Advice needed!

[pjpjpjpj]

Apologies for the length of this post, but I have not bought a new PC since the early 00s. I used to be pretty up-to-speed with the latest technologies, but marriage, a kid, and “getting old” have caused me to miss a LOT in the past few years. Pretty soon it’s going to be time to get a new PC, and I have some REALLY basic questions.

There is really only one thing that I will require of the computer, in terms of “how much PC” I need – basic HD video editing capabilities. We have a new HD camcorder, which came with some basic video-editing software. For now, I just move the videos from the camcorder to my Sage server’s HDD and watch on the Extender, which works fine. But when I get this new PC, I figure I might as well have the ability to play around a little with our videos, even if it’s just the ability to cut a few seconds off the end of a video, or splice two short pieces together. I am not going to be doing any high-end editing, nor require anything to be done in 3 seconds flat – I just want the ability to at least handle HD video without instantly choking. If it takes an hour or five, so be it, as long as it doesn’t go splat.

Also, my new PC will be store-bought – I don’t have the time or interest to build. I don’t tinker enough with my PCs to have issues with store-bought machines (I have never had a problem with one before, and I have bought some CHEAP computers)… so please don’t advise me to just “install this piece, that piece, and this OS”. Whatever advice results come from this thread will be put towards finding the most-similar store-bought PC, or a “build your own” from Dell or someone like that. I’m looking to stay under $600 or so, hopefully much less. All that being said…..

1) My biggest question – what I have completely missed over the last few years - is the whole 64-bit deal. Will all of my old software run on a 64-bit processor? Does a dual-core processor require 64-bit? What exactly is different? I’m coming from plain old Windows XP Home, and the new PC I purchase will likely be 64-bit – will this affect Sage or any other software? Is there XP that takes advantage of 64-bit, or will I have to use Vista?

2) I am pretty sure I understand the whole dual-core thing (as far as what it means) – but how does that affect performance with respect to software requirements? For example, if a piece of software recommends 3 Ghz processor clock speed, but I have a dual-core that is 2.2 Ghz, does that “count” as 2.2 x 2 = 4.4 Ghz? Or would the computer still only run that one piece of software at 2.2 Ghz, meaning it would be too slow? In other words, can a single piece of software have it’s processing requirements split between multiple cores?

3) As for RAM, my understanding is that a core can only really use 2 Gb each – so dual-core can only really use 4 Gb – is that right? So if you have 3 Gb, does it get “split” where each core uses up to 2 Gb when needed, or does one core use 2 Gb and the other “get left with” 1 Gb? I figure I will probably spring for 4 Gb anyway, but I am just wondering how that works.

4) What is the difference between Intel’s “Dual Core” and “Core 2 Duo”? And how does everyone feel about AMD – specifically, the Athlon 64 X2? Which is considered better in “in the know” computer-building circles? Or are they both fine?

5) Finally, what are the implications of video cards on the whole HD thing? I understand I need a fairly good video card to view HD video – what is the most basic specs that I should look for, at minimum, to know that I can watch (and therefore edit) HD content adequately? Not that it really matters, but I won’t even be hooking this PC to a HD-capable monitor – it will just be hooked via VGA to an old tube monitor.

In sum, this PC will only ever be used for HD video editing, listening to music (MP3s), web surfing, and stuff like Word/Excel. No high-end gaming, nothing processor-intensive beyond the HD editing.

Thanks in advance for any advice!

[MitchSchaft]

I wouldn't worry about 64bit. It's still overrated and a waste of time worrying about. Most software is still written in 32bit anyway. A 64bit processor will run 32bit stuff just fine. I used to be an old geek on the up 'n up like yourself. Let the super geeks of today worry about their 64bit .

I'd just go with 4GB of ram and be done with it. It's doubtful you'd use it all up.

And multicore processors are good if you're doing a lot of stuff at once. Running comskip in the background while you surf the net and watch TV at the same time is a good example.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

There is really only one thing that I will require of the computer, in terms of “how much PC” I need – basic HD video editing capabilities. We have a new HD camcorder, which came with some basic video-editing software. For now, I just move the videos from the camcorder to my Sage server’s HDD and watch on the Extender, which works fine. But when I get this new PC, I figure I might as well have the ability to play around a little with our videos, even if it’s just the ability to cut a few seconds off the end of a video, or splice two short pieces together. I am not going to be doing any high-end editing, nor require anything to be done in 3 seconds flat – I just want the ability to at least handle HD video without instantly choking. If it takes an hour or five, so be it, as long as it doesn’t go splat.

Get a Core i7 for video editing

1) My biggest question – what I have completely missed over the last few years - is the whole 64-bit deal. Will all of my old software run on a 64-bit processor?

Probably

Does a dual-core processor require 64-bit?

It does not require a 64bit OS if that's what you're asking. Though AFAIK, all multi-core CPUs you can buy today are 64bit.

What exactly is different?

Some architectural differences that improve performance a bit, the most obvious difference is the ability to address (use) over 4GB of ram.

I’m coming from plain old Windows XP Home, and the new PC I purchase will likely be 64-bit – will this affect Sage or any other software?

Not really.

Is there XP that takes advantage of 64-bit, or will I have to use Vista?

You basically can't get XP anymore. There is a 64bit version, but nothing supports it really.

2) I am pretty sure I understand the whole dual-core thing (as far as what it means) – but how does that affect performance with respect to software requirements? For example, if a piece of software recommends 3 Ghz processor clock speed, but I have a dual-core that is 2.2 Ghz, does that “count” as 2.2 x 2 = 4.4 Ghz?

It really depends, for example, multithreaded video encoding apps with be about 2x as fast on a dual core than a single core. But stuff like some games, that can't use both cores, won't be any faster.

Or would the computer still only run that one piece of software at 2.2 Ghz, meaning it would be too slow? In other words, can a single piece of software have it’s processing requirements split between multiple cores?

Absolutely, but it requires the software to be written to do that.

3) As for RAM, my understanding is that a core can only really use 2 Gb each – so dual-core can only really use 4 Gb – is that right? So if you have 3 Gb, does it get “split” where each core uses up to 2 Gb when needed, or does one core use 2 Gb and the other “get left with” 1 Gb? I figure I will probably spring for 4 Gb anyway, but I am just wondering how that works.

Never heard that before.

4) What is the difference between Intel’s “Dual Core” and “Core 2 Duo”?

"Dual Core" is just a generic term for two cores. "Core 2" is Intel's name for it's post-Netburst (P4) processor architecture, "Duo" means dual core (so a Core 2 Duo is is a dual-core "Core 2" architecture CPU). There (I think) may have been a few Core 2 Solo that made a brief appearance. There's also the Core 2 Quad that's the quad core version.

Core i7 is the name for Intel's latest architecture, that's way faster than a Core 2 or anything from AMD.

And how does everyone feel about AMD – specifically, the Athlon 64 X2? Which is considered better in “in the know” computer-building circles? Or are they both fine?

The processors themselves are fine, and I built two Athon 64 X2 systems that I was mostly happy with. But I just built a Core i7 system with an Intel motherboard and I'm happier with that. Little things, like Standby, work much better on the Intel than the AMD system.

5) Finally, what are the implications of video cards on the whole HD thing? I understand I need a fairly good video card to view HD video – what is the most basic specs that I should look for, at minimum, to know that I can watch (and therefore edit) HD content adequately? Not that it really matters, but I won’t even be hooking this PC to a HD-capable monitor – it will just be hooked via VGA to an old tube monitor.

As far as viewing/decoding goes, you've basically got two options, you can get a high powered CPU (something on the order of ~3GHz dual core or better) or if your video is "well behaved" (ie not encoded badly by amateurs), you can get a midrange modern video card and it can do it itself.

Editing, is a rather tricky thing. You could edit even HD on a P3 if you wanted to. But it would take years. When it comes to editing, the video card is basically worthless, and the only difference is in how fast you can get done. And don't underestimate how long it can take to edit (encode) HD video.

In sum, this PC will only ever be used for HD video editing, listening to music (MP3s), web surfing, and stuff like Word/Excel. No high-end gaming, nothing processor-intensive beyond the HD editing.

If I were buying a machine and HD editing were on the list, I'd probably get a Dell Studio XPS 435.

[mayamaniac]

You don't actually need to know the technical stuffs in questions 1-4. Just get a computer you can afford, anything from an eMachine to a Dell will do. I recommend something in the $500 range which includes a monitor. If no monitor, get something in the $400 range.

As for video playback in question #5, if you can get a machine that has some sort of ATI or nVidia video card, you'll be fine.

The tricky part is the HD editing. You said you have an HD camcorder, and I'm sure its recording to AVCHD or H264 format. There are few video editing softwares that are capable of editing it. The one that came with the camcorder is probably crappy. Most users on this forum are waiting for VideoRedo to support H264, which I keep hearing that it's coming soon.

[reggie14]

As a sidenote, Premiere Elements 7 will work with AVCHD (and is relatively cheap). I did a little work in Premiere Pro a few versions ago and liked it, but I've never used Premiere Elements, so I can't say whether its any good.

[SWKerr]

Does the $600 Budget include a monitor? I will assume no but you probably want to get nice Widescreen monitor. I got a 23" Acer widescreen recently for $175 at Newegg. For video editing I would go with a slower box if it meant getting the nicer monitor.

OS: Windows 64 will be better as long as you can get drivers for everything. I am switching to Windows7 64 for everything now. The are not a whole lot of 64 bit apps right now but they are beginning to appear especially in areas were performance will be better with 64 bit. Windows 64 (7 or Vista) will be more stable in the meantime. That does not mean your app will not crash but it will happen less often and it will not typically take the whole machine with it.

RAM: For Photo and Video editing more is better. 4GB is fine but 8GB is better.

CPU: More cores is better for what you want to do. Video rendering is one of the few apps that commonly uses all the available cores. That said you can get by with only two. Most video editing apps don't try to use the full HD video real time. They will make a downsized sample to work with making the responsiveness of a older system generally acceptable. The preview will not usually be full HD. If you don't mind slight delays in the editor and are willing to wait till morning for a fully rendered final product then a two core machine will work. You just need a video card that can do HD and you can pick one up for $50.

Good luck finding a decent i7 system for $600. I would go with the AMD Phenom II X4. You can get larger hard drive and more memory for the money. It may render the video significantly faster but you will still end up waiting and finding something else to do in the interim. I typically just let the final product run overnight so for me unless it becomes instant gratification I really don't care that much.

Newegg is selling a pretty nice Phenom II X4rig from Gateway for $700 right now. I like Gateway because the generally use common off the shelf components that are easy to upgrade or replace.

If you want to go cheaper look for a AMD X2 2.5ghz or higher. You will be able to easily upgrade to a Phenom II X4 later if you like for not a lot of cash or hassle. Also: look for something with a HDMI out. If it has HDMI it will playback HD.

[g-man]

3) As for RAM, my understanding is that a core can only really use 2 Gb each – so dual-core can only really use 4 Gb – is that right? So if you have 3 Gb, does it get “split” where each core uses up to 2 Gb when needed, or does one core use 2 Gb and the other “get left with” 1 Gb? I figure I will probably spring for 4 Gb anyway, but I am just wondering how that works.

Just to throw my 2 cents into this thread but when I upgraded from 2Gb to 4Gb ram, my Vista 32 bit wouldn't see all 4Gb. Luckily I had capable hardware to move the OS over to 64bit.

I haven't done the research lately, but you may want to check to see if this is still a limitation of Vista 32bit and plan accordingly.

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by g-man

3) As for RAM, my understanding is that a core can only really use 2 Gb each – so dual-core can only really use 4 Gb – is that right? So if you have 3 Gb, does it get “split” where each core uses up to 2 Gb when needed, or does one core use 2 Gb and the other “get left with” 1 Gb? I figure I will probably spring for 4 Gb anyway, but I am just wondering how that works.

Just to throw my 2 cents into this thread but when I upgraded from 2Gb to 4Gb ram, my Vista 32 bit wouldn't see all 4Gb. Luckily I had capable hardware to move the OS over to 64bit.

I haven't done the research lately, but you may want to check to see if this is still a limitation of Vista 32bit and plan accordingly.

Each 32 bit core can physically address a maximum of 4GB memory. If you crammed 256 32 bit cores on a single chip, each core could address 4GB.

When you put 4GB in a system the OS reports less than that because some of the memory is "remapped". The memory space occupied by the BIOS is an example.

[g-man]

Ahh, that explains it. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[mayamaniac]

I'm not 100% what each core is limited to 2G, but it's probably true. Anyway, there's no advantage to going with 3G anyway, just get the 4G (2x2G) kit. It doesn't matter that the 32bit OS is limit to 3G or 4G. I don't think you would even save money going with 3G (3x1G).

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by g-man

3) As for RAM, my understanding is that a core can only really use 2 Gb each – so dual-core can only really use 4 Gb – is that right?

That's not how it works, as tmiranda pointed out. There is nothing special about multi-core CPUs when it comes to memory addressing. What you might be thinking of is that each program running in 32-bit Windows can only use up to 2gigs of RAM. Overall you're limited to 4gigs, but each program can only access 2gigs.

Well, really you're limited to about 3.25gigs of RAM in practice in 32-bit Windows (the particular number depends on the system).

[gplasky]

I don't want to take this any further off course but there needs to be some clarification here with memory and processors and stuff.

Here's are the facts:

1. We distinguish between "Physical Memory Size Limits" (amount of RAM you add to your PC) and "Memory and Address Space Limits" (what _one_ process can actually use). This is important to understand why there is so much confusion amongst people.

2. Physical RAM Limits for each OS are officially stated over Memory Limits for Windows Releases (updated 2008-01-24).

Other limits are imposed by the hardware NorthBridge, number of slots on the mb and RAM size of DIMM supported for the slot.
So you'll need to consider your BIOS and chipset being used on your mb as well as the version of OS to really understand how much RAM you have access to.

To further confuse the issue there is:
Physical Address Extension

Physical Address Extension (PAE) enables x86 processors to access up to 64 GB of physical memory and x64 processors to access up to 1024 GB of physical memory. PAE is supported by 32-bit Windows Server systems to enable access to up to 128 GB of physical memory. However, note that each process on 32-bit Windows is still limited to a 4 GB virtual address space. For details, see Memory Limits for Windows Releases.

PAE also enables several advanced system and processor features, including hardware-enabled Data Execution Prevention (DEP), non-uniform memory access (NUMA), and the ability to add memory to a system while it is running (hot-add memory).

With PAE, the operating system moves from two-level linear address translation to three-level address translation. The extra layer of translation provides access to physical memory beyond 4 GB. Instead of a linear address being split into three separate fields for indexing into memory tables, it is split into four separate fields: a 2-bit field, two 9-bit fields, and a 12-bit field that corresponds to the page size implemented by Intel Architecture (4 KB).
System Support for PAE

PAE is supported only on 32-bit versions of Windows; 64-bit versions of Windows do not support PAE. The following Windows releases support PAE:

* Windows Server 2008 (32-bit only)
* Windows Vista (32-bit only)
* Windows Server 2003 (32-bit only)
* Windows XP (32-bit only)
* Windows 2000 Datacenter Server
* Windows 2000 Advanced Server
More info here: PAE




Gerry

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by gplasky

1. We distinguish between "Physical Memory Size Limits" (amount of RAM you add to your PC) and "Memory and Address Space Limits" (what _one_ process can actually use). This is important to understand why there is so much confusion amongst people.

OK, I agree we're getting off topic, but I think the OP's concerns have been sufficiently addressed. PAE isn't really important, since very few of us are actually using a system that supports it (and from what I understand, its a bad idea to use it anyway just to get up to 4/6/8 gigs of RAM, because of overhead involved). But, there's actually one more distinction. There's a difference between the maximum amount of memory that one machine/OS can address, and the maximum amount of memory that one process running on that machine can address. As we've said, a 32-bit operating system can address up to 4gigs of memory, although since you have to address more than just RAM, you're really limited to about 3.25gigs of RAM. Plus, on a 32-bit operating system, a process/application can only address 2 gigs (sometimes up to 3gigs) of RAM, regardless of the amount of RAM on the machine.

link

[briands]

ah... remember when you had to jump through hoops and add special software, etc just to get past 640k....

Maybe I'm dating myself...

[Rico66]

Originally Posted by reggie14

OK, I agree we're getting off topic, but I think the OP's concerns have been sufficiently addressed. PAE isn't really important, since very few of us are actually using a system that supports it (and from what I understand, its a bad idea to use it anyway just to get up to 4/6/8 gigs of RAM, because of overhead involved). But, there's actually one more distinction. There's a difference between the maximum amount of memory that one machine/OS can address, and the maximum amount of memory that one process running on that machine can address. As we've said, a 32-bit operating system can address up to 4gigs of memory, although since you have to address more than just RAM, you're really limited to about 3.25gigs of RAM. Plus, on a 32-bit operating system, a process/application can only address 2 gigs (sometimes up to 3gigs) of RAM, regardless of the amount of RAM on the machine.

link

The 3.25 GB is a somewhat arbitrary number. As mentioned above, only 4GB can be addressed by a 32 bit OS. And from those 4GB you have to deduct address space required by various devices. The biggest chunk is actually the graphic card. E.g. if you have 512 MB video memory you have to deduct these 512 MB from the 4GB.

So it makes sense to go 64 bit, if one plans to have more than 2GB of memory (since 3GB is not really typical). Otherwise memory gets wasted (though it's cheap these days...)

[pjpjpjpj]

Thank you all for the advice and info. I don't even mind the thread straying off-topic a little - that's usually how I learn things around here!

So, with the suggestions and explanations above, I was looking through my Sunday paper - "Back to school" time is a good time to get a PC deal, I figure - and I saw this (link below). In light of prices I have seen, it struck me as a really good deal. Is it because HP is poorly built/cheap?

I really don't need a monitor and would prefer if I could get the same machine without a monitor for cheaper, but I don't think I have even seen an equivalent machine for this price, much less cheaper, without a monitor.

Comments?

http://www.officedepot.com/a/product...ktop-Computer/

[mayamaniac]

Looks like a good deal. You can always sell the monitor on craigslist or ebay and may end up spending even a lot less on the computer itself.

It seems the video card is integrated onto the motherboard so the PCI-E 16x is free and you can upgrade the video card in the future if needed, which is good.

[SprDtyF350]

Originally Posted by briands

ah... remember when you had to jump through hoops and add special software, etc just to get past 640k....

Maybe I'm dating myself...

Those were scary days! himem.sys, autoexec.bat files, config.sys files, 386, and 486 CPU's.. What a pain it was just to be able to use the memory you had.. I think I still have mental problems from those days

[pjpjpjpj]

Well, after all of this, we ended up replacing our laptop instead of our desktop. The laptop we purchased (waiting on it to arrive) has the following:

Intel Core 2 Duo P8600 (2.4GHz/1066MHz FSB/ 3MB)
4GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 at 800MHz
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X4500HD
Windows Vista Home Premium Service Pack 1 64 Bit

I figure that should easily handle the HD editing. The software that came with my camcorder (Canon HF10, records in AVCHD) is "Pixela ImageMixer". It claims to require 2 Gb of RAM and a minimum 2.13 Ghz processor (which, as shown above, the new laptop surpasses). I don't know if the software is "good" or not, but I am sure it will be able to do the few things I need it to do - cropping off the ends of videos, converting to a lower quality so I can post online or create a DVD, etc. I'm not looking to produce pro-quality stuff here.