Computer for editing - Ghz (CPU) vs. RAM?
 

I am looking into a Quad Core Xeon processor to do some video editing. I would love to have a newer high end computer but I cant afford them and some of these seem to be in my price range. Planning on buying one with No OS and loading Windows XP myself. Is processor speed preferred over Ram? Or vice-versa? Planning on a smaller system hard drive and a larger hard drive for my video files. Right now my choices are:
1. 2.8Ghz 8GB Ram 80 GB System Drive $180
2. 2.66 Ghz 2GB RAM 250GB Drive $140
3. 2.8 Ghz 2GB Ram 80GB Drive $130
4. 2.8 Ghz 2GB Ram 250GB Drive $160

Or if you know another setup thats less expensive and just as good, I'm all ears there too. Or if none of these work....well...I dunno. Right now all I've got is a P4 2.0 Ghz for getting my VHS transferred in. I need another computer for the editing and burning. I have an HP Z400 QC which I use now for audio applications and love but I prefer to keep audio/video separate, plus the Z400 is Windows 7 and I hear its safe to stick with XP for Vdub and a few other apps.

Video almost never uses RAM -- it's all CPU intensive. Furthermore, many encoders and filters only use 1 core. So the goal is to find the fastest per-core CPU. So in your list, 2.66 is not as good as 2.8.

And 2gb is perfectly fine -- 8gb would just be throwing away money. The only caveat here is 'what else will the workflow be used for?' For example, if this system is also used to make DVD covers, meaning Photoshop, then realize that PS loves RAM. It starves on a 2gb system, while 8gb would be closer to ideal. Do note that Windows XP 32-bit can only use 4gb of RAM, and a 64-bit system is needed to use 8gb. (And many current versions of PS require 64-bit Windows or Mac.)

Finally, you want as large a drive as possible. Now then, for video capture systems, you do NOT want to capture to OS drive, if at all possible. However, this is an editing system -- but you still need two drive minimum. One is for the source, and one is for the output. Trying to edit to the same drive as the source will make your editing 2x or longer in most cases. Again, eSATA is your friend. (Fantom drives are suggested.)

This all make sense? :)

When you say "covers" , just to make sure I understand, you are talking about the paper inserts you put in the case, correct? Interesting ... didnt know that about PS and ram limits for 32 bit Windows. Dont use PS currently but definitely something to keep in mind in case I decide to later.

So actually are you talking about 3 drives? One for OS, 2nd for source video and 3rd for edited video? Yes, you are correct, I am still using my old P4 computer for capture.

Also, I know bigger is better but wouldnt 80GB system drive be plenty for software? Especially if only using a few programs for video editing?

oh yeah. :wink2:

You should be able to get by with a 80 GB system drive on a minimalist dedicated system that does not get cluttered up with the usual ash and trash of e-mail files, demo software, multiple NLEs and plug-ins, browsing history, downloaded media files, assorted temp and working files, and so on. Given that the content of one ripped DS DVD can eat up 11% of the drive, you will want to take care how your OS and applications are configured with respect to how they use storage. And use additional drives for media, working, and temp files.

Thanks dpalomaki. Yes, definitely intend to use this machine for video editing only and not internet browsing..email..etc.