help me choose a desktop computer. ugh!

WilliamM2

bigaudiofanatic wrote: »

the OP does not need anything faster than a 2.0 dula core possessor, 2 gigs of ram, a 80 gb hard drive and maybe a dvd burner. That is all he needs.

You may have missed where he stated he wanted to do HD video editing. More ram, and more hard drive space will serve him very well. 2.0 Ghz would have been fine in 2002.

Sherardp

Grab a dell or HP and call it a day. I'm a DIY guy myself. I just configured a quad core HP with all the bells and whistles for 792.00 It would last you quite sometime as well. Even a duo core would last you.

I personally run a quad core AMD Phenom II X4 2.8 stock overclocked to 3.5 ghz and it screams fast. Since the quad core is in your budget I would say go for it. Also see if you know anyone that can get you corporate discounts. HP and Dell give us 30% off so you get more for your money.

Sherardp

bigaudiofanatic wrote: »

I agree with the HP part but not the emachine. Them, acer and asus are great bang for the buck. Just because they do not carry a main manufacture logo does not mean they are not good.

the OP does not need anything faster than a 2.0 dula core possessor, 2 gigs of ram, a 80 gb hard drive and maybe a dvd burner. That is all he needs.

I'm going to have to disagree with this one big time BIg A. HD video editing is going to consume tons of HDD space. I would at least go with 500-750gb drive alone, the dual core is ok but at his budget I would opt for a quad core set up.

renowilliams

Danger boy, there have been a lot of opinions expressed as to what you should buy or build. In my experience, you need to start with a budget of what you can afford and then what you are going to need to but,to do what you want. You have stated that you want to do some HD encoding. I have been video encoding a long time and you will definatley want to seriously consider a quad core or at the very least a high end duel core.
I just built a system two weeks ago and I went with an i7 860. My research indicated that this was the best bang for my buck in the i7 series of processors. I put it on a Gigabyte motherboard and 8 gig of ddr3 memory. Now you can build something faster than this, but the price to do so goes up dramatically from this point.
To give you an example of how fast this configuration is, I can encode a 700 meg avi file to dvd in 6 minutes. The motherboard, processor and ram cost me 780.00 CND.

I also have a thinkpad R500 with a centrino t-9600 core two duo processor in it and to encode a 700 meg avi to dvd takes 24 minutes in it.

Hope this was helpful

Tim

danger boy

thanks for all the great info everyone.

I know that HD video takes quite a bit of storage space.. and hard drives are so cheap right now. my friend just got a terabyte for under $100. that's huge.

I would be wise it sounds like to go with a quad core.. even though my needs aren't needed at that level right now.. as time goes on.. my needs may change. and I don't want to have to buy another computer again because I outgrew my needs right away if I go with something less.

I'll be checking prices and systems in the next few weeks. I appreciate all the help everyone here is willing to offer up. My current computer isn't dead yet.. just very slow. so i'm not in the position to just jump on any computer. I have time to do some more homework.

Have a great New Year everyone.

bigaudiofanatic

Sherardp wrote: »

I'm going to have to disagree with this one big time BIg A. HD video editing is going to consume tons of HDD space. I would at least go with 500-750gb drive alone, the dual core is ok but at his budget I would opt for a quad core set up.

I missed that part, so I will say he will need something like an amd 2.8 dual core prossesor and 6-8 gigs of ram probably a 1tb hard drive and a good graphics card. I do NOT recommend dell or HP. I would say look at sony or asus.

WilliamM2

I missed that part, so I will say he will need something like an amd 2.8 dual core prossesor and 6-8 gigs of ram probably a 1tb hard drive and a good graphics card.

How will a good graphics card help with video encoding?

For those recommending quad cores, which video editing software currently takes advantage of quad core setups? I haven't looked into new software lately, but last I knew, a 3.0 dual core would outperform the slower quad cores at video encoding. Obviously that will change with software development, but has it yet?

renowilliams

WilliamM2 wrote: »

How will a good graphics card help with video encoding?

For those recommending quad cores, which video editing software currently takes advantage of quad setups? I haven't looked into new software lately, but last I knew, a 3.0 dual core would outperform the slower quad cores at video encoding. Obviously that will change with software development, but has it yet?

William, I use convertex to dvd to encode mkv files to dvd, avi files to dvd.
I also use divx converter 7 when I want to encode a dvd to divx.

I can tell you that my new i7 quad can do it fast and I seriously doubt a core two quad can beat it. I know my 2.8 t-9600 core duo takes three times as long.

Ps I also use the new roxio 2010 as well. I find convertex to dvd the fastest.

snow

bigaudiofanatic wrote: »

I missed that part, so I will say he will need something like an amd 2.8 dual core prossesor and 6-8 gigs of ram probably a 1tb hard drive and a good graphics card. I do NOT recommend dell or HP. I would say look at sony or asus.

Why wouldndt you reccomend Dell? Curious because the computer I am currently using is a 5 year old Dell dimension 2400 basically a bottom of the line computer 2.40 ghz single core intel celeron it doesnt even have a CD burner let alone a DVD burner or player but it has been 100% reliable and has not had so much as an single malfunction of any kind, I like the idea that I can at any time simply restore completely back to new condition by pressing ctrl + F11 I dont need a restore disk.

Now it is slower then an duo core 2.14 ghz HP I bought from a member here earlier but even though it ran very fast compared to the dell it was constantly breaking down on me and since I didnt have the drivers and utilties disk and windows restore disk I had to take it in to get this done.

Unless Dell has went downhill in the last few years I cant think of a more reliable brand. Of course after I bought this I realized I should not have been such a cheap bastage and got a duo core with a bigger hard drive and decent video card and DVD burner/player abilitys.

My next computer will be be Blu Ray capable with more media abilties. That being said I will take Sami up on his offer when the time comes simply because I think I can get a much nicer PC for the money then buying a name brand and I trust his knowledge, but He will have to accept a couple hundred bucks whether he wants it or not for doing it.




REGARDS SNOW

WilliamM2

renowilliams wrote: »

I can tell you that my new i7 quad can do it fast and I seriously doubt a core two quad can beat it. I know my 2.8 t-9600 core duo takes three times as long.

I had no doubt the new i7 processor is faster clock for clock. I'm using a Core2Duo 3.0 @ 3.7 mhz. I was wondering more about two cores versus 4 cores. Is there any software that can take advantage of all four cores yet?

Sami

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Is there any software that can take advantage of all four cores yet?

There are, mostly rendering software and encoding. Shouldn't any multi-threaded application in theory benefit from multiple cores?

If you're curious, you might give it a try with f.e. Blender which should benefit from quad core. If you have a quad, install:

1) VirtualBox: http://www.virtualbox.org/
2) Your OS that you want to test in VirtualBox, f.e. Ubuntu 9.10: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download#
3) Blender: http://www.blender.org/ (in Ubuntu just select it from the software center and it install automatically)

Set the processor number in VirtualBox to 2 and start it up. Run the blender test: http://eofw.org/bench/test.blend

Exit and set the cores to 4 and run the test again. It should give you an indication of how good it works although it's not perfect since the virtual environment.

WilliamM2

Sami wrote: »

There are, mostly rendering software and encoding. Shouldn't any multi-threaded application in theory benefit from multiple cores?

If you're curious, you might give it a try with f.e. Blender which should benefit from quad core. If you have a quad, install:

I have a Core2Duo, I am debating a Core2Quad for a performance increase.

Sami

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I have a Core2Duo, I am debating a Core2Quad for a performance increase.

Well, it woke my curiosity. I have a quad AMD on one of these machines, I will need to hook it up and run the test. I will most likely run it first on the main OS and then the two scenarios on VirtualBox. Nothing better to do on New Years eve...

Sami

Blender runs in 1 thread by default, and I ran the test with 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 threads. Here are the results (Phenom X4 9750 with 4GB of RAM):

1: 02:30.07
2: 01:19.92
3: 00:56.50
4: 00:42.60
8: 00:38.52

Attached pictures show the threads and times for 2,3 and 4 threads.

Sami

If you really want to render, here's how: http://helmer.sfe.se/

Sami

Ok, after some New Year celebrations, I concluded the testing:

Original results without VirtualBox:

1: 02:30.07
2: 01:19.92
3: 00:56.50
4: 00:42.60
8: 00:38.52

With VirtualBox with 2 cores running:

1: 02:30.82 (almost identical)
2: 01:24.04 (very close)
3: 01:17:03 (20.5s or 36% increase over 4 cores)
4: 01:27.88 (44.4s or 106% increase over 4 cores)

VirtualBox with 4 cores:

1: 02:31.33 (almost identical)
2: 01:24.58 (very close)
3: 01:07:17 (10.7s or 19% increase over non-VirtualBox)
4: 00:52.55 (10s or 23% increase over 4 cores)

Overall in the VirtualBox environment we get a difference of 24.5s between 2 and 4 cores, a 46% increase over the 4 core time. Safe to say the increase in cores is making a difference.

madmax

I tend to trust the Dell computers more than anything else.
madmax

Sherardp

madmax wrote: »

I tend to trust the Dell computers more than anything else.
madmax

They arent bad, but I hate dealing with that CS dept. I have a XP1530 from them and when I needed tech support, let's just those accents leave more to be desired.

On another note I just ordered a Phenom II X4 965BE CPU. Hoping to get it up to 4.0ghz on the overclock.

bigaudiofanatic

snow wrote: »

Why wouldndt you reccomend Dell? Curious because the computer I am currently using is a 5 year old Dell dimension 2400 basically a bottom of the line computer 2.40 ghz single core intel celeron it doesnt even have a CD burner let alone a DVD burner or player but it has been 100% reliable and has not had so much as an single malfunction of any kind, I like the idea that I can at any time simply restore completely back to new condition by pressing ctrl + F11 I dont need a restore disk.

Now it is slower then an duo core 2.14 ghz HP I bought from a member here earlier but even though it ran very fast compared to the dell it was constantly breaking down on me and since I didnt have the drivers and utilties disk and windows restore disk I had to take it in to get this done.

Unless Dell has went downhill in the last few years I cant think of a more reliable brand. Of course after I bought this I realized I should not have been such a cheap bastage and got a duo core with a bigger hard drive and decent video card and DVD burner/player abilitys.

My next computer will be be Blu Ray capable with more media abilties. That being said I will take Sami up on his offer when the time comes simply because I think I can get a much nicer PC for the money then buying a name brand and I trust his knowledge, but He will have to accept a couple hundred bucks whether he wants it or not for doing it.




REGARDS SNOW

Dell just got way to private for how you can upgrade your computer. Such as a lot of there stuff you have to order from them or they will not work. A friend of mine tried to order one and had to send it back 4 times from the problems. Ended up buying a acer. Plus they are one of the top computers next to HP that I work on. I personally hate dell other than just the facts.

snow

bigaudiofanatic wrote: »

Dell just got way to private for how you can upgrade your computer. Such as a lot of there stuff you have to order from them or they will not work. A friend of mine tried to order one and had to send it back 4 times from the problems. Ended up buying a acer. Plus they are one of the top computers next to HP that I work on. I personally hate dell other than just the facts.

Hmmm..... Perhaps I just got lucky then, it has worked flawlessly for me since day one.



REGARDS SNOW

Sami

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I have a Core2Duo, I am debating a Core2Quad for a performance increase.

Couple of applications prompted me to upgrade from an aging E6400 and I picked two similarly priced affordable processors from Fry's to test out. E8400 and Q9400. Both are quite close to each other (6MB L2 cache, 3GHz dual versus 2.66GHz quad). I tested with Blender, 3D Mark Advantage and Battlefield Bad Company 2 BETA which is taking a toll on processors.

You can see the BC2 results in the following thread. In case you can't see the link, here's a quick summary: Q9400 overclocked to 3.76GHz beat an E8400 overclocked to 4.4GHz by about 10%. That is a strong indication that even games are starting to use multicores effectively. Clock for clock, the quad beat the dual for about 35-40%.

http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/405043.page

Blender performance:

With 2 threads the E8400 with much higher clock beat the quad, 40.39s versus 45.12s. With four threads running though, it wasn't even close. 38.52s for the dual and 24.80s for the quad.

I seem to have misplaced the 3DMark results for the final OC on the E8400 but those numbers were actually quite close.

Conclusion: I'm keeping the quad Q9400 which was $189. The E8400 was $160.