Question for computer gurus!

[IhateMyjob]

Ok, so... You probably don't have be a guru to know the answer to this, but I'm just looking for input.

As I stated in my thread in the newbies section titled something like "beginner computer/camera/ect. question"

I currently have an Asus K53e-BBR3 laptop, which is not really powerful enough to run my Pinnacle Studio 16 software. It worked great when I first started (although I'm still in the "just started" stage)... When I was just learning the software, putting 1 clip to transition to another clip... Worked great.

However, now that I'm working my way through effects, and corrections, The computer just isn't up to par.. If I have a 30 second clip on my timeline with a basic color correction, and Red Giant "Looks" applied, when I open my task manager, it shows 100% CPU usage just sitting there, not even trying to play the video.


So, I told you all that to ask this, out of the following options, which do you think would be the better investment?

Option1) Take my current laptop, and upgrade it to 8gig of ram, and an Intel Core i7 2670qm (The most powerful cpu it will support)... That processor is 2.2 ghz quad core, 8 thread.. so you don't have to look it up. That will basically leave my laptop as powerful as it can be.

Option2) The computer shop that I had look at my laptop, and who gave me the list of supported cpus, said he could do a custom [desktop] build for around $800-$1000 that would handle the editing well.

Option3) Would be to buy all the parts and assemble it myself... I've never built a PC before, but I've read a lot about it and have wanted to learn since I was in 8th grade..

So, these are the options I'm considering right now.


Let me know your thoughts,
Marshall

 

[MileCreations]

You will always stumble across these kind of issues on a laptop unless it really is a super high end one. If it's struggling that bad with 4GB I don't see it having a dramatic performance increase with 8GB. Sure you might actually be able to play the video then but possibly not as well IMO.

I would recommend checking how much of your hard drive is taken up. the fuller it is, the slower the computer will run. I have 1TB on my desktop computer and once and get down to 150GB left i have to do a clean up because it dramatically starts slowing down. And at 100GB some of my programs start having other problems.

I was going to build my own PC until I found a computer place that had quite a good model at the time for only slightly above the cost of building one, so we bought it. If you see editing as a long term hobby/profession then I would highly suggest make a more long term purchase, to make yourself ready for the years to come, by moving it up to 16GB of ram

 

[MetalRenard]

Editing and playback are a real drain on the processor because it has to do everything in real-time. The RAM on the other hand allows you to have larger more complex projects open. Consider also that there is such a thing as "slower" and "faster" RAM determined by its mhz rating.

Your best bet is to get a desktop-PC capable of doing the work you need because desktops are much easier to up-grade and are cheaper if you need a more powerful workstation.
A new processor alone will cost 1/4 of the price of a new machine, maybe more, so it's worth getting something for the long-term in my opinion.

 

[IhateMyjob]

Thanks guys, Yeah the processor he recommended I upgrade to retails for like $378.. and when I bought this laptop it cost me $399, so it's really hard to justify that.

I will probably go the desktop route, I've been looking at tigerdirect and newegg at parts.

 

[Chris Tempel]

I have yet to see a computer get realtime playback when Looks is involved. I know a guy with a beast of a machine (64 gigs of ram, 2 gig GPU, Xenon processor...) and it still got choppy with Looks. Looks is the kind of thing you add once your edit is locked and you don't need realtime playback anymore.

 

[MetalRenard]

Every reference I find to Xenon processors places them as ancient technology by today's standards. That could be why your friend's PC can't handle it.

I have a quad-core i7, 3.6ghz Intel processor and it can really take a beating. I have yet to have any slow-down due to my processor (my gpu maxed out long before my processor did and it's a pretty decent one at that).
SSDs help tremendously (instead of a HDD).

 

[Sweetie]

There's some missing information in your original post. You're working with r3d footage, at what resolution etc?

The reason for your problems are one of 3 areas (probably a combination of all 3). CPU speed, video card power and HDD speed. If any of those are bottle necking, you will experience varying levels of lag. This is a prime example of your maximum performance being only as good as your weakest link.

Do you need to be able to move your computer? If not, you'd often be better off building a desk top for editing/vfx where you'll get a complete and better system probably for less than it'd cost to upgrade a laptop to start to be capable of you're trying to accomplish. The downside is you lose portability, but you'll still have your old laptop to lug around. If you're not doing remote editing, it could be a worthwhile solution.

 

[CraigL]

A desktop will always be a better choice for performance; everything that goes into a notebook has it's performance balanced against it's battery drain. A desktop can be all about brute performance.

As people pointed out, MBL is a CPU killer, so don't judge on that. It really is a final render kinda thing.

And I'd wager your friend has a Xeon processor, not a Xenon (the Xbox processor only, afaik). They may not show as well in some of the consumer performance tests, but that's a server processor. Designed to sling lotsa of raw data around, and can support true multi-CPU, not the consumer level multi-core/hyperthreading.

Often, this really comes down to raw data transfer performance. As people point out, having a clean hard drive will help a lot. But if you want real performance, you should look at two hard drives at least; OS on one, and video on the other. Or, look at OS on one and a RAID drive for the video. Getting your OS and swapfile on a different device/channel from where your data is can be a big win with the consumer level IDE and SATA drives. They still don't support multi-threaded access as well as SCSI did, so splitting them on different channels (different drives) is all you can do to improve that.

Also, a decent GPU is very important to improved performance. I don't know if Pinnacle Studio supports it, but a decent GPU will kick the CPU's butt every single time when it comes to simply processing pixels; it's like a 200-1200 core CPU in that respect. But, the software has to be written to utilize it, so that might not be applicable in your particular case. I also don't know if MBL is GPU aware.

CraigL

 

[IhateMyjob]

Do you need to be able to move your computer? If not, you'd often be better off building a desk top for editing/vfx where you'll get a complete and better system probably for less than it'd cost to upgrade a laptop to start to be capable of you're trying to accomplish. The downside is you lose portability, but you'll still have your old laptop to lug around. If you're not doing remote editing, it could be a worthwhile solution.

I'm starting to think desktop for sure, build a good system. I won't be able to afford a top notch system, but enough to be able to edit on, and that I can upgrade in the future... Then I'll keep my laptop for general internet usage, my screenwriting software, and most importantly, I'll use it and my audio interface to field record/mix audio direct into Ableton Live... Which I haven't tried yet, but I'm hoping that will give me good quality audio.... I will admit that syncing is a little intimidating... Although Red Giant does have a new syncing software that is supposed to absolutely rock!


Anyways, back on the computer topic, I have a couple motherboard questions....

First why do no ADM motherboards have PCI express 3.0 slots for a GPU? (I've found GPUs that run on PCI express 2.0, so it isn't a big deal, just curious)

Also, because I'm not only pressed for budget, but also for real estate in my house... I'm leaning towards going with a smaller case that uses a microATX board, will there be a noticeable performance loss compared to a full sized ATX board?

And lastly a CPU question....

I started out wanting to run an Intel quad core CPU, but have found ADM to be much more affordable, and from what I've seen they have similar clock speeds, but the Intels' benchmark consistently higher (with the ones I've been looking at) than the ADMs... Even the [$199.99] ADM 8 core 4.0 Ghz FX-8350 (which is currently in my tentative Newegg shopping cart) Shows a benchmark of 9149... While the [$329.99] Intel Core i7 quad core 3.5 Ghz 3770K(Which i just recently removed from my shopping list) benchmarks at 9631.... Now I know that isn't significantly higher, but it's got half the cores and a slower clock speed... So, (and I know, this is going to probably start a debate) is Intel just the better processor? Or would I benefit more from the 8 cores?

 

[CraigL]

ADM

AMD?

Also, because I'm not only pressed for budget, but also for real estate in my house... I'm leaning towards going with a smaller case that uses a microATX board, will there be a noticeable performance loss compared to a full sized ATX board?

Performance, no. Cooling and PSU capabilities, perhaps. These big CPUs and especially GPUs, in addition to potentially multiple drives NEED fans and space to keep cool. For 3 HDs, a beefy CPU and a hungry GPU, you'd easily be wanting a 600-800W PSU, can you even get those in microATX?

Even if you could, the fan count in these bigger cases is worth it.

Personally, I'd stay ATX.

For the CPUs, it's a toss up. 8 real cores versus 4, but the AMD has very deep instruction pipeline, which make some things suck at performance...

CraigL

 

[Sweetie]

I wouldn't go MicroATX case.... Here's why. With desktop machines, especially when you're talking vfx work, with some video cards, you have the option to operate them in SLI (I think that's what it is called). This means you can put 2 cards in (AFAIK they have to be the same card, in a motherboard that supports this) and they'll operate essentially as 1 faster video card.

Why do this? When you're using software that can also use the GPU (Graphics card) to render your video, you'll find that some video cards have more processing grunt for this work than the top of the line CPU's. When you put 2 into the machine (not sure if you can SLI 3+ cards) you're essentially tripling it's potential power. Of course this is a simplistic view of it, but it's about right.

As for the CPU, I really suggest that you go Intel. Admittedly there's not going to be a lot of difference between them (if those benchmarks are accurate). The last time I did performance comparisons, AMD CPU's never really competed well (if memory serves me right, something about floating point thingy) when you needed the high end power (which you do need when rendering/encoding).

As for the video cards, do some research with your software. For instance Adobe CS6 only gets a benefit with specific video cards. Some other cards also give it a performance boost, but you need to know how to program it in for the software to use it.

Some great video cards used for video work can cost over $2k. I know essentially nothing about Pinnacle software. Do your research first before spending lots of money on a potential lemon.

 

[MetalRenard]

SLI does not use the full potential of both cards and does not go beyond each individual card's potential as you claimed. They add up, minus the work needed to transfer and adapt, so you get about 70 to 90% of each card's capacity. I just want to clear that up.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Okay, first off, the difference in performance, between 4 gigs and 8 will be HUGELY noticeable, immediately, and in the long-term. If you can afford 16, do it!

If, for some reason, you need laptop, then hey, do what you gotta do. But if editing is your #1 priority for this computer, laptop does not even deserve consideration. Besides computing power, and affordability, there's also the issue of monitor size. Like IMAX screens, and penises, bigger is better.

AMD vs. Intel? Six or half-dozen of the other. They're both great. In my opinion, this should be the last of your concerns.

There was once a time when it was less expensive to build a computer. That was more than a decade ago. Nowadays, there are companies that specialize in servicing nerds like us. In spite of the fact that they do the actual building of the computer, they're able to do it cheaper than you could, because they purchase the parts in massive quantities (lower cost). If you build it yourself, you'd have to pay retail price every single part. Plus, these guys are PROFESSIONAL PC-builders. No matter how much research you do, you're not likely to do as good a job as they will.

cyberpowerpc.com

I've been very happy with them. I've purchased two computers from them, and they've both serviced me very well. They're not the only PC-building company out there, but I definitely give them my official seal of approval.

 

[MetalRenard]

I wish I could have had my PC built for me. Sadly I didn't have that option as in the UK you DO save a lot building it yourself, as much as a few hundred £ if you know where to buy the parts.

 

[IhateMyjob]

It looks like Pinnacle 16 has GPU acceleration technology supported with Nvidia Quadro and GeForce.... However in the write up I read, there was no noticeable performance gain when using the technology.

 

[Sweetie]

SLI does not use the full potential of both cards and does not go beyond each individual card's potential as you claimed. They add up, minus the work needed to transfer and adapt, so you get about 70 to 90% of each card's capacity. I just want to clear that up.

Something I didn't know. Good to know that, thanks.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Perhaps a more important question -- Why are you editing on Pinnacle, and why in the world would you think that editing on Pinnacle is so important that you should build your PC around it?

Metal, since neither of us shared specific numbers, neither for computer specs or amount paid, we're both being vague. All I know is that the last time I looked into building a computer, I shopped for parts at places like newegg, and I found that a computer built by cyberpowerpc was considerably less expensive, and it f-ing works great!

But yeah, IhateYourjob, Pinnacle is for soccer moms. Ditch that nonsense. Premiere, Final Cut, Avid, Edius, Vegas -- those are the ones to consider, and there's only so much effort you should put into building your PC (or Mac) around any of them.

 

[IhateMyjob]

But yeah, IhateYourjob, Pinnacle is for soccer moms. Ditch that nonsense. Premiere, Final Cut, Avid, Edius, Vegas -- those are the ones to consider, and there's only so much effort you should put into building your PC (or Mac) around any of them.

Yeah I've began to realize that Pinnacle isn't really a high end software, I want Premiere, I was going to build what is called a "Hackintosh" to run Mac OS and FCP, but from what I've looked at online It looks like Premiere's user interface is a little nicer IMO, plus I've always used windows, so I'd like to stay there...

And as far as building the system around it, I just want a GPU that the software is comparable with for render acceleration... Which from what I've read in the programs you mentioned, is a noticeable improvement... not so much in Pinnacle.

 

[MetalRenard]

Yes, sorry, I bought my PC components for around £1000 and built it myself. £260 for the processor, 2nd hand Black Edition AMD (1 gig memory) graphics card (£50), Gigabyte mother board, 750 watt PCU, 16 gigs of 1600mhz RAM, 240gb SSD, 1TB HDD + the case it sits in.

I already had a screen, keyboard, mouse and sound gear.

 

[IhateMyjob]

Perhaps a more important question -- Why are you editing on Pinnacle.

I had to quote this again, it looked so good in the package... But it seems like every time I use it, something new and exciting is messed up... Like, a couple threads down in this section, it went through a "no audio" phase, then today... [even though it's slow on my laptop, and I'm going to swap to Premiere when I get my desktop] I still like to practice with both editing, and using my camera...

So, I shot a few scenes around my house, nothing fancy, no audio, no plot, no story... Just practicing. I shot at 1920x1080 24p.

I get the clips on the computer, and they import into my Pinnacle library just fine. I get them cut and transitioning how I like them, then decide I will try putting some music with them, so I opened Scorefitter, pick my music I want, click add, Nothing.... I go back to score fitter, and about half of the songs are missing, and the ones that are there, are all 3 seconds long, and clicking preview, all I got was 2 clicks.

So, I saved, and shut down, re booted, started it up got my song on it, then went to export it.... It started off trying to export at 720x576 25p, I got the resolution changed back to full 1080, but all it will let me export as is 25p, not 24p like the clip is shot at, and like the timeline is set at.


Now, there is a solid possibility that I'm repeatedly doing things wrong, but it just seems like it bugs out on a pretty regular basis... I guess when I was standing at Best Buy with Pinnacle in one hand, and CS6 in the other saying "Why is this so much cheaper".... well, now I know.