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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom