Advise on Video Editing Build

[VideoEditor]

Hello, I would like some advice on this build I have planned. It will be my first and I'm fairly new to this sort of thing. First let me give you some background info. The primary purpose of this machine will be video editing and compositing (Premiere Pro CS6 and After Effects CS6, I'll probably also update to the newest CS every 3 years). It doesn't need to be top of the line, but I would like it to be pretty decently powerful so that I can work in the given programs without lock-ups or long render times. I also don't want to do any major upgrades (Motherboard, CPU, Graphics card) in the next 5 years, if possible. Given the rate technology moves, I know my PC will be a bit dated by then, but I have edited on some pretty under-powered machines, so I think I'll be fine. I will, however, update RAM as needed. Due to the power I need for my editing and compositing, I will probably do some gaming also (I wouldn't want it to go to waste :p). But I'm primarily a console gamer, so I don't need to be able to max out Crysis 3 or anything. Just being able to run Battlefield 3 at 30 fps would make me happy. Also, I'll probably invest in a proper dual monitor setup in the future, but for now, the monitors I have will suffice. The case also needs to be shorter than 22", preferably a few inches shorter to allow for airflow. My budget is somewhere between $1200 - $1500.

As you'll probably notice, I used the recommended parts on the home page as a skeleton and just made some minor adjustments. I doubled the RAM, changed the HDD to Black instead of Green, had to change the Motherboard to the GD80, added the Hyper 212 Plus Cooler, and I'm considering and SSD. Also, I chose the 2500K because, although I don't plan on overclocking anytime soon, I may overclock the CPU (and only the CPU) sometime in the future, and for $20 I won't rule it out.

Here is the list of parts and links to where I plan to get them:

Case: Antec Sonata III with 500-Watt power supply (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000QAVVAM/)
PSU: (See Case)
Cooler: COOLER MASTER Hyper 212 Plus (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103065)
Motherboard: MSI P67A-GD80 (B3) (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130581)
CPU: Intel Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B004EBUXHQ/qid=1008036386/sr=8-4/)
RAM: 2 x Crucial Ballistix 8GB Kit (2x4GB) (http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.aspx?imodule=blt2kit4g3d1608dt1tx0&pid=862686) Total: 16Gb
Graphics card: EVGA GeForce GTX 560 Superclocked 1GB DDR5 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0050I1PH4/qid=1008036386/sr=8-4/) Could someone explain the difference between the 1460 (http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-Mini-HDMI-Graphics-01G-P3-1460-KR/dp/B0050I1PHO/ref=pd_cp_pc_2), 1461 (this one), and the 1463 (http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-Superclocked-Mini-HDMI-Graphics-01G-P3-1463-KR/dp/B0050I1PGU/ref=pd_cp_pc_0)?
Sound card: Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium PCI Express Sound Card (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B001E25KDK/qid=1008036386/sr=8-4)
Hard Drive(s): Western Digital Caviar Black 2 TB SATA III 7200 RPM 64 MB (http://www.amazon.com/Western-Digital-Caviar-Internal-Desktop/dp/B0036Q7MV0/ref=pd_cp_e_2)
Optical Drive(s): Sony 24x SATA DVD RW/CDRW (Black) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B003MRHOQG/mysuperpc-20)

Monitors: A Dell and a MAG (already own)
Speakers: Dell 2.1 system (already own)

Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 64-Bit (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B004Q0PT3I/qid=1008036386/sr=8-4/mysuperpc-20)

Total: $1,289.87

Considering:

SSD: Intel 520 Cherryville 120Gb SSD (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167093)

Total with SSD: $1,474.86

--------

So now I have a few questions: Is the PSU that comes with the case enough, or should I invest in something a little more substantial? I tried using a calculator, but I felt there was a lot of room for user error due to my lack of knowledge on the subject. Second, is the cooler going to cover up RAM or cause other issues that will require modding? And then there's the SSD. I like the idea of installing my OS and Adobe software on an SSD. A fast OS boot and fast program boots (After Effects and Premiere can take a while) would make things a lot more painless. And faster operation and renders in Premiere and After Effects would be fantastic. I would install everything else, including games and any other software, on my HDD, so I think 120Gb sounds like enough. I'm willing to spend the money, but I want to know if it's worth the hassle inherent with SSD's, and if all my assumptions (size, faster operation and boots) are correct. And then, is the one I've chosen (okay, ripped off someone else's list) the right one to go with? And lastly, when installing a SSD + HDD combo, is there anything I need to be aware of? (BIOS settings, boot order, etc.)

Thank you in advance. :D Any additional comments or advise is appreciated.

[RickyTick]

The 1460 is not overclocked. The other 2 are overclocked identically and are the same card in every way except for the design on the shroud.
See here.
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=1237789&high=01G-P3-1463-KR

Your build looks very good.
There shouldn't be any problems installing the Hyper 212. Awesome product.
I think a lot of people are finding that the ideal size for a SSD is 256gb. It is usually a better value for GB per dollar. Take a look at the Samsung 830 or maybe the Intel 520 series.

[VideoEditor]

The other 2 are overclocked identically and are the same card in every way except for the design on the shroud.
See here.
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=1237789&high=01G-P3-1463-KR

Interesting. It's strange that Amazon would sell the newer, identical version at a cheaper price. But I'm not complaining. :cool:

Thanks for your help. I should be ordering everything pretty soon, so I'll let you know how everything goes. Odds are, I'll probably be back here asking more questions before it's finished haha.

[VideoEditor]

I'm back before I thought I'd be! Okay, so I found this (http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-Superclocked-Mini-HDMI-Graphics-02G-P3-1469-KR/dp/B0050I1PI8/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top) graphics card. From what I can tell, it's exactly the same except it's 2 GB of DDR5 VRAM instead of 1GB. It's $40 extra (only $30 with the rebates). Is that a good deal? And would I even see any performance benefits while video editing, especially considering the 120GB Intel SSD?

I can't seem to find any information that relates directly to video editing, but my gut feeling is that it wouldn't be an efficient use of my money. Any thoughts?

[RickyTick]

If you were a big pc gamer than I would recommend the GTX560 Ti instead of the plain GTX560. The one you linked to above is a very good card.
If you're interested in the Ti, then look at this.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004KZHRAM/ref=pe_235050_24278680_pe_epc_dt3

[VideoEditor]

I did look at the 560 Ti, and it looks very impressive. However, it's a bit more than I wanted to spend on a graphics card at this time. In fact, the card I linked to was toeing the line, perhaps a bit over, if I'm honest. Perhaps when I upgrade my card in a few years I'll spring for a more expensive one. The thing is, with 16GB of RAM and an SSD, I think the card I chose originally will be plenty powerful for my needs. It will be light-years ahead of my current setup, for sure. I think I just got carried away with making my rig that much better, which seems to be common among PC builders haha.

Anyway, thanks again for the help. I'll let you know if I run into any problems during the build!

[zburns]

Pardon me for intruding. I was looking at your build list yesterday and saw the Intel P67A chipset as part of your MSI mobo. I do not think this chipset supports Intel Smart Response Technology which is required to use the SSD as cache for the HD. Here is the link for the spec on the P67 chipset: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/chipsets/mainstream-chipsets/p67-express-chipset.html

The Z68 and Z77 chipset do support Intel Smart Response Technology. Here is an Intel link for the Z68 chipset: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/chipsets/mainstream-chipsets/z68-express-chipset.html

I think what I am saying is correct. All the data I refer to is from motherboard specs I have been looking at for other forum members. I could be wrong, but I just wanted to alert you to check this out before you placed an order!

[VideoEditor]

Pardon me for intruding. I was looking at your build list yesterday and saw the Intel P67A chipset as part of your MSI mobo. I do not think this chipset supports Intel Smart Response Technology which is required to use the SSD as cache for the HD.

You're certainly not intruding, this is important information! As luck would have it, I have actually already placed my order. However, I may still be able to cancel it, or I'll simply ship it back if we decide this is a problem. Let's see if we can figure this out.

I did a quick Google search and found this thread on the EVGA forums:

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=1185804&mpage=1

He says he only has the SSD installed on his PC with a P67 mobo and he's able to boot Windows 7. At the end of the thread they find a solution so that POST will recognize the SSD on boot.

However after further research, I don't think that's the problem you're referring to. I'll leave it anyway, in case someone with that problem happens to come across this thread. It's a good case study, regardless.

If I understand it correctly, the Intel SRT allows you to install Windows on your HDD and then uses a small SSD (< 64GB) for your cache. Although I suppose you could install windows on the SSD and use Intel SRT, most people seem to choose one or the other. Perhaps if you install Windows on an SSD, the cache is automatically set to the SSD (it's always on the same drive Windows was installed on, in a nutshell). Maybe Intel SRT simply allows you to bypass this if you have a smaller SSD and want to save space. The above is just a guess, but it sounds right to me. What do you think?

And just for the record, is this "cache" similar to a web browser's cache in that it stores your most used programs and files for quick access? The overall result would then speed up your computer once the Intel SRT gets a decent sample of your PC use. Is this correct? Based on my very quick research, I don't think Intel SRT is required to use an SSD. I think it just enhances your SSD use by utilizing it for your cache and allowing you to install Windows on an HDD.

If my above guesses are wrong, what does happen if you install Windows on an SSD using a P67 mobo like the OP in that forum post? Does Windows simply not store a cache, and the system will run slower? Or does it store it on the HDD if one is installed? Or did he perhaps stumble upon a work-around, and he should not have been able to install Windows at all (which led to the POST problem)?

If you can help me figure this out, I would appreciate it. Like I said, I believe what I said above is correct, but I'd like to be certain before my parts get here and I start building.

I just found this, and it seems to support my thoughts. It's a Q & A on a site called Tom's Hardware.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/271318-32-tomshardware

[zburns]

Based on SRT definition, I am assuming that rather than use a HD cache, SRT allows the cache to be on the SSD, and use the HD as a storage device only with no cache. I will have to look into your comments further which are fairly extensive and well written. Since SRT appears to be later, date wise, than your chipset, I would think the possibility of the SSD handling both the OS and the cache to already be covered in the Intel documentation and, also recommended by Intel (and it might be but I was just not looking for it).

The tomshardware link seems useful. The first link has a lot of 'iterations'; will look at it some more!

[VideoEditor]

Based on SRT definition, I am assuming that rather than use a HD cache, SRT allows the cache to be on the SSD, and use the HD as a storage device only with no cache.

I believe that is correct. I've done a little more reading, and I believe I understand the situation. Well, adequately enough for my needs. SRT does exactly as you say. It allows users to buy a small SSD, install Windows on their HDD, but still see the performance boost from an SSD by way of migrating the cache to an SSD instead of the HDD where it would normally save. A P67 board cannot do this. However, you can still install Windows on the SSD of a P67 PC and use it as a boot drive. Any programs installed on the SSD will utilize the fast Read/Write speed of the drive and result in a performance boost. From what I understand, this is actually faster and better than using an SRT cache, but it has the downside of using more space, which is expensive. For this reason, a cache actually isn't needed, because the programs and Windows are on the SSD anyway.

My plan is to install Windows and a few of my most demanding programs (Premiere and After Effects being the main two that come to mind) and install everything else on the HDD. So a cache on the SSD would be beneficial to me, but honestly, I'm okay with those other programs being slower. As long as the SSD will do the basic things I think it will do, I'll be happy. However, I still believe I'll have a Windows cache by default on the SSD.

Here's a link to a YouTube video that appears to back up my theory about the cache defaulting to the boot drive. The person who posted the video may have a Z68 mobo, but since he doesn't specify, I think it applies to any board.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=63DnU2T3kJk

This page (which may not load, it worked for me and then stopped) also talks about Windows cache on an SSD, and it's from 2009. I believe that predates SRT.

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?63273-*-Windows-7-Ultimate-Tweaks-amp-Utilities-*

I wish I could tell you where to find it on the page, but since it won't open for me, I can't. Perhaps you can Ctrl-F "Caching" or "Cache".

This research has sparked a new question, though. It seems that it's wise to minimize the number of Reads and Writes to the SSD to maximize the drive's lifespan. The above link is full of many techniques to do that. So is this still a concern with modern SSD's? Do I need to be conscious about this when using my PC? Or can I expect to use my SSD for a long time without worrying about the number of Read/Writes?

I'd like to thank you for helping me with this. Your forum posts are always so informative, I appreciate it.

[zburns]

Hello V E,

I am just now starting to research this.


It seems that it's wise to minimize the number of Reads and Writes to the SSD to maximize the drive's lifespan.

If your quote is a goal to preserve the life of the SSD, is not putting the OS on the SSD a detriment to 'minimization of Reads and Writes'. If this is true and you do not want to be replacing SSDs, this means you continue to use the mechanical HD as the OS 'home'. This gets back to the small SSD and Intels SRT.

Any comment on this -- it seems 'black and white' -- wrong hypothesis or the right one???

What happens to SSD performance when the product starts to deteriorate as far as 'steady fast accurate performance' ? (a reminder question)

[VideoEditor]

I believe I may have accidentally misled you. Here is my current understanding of how SSD's wear. SSD's are split into millions of tiny "blocks" of memory that the drive reads and writes to. Each block has a limited number of writes (somewhere around 8,000, I think). Reads don't deteriorate the drive, I was wrong about that. The technology has improved over the years to improve efficiency for this problem, but it is still an issue. My Intel SSD was given a 'Minimal Useful Life/Endurance Rating' of 5 years. Here's a quote from Intel:


The SSD will have a minimum of five years of useful life under typical client workloads with up to 20 GB of host writes per day

To back up this statement, this drive has a 5 year warranty. So although writing to the drive will cut down it's life, it should still last quite a while for an average user. I believe the goal is to avoid 'careless' writes to the drive and optimize it's use so that it can last as long as possible. It's about finding a balance between performance and longevity.

My understanding is: installing Windows on the SSD will mainly just involve reads after the initial install. Cache will obviously involve writes, and I may try running Windows with cache disabled, but I still think it will be more reads than writes. The writes should also be fairly small and irrelevant. Using it as a scratch disk for Premiere and AE, on the other hand, will probably wear it down quite a bit faster. I may have to rethink using it for that purpose.

So to answer your questions, I would like my drive to last as long as possible. Hopefully if it lasts less than 5 years, I can fall back on my warranty and get a new one. However, if I have to replace it after 5 years, I'll be okay with that. I feel like I would have gotten my money's worth after that amount of time.

As for your last question, I'm really not sure how much performance is affected by the deterioration of the drive. It would be interesting to know, for sure. I imagine that it will probably still run faster than a traditional HDD, as long as I'm not running into errors and other similar problems. But the 'Minimal Useful Life' wording gives me comfort that it shouldn't be an issue until late in the drive's life.

Keep up the good work! I'm learning a lot from this discussion.

[zburns]

Everything you discussed seems to me to make good sense. I would say 'I agree with everything you are saying' but I have no experience with the configuration you are referencing but your logic does sound correct. Please post your results when you finish the build; your 'build' end results will benefit forum members on upcoming builds.

In the meantime, do not hesitate to ask any questions regards the 'build' as you move along!!

[VideoEditor]

Okay, so I'm having first boot problems. I get three short beeps, followed by two short beeps. They seem to be grouped like that, but it could be 5 beeps. The odd thing is (I think) that it seems to pass POST after the beep sequence. There's a single, slightly different beep, and I see the no hard drive screen. This is soon followed by a screen that correctly lists all my PC parts. The graphics card isn't listed, but I don't know if it's supposed to. It gives me the option to enter setup or use the defaults, or something like that.

I've worn an anti-static wrist band the whole time and also used an anti-static mat. I've tried booting with one stick of RAM, with each of my four sticks. So unless there's a compatibility issue, I think the RAM is good. All the fans are running, by the way. I'm not sure what to do. Should I set up the CMOS to "Load Fail-Safe Defaults"? Or should I try reseating the processor? Since the BIOS correctly labeled my CPU and it's frequency, I would think it's working. Any advice would be appreciated, because I have no idea what to do. This seems to be a strange problem but perhaps it's not.

[VideoEditor]

Okay, here's an update. I tried removing the video card, same beep sequence. I decided to enter BIOS to see if I could find anything in there. Everything looked fine by my eyes. I did a memory test, and it passed. The CPU said it was running at 42 C. There was one odd thing: on the CPU details it had the correct name of the processor, and everything else. It also said 3.3 Ghz on the name section. However, Frequency said 0. I'm not sure if that means anything, but it's something.

Apparently, this is a normal beep sequence for my motherboard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3uTMzYQv08

This complicates things a bit, as I don't know which beeps are "normal" beeps and which ones aren't. I can tell you my POST beep isn't that quick after the beep sequence, but there's not much of a delay either. My keyboard is connected to the "keyboard/mouse" input, and my mouse is connected via USB. However, I unplugged both and still got the same beep sequence.

The above video gives me a hunch that everything is okay. It does POST after-all. My beeps sound just like his, but there's an extra beep and Post takes a second longer. However, I want to be sure before I move on. If it would help for me to upload a video to YouTube, I may be able to do that early next week.

And just for the record. I'm following Rob's guide. At the moment, I have the mobo installed, my graphics card, the CPU, my cooler, LED's, and RAM. Power cables are connected just as Rob stated.

[zburns]

The CPU said it was running at 42 C.

How about transposing the entire BIOS page that has the above quote -- this quote is showing active information so the rest of the page or the sub para this temp. quote came from has other active info (maybe)!! Your instruction manual should tell you exactly what the data in the para that contains the temp of 42 degrees means -- if it is real time data and your freq reads '0' that would tend to indicate your cpu is not operating. Your BIOS that you see on the screen should be a duplicate of what your manual tells you. If the computer has been on for some time, turn it off for several hours, see if temp reading is different when turned on for a few minutes -- best monitor the temp from the time you turn it back on for about fifteen minutes. Assuming a cold cpu, turn it on, temp should read less at turn on than it will read after 15 minutes.

Are you at the 'first boot' step via Rob's on line assembly guide? Is 'first boot' the procedure you are presently involved in ??

[VideoEditor]

Here's a couple of pictures I took with my phone to make things easier:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5120/7395578606_c72b5de6de_c.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7083/7395579316_4ea70a528d_c.jpg

As you can see, Frequency doesn't read 0 this time, but the full 3.3 GHz. This doesn't seem to be a "live" reading as it doesn't change. However, the meter on the first image would suggest it's a live reading, and that is clocking at the full 3.3Ghz, also. I haven't seen that change either. It seems extremely odd for my CPU to be running at full throttle while in BIOS. Unfortunately, the motherboard manual is completely unhelpful and doesn't provide any useful information about the startup beeps or these BIOS screens. So perhaps they're both only referring to potential.

Edit:
I did a quick google search and found this image from someone else. It seems to suggest that the CPU Frequency meter should be full:

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee376/ocdrift/MSI%20P67A-GD65%20OC%20Guide/ClickBIOS-02.jpg

-------------

Regarding the temperature on the CPU: I had some trouble installing the cooler initially, so I have a suspicion that it's not working at optimum efficiency. I plan to reseat the CPU and then re-mount the cooler with some fresh thermal paste tonight. I'll let you know what the temperature reads after that. I'm just not sure the CPU Temp is a very reliable number to work from right now.

Yes, I'm on the "first boot" step right now (well, technically, the "first boot problems" page).

[zburns]

My comp is a dual core AMD and the temp right now is 52 degrees C; I think your 42 C is ok. Tell me why you want to reseat the cpu; what makes you think there is a problem. Did you not have a lever to lock it down with? Take another look at Rob's instructions specifically about installing the cpu. Here is the url to take you to Rob's page on installing the cpu; i reread it. The instructions are good and if followed I do not see how it can fail to be fully inserted with no effort, then locked down. Here is url: http://www.mysuperpc.com/build/pc_install_processor.shtml

If you do reinstall the cpu, use the wrist strap connected to the metal on the case and carefully follow Rob's instructions. Here is the url for the page on fan installation incl applying the thermal compound -- http://www.mysuperpc.com/build/pc_install_cpu_cooler.shtml What solvent to you have to clean the present stuff off -- I think you do need to have clean surfaces -- no pieces of grit accidentally, etc..

Final comment on any component you handle. Always observe Static control; make no fast movements (you can accidentally generate static just by shirt rubbing a chair) (best to stand). Always handle a component with fingertips on thin edges of circuit board. Never touch any resistor, capacitor, anything installed on any circuit board -- there is no reason to touch anything, so best not to!!!
------------

If you reinstall the cpu, be very careful and only touch the edges of the cpu and do not push down on the top side of the cpu; you should have 'a ledge of somekind' around the edges.

Any problems tonite, post back to this thread; I'll be looking out for any comment!! Good Luck!!

[VideoEditor]

I'm sure the CPU is installed correctly, but since the 5 beeps can be a CPU issue, I thought I might try. The main reason I was going to was because it was going to be convenient since the fan's heatsink will be off it. But you convinced me it wasn't worth it.

I just reinstalled the cooler, mostly for my own peace of mind. Temperatures are the same. I've left it running for a little while this time. 42C at boot (System temp 31C) and then hovers around 44C (System temp 33C) with very very short spikes up to 47C. I should mention the room I'm in is 78 - 80 F but the case is open.

I'm satisfied with these results, so I think I'm going to continue with the build. I'll periodically check this thread in case there's anything you think I should know. If I run into any more problems, I'll be sure to post them here. Thanks for everything.

[zburns]

I did not connect the five beeps to the cpu. If you catch this before you grease it up again, go ahead and pull the lever, raise it up, use fingernails around the perimeter to seat it in preparation for 'closing' the lever. When you are ready to close the lever, use two fingers on opposite sides of the cpu to exert just enough pressure to convince you that the cpu before the lever is closed is 'pushed in' as far as it will go prior to closing the lever. Then close the lever.

You have already done the above at least once. I am working from memory -- if you think I am misstating the 'process' in any way, stop and post me back!! I am just suggesting you be sure the cpu is seated into the socket prior to the lever pulling it in further -- gentle push or pressure -- no heavy stuff!!