Could anyone advise from a more-experienced standpoint, please?

I will go for the 4Gb of RAM on the overclocked model.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-045-OK&groupid=43&catid=967&subcat=

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-044-OK&groupid=43&catid=966&subcat=

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-011-OK&groupid=43&catid=968&subcat=

I'm looking for the most powerful machine available for my budget (!) I run Adobe CS3 and Sony Vegas 8. It will be an offline machine, minimum install of XP, and must have FireWire and USB2.0 ports. If I could find one, I'd by a single-core (old-skool) chip! I don't need multitasking.

Alternatively, I could build one, but I'm sure I'd find a way to screw it up.

Any help, criticism and observation is most welcome.

Thanks.
 
Vegas can make heavy use of multithreading. Your current machine should be much faster than the 3 Ghz proc it replaced.

I'd make you a spec but OcUK's site is broken at the moment. :(

EDIT: Oh well, the final price here is accurate.
overclockersukyourbaskeey0.gif

This is what I'd get. This quad core processor should fly through the rendering work. Both of those programs should make heavy use of SMP-capable systems. Here you have four gigs of adequately fast RAM, an extremely fast hard disk, an excellent mobo with a bunch of USB ports and internal and external Firewire. The graphics card is ideal for 2D work such as yours as it performs hardware acceleration of some popular video codecs while consuming minimal power. The case and PSU are up to the task of powering and cooling it. I think it's an excellent value.
 
Last edited:
That's absolutely brilliant, mate. I'll have a butcher's when the site's back.

Two other things: first, how hard is it to build a PC from scratch? Second, if I'm only running one programme, why do I need a dual or quad core?
 
First: Its actually surprisingly easy. Just do your homework to make sure you know what goes where (there are loads of illustrated guides around the net) and you cant go wrong.

Second: At least one of the programs you mentioned is multithreaded meaning that that program can split its workload over multiple cores making it much much faster. It'll also be much better for multi-tasking, and I dont mean like gaming and video encoding (tho it'll be good at that too) I mean working while a virus scan is running, or burning a disc while working without having to worry about buffer under run. Multiple cores is great, the computer just feels so much more responsive
 
I figured that what was how it worked but there is absolutely NO evidence that it works, at least in my experience. This 1.73GHz/1Gb dual core is unusable - the old 3GHz used to fly, by comparison. Technically, it should be quicker. Also, ever since I've edited audio, I've tended to leave the machine to it business, so I've never considered multitasking a necessity. If I want to check my email or cut a disc, I'll do it on another machine. Professionally-speaking, I wouldn't install other software on a dedicated editing machine, anyway. Edit suites and studios tend to just run the software needed. Is there no such thing as a single-core, say 4 or 5GHz chip around?

That aside, I like the look of your spec. Any possible improvements for another fifty notes?

Cheers, pal.
 
Is there no such thing as a single-core, say 4 or 5GHz chip around
Click to expand...

Fraid not. The min reason the chip manufacturers suddenly switched to multiple cores is because they couldn't make single ones go any faster. The individual cores will only run at the same sort of speeds as chips did a few years ago, its just you get more than one of them. If you want speed these days it has to be multicore
 
The fact that your current machine is slower than the one it replaces indicates that there is a software or configuration problem n your end. Vegas is lauded as a program that makes heavy use of SMP so there's no reason for it to be so slow.

Single cores are gone for good except for low-power setups.
 
BillytheImpaler said:
The fact that your current machine is slower than the one it replaces indicates that there is a software or configuration problem n your end. Vegas is lauded as a program that makes heavy use of SMP so there's no reason for it to be so slow.
Click to expand...

I assumed this was the case. I've done everything I can think of bar reinstall, which I would rather avoid. But for the life of me, I can't suss out what the hell is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Saw this chip as a potential replacement for the one mentioned in the quote above. It's the same one but clocked at 3HGz, instead of 2.4GHz. Worth the extra £16? Rest of the system handle it?

Ta.
 
What type of chip is it you have seen? For only £16 more it would seem like a good deal, but it depends what type it is. For example, a 3Ghz Celeron is going to be worse than a 2Ghz Core2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom