Stephen Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 I'm currently collecting parts for my first home-build. This coputer will be used for video editing, moderate gaming, office applications, web surfing, and misc. I have the Antec P180 case (and yes, I know there are mixed reviews on how easy this case is or isn't for first time builders). I plan on one more fan (to go with the three in the case) in the upper HD cage area, I plan on Intel (stable choice for video editing) for the mobo and dual processers. I do not plan on overclocking. I may go with embedded gigabyte LAN, though I am considering an add-in card. I'm looking at an external fax/modum, rather than internal. I plan on 2 gigs of memory, a Plextor 716 burner, a DVD-ROM, a floppy, 2 Seagate S-ATA hard drives (one in the 120 gig range - OS and applications, and the other 200-300 range - for video projects). I plan on a Canopus ACEDVio video capture card, the new Creative Xi card with a front bay, and a fairly high end graphics card. I will build in the capabilty for SLI just in case, though I don't plan on two graphics cards at this point. For the PSU, I am looking at the Antec NeoHE. Will the 500 watt be sufficient? Or should I go with the 550 watt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobrakommander56 Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 600,000 Insert random C4 joke here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobrakommander56 Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 i actually i would get the 500, but im stupid and I'm cheap, but i would play it safe and got with a 550 Insert random C4 joke here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokoike Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 I plan on Intel (stable choice for video editing) for the mobo and dual processers. Stephen Are you getting dual processors, or a processor with dual cores? I was curious because a mobo that supports dual procs will not be cheap, and neither will the two processors that you put in it. Also, two processors will heat up your case quite a bit. Plus, having two physical procs will suck up a lot of power; 550 watts may not be enough, if you just get a run-of-the-mill PSU. For most PSUs, they rate them at how well they perform at extremely low temperatures; obviously, in the real world, they run in a much hotter environment, and therefore perform much worse. You'll want to make sure that your PSU delivers a lot of power at high temperatures, so that your comp doesn't crash when you are in the middle of editing video or playing a game. As far as your mobo and proc goes, I would suggest getting a mobo that supports dual cores and a dual-core proc. Dual-core procs offer nearly identical processing power, but they generate less heat than two physical CPUs, consume less power, take less space, use a cheaper mobo, and can both access the same cache. AMD has some excellent dual-core procs (I know you like Intel, but as far as dual-core goes, AMD is just better). Anyway, just some things to consider. Save a tree, eat a beaver. Save a tree, wipe with an owl. Every time a bell rings, a thread gets hijacked! ding, ding! Give Andavari lots of money and maybe even consider getting K a DVD-RW drive. If it's not Scottish, IT'S CRAP!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldmannen Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 I plan on Intel (stable choice for video editing) for the mobo and dual processers. I do not plan on overclocking. I may go with embedded gigabyte LAN, though I am considering an add-in card.25291[/snapback] That Intel would be a better choice or more stable in video editing is just some urban myth or old thing from 15 years ago. An AMD is as good if not even better. And for video editing, you might want an AMD Opteron (it is the server/workstation CPU). And go with a embedded NIC (Network Interface Card) is probably a good idea. You can buy a add-in card, but it would probably just be a waste of money. I think the embedded should be more than good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sniper Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Power Supply Calculator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokoike Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 That Intel would be a better choice or more stable in video editing is just some urban myth or old thing from 15 years ago. Eldmannen Well, that isn't totally true. Different programmers write their software to take advantage of either Intel's or AMD's design. For example, one coder might take advantage of Intel's Hyper-Threading, while another might write some code that performs most efficiently on an AMD. To say that Intels are better for video editing is, however, a false statement. Sure, some video editing software writers optimize their code for Intel architecture, but there are also programmers who favor AMDs. That said, I would never, ever, ever purchase a processor made by Intel. Something about overheating that really turns me off. Thanks for the Power Supply Calculator, Sniper. Very helpful. Save a tree, eat a beaver. Save a tree, wipe with an owl. Every time a bell rings, a thread gets hijacked! ding, ding! Give Andavari lots of money and maybe even consider getting K a DVD-RW drive. If it's not Scottish, IT'S CRAP!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Posted December 31, 2005 Author Share Posted December 31, 2005 Oops. I meant a processor with dual cores. I'm not really interested in getting into a debate over Intel versus AMD. My opinion - for gaming, AMD is the clear winner at the moment - and has been for the past couple of years; for video editing, particularly the software I use, Intel is the better choice. Obviously there are different opinions on this. Thanks for the power supply calculator link! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokoike Posted December 31, 2005 Share Posted December 31, 2005 Oops. I meant a processor with dual cores. I'm not really interested in getting into a debate over Intel versus AMD. My opinion - for gaming, AMD is the clear winner at the moment - and has been for the past couple of years; for video editing, particularly the software I use, Intel is the better choice. Obviously there are different opinions on this. 25595[/snapback] Ah, good. Dual cores is an excellent choice. Even if they are Intels (sorry, couldn't resist). Just reading about your future rig makes me drool. Especially that Creative Xi card; boy if I could get my hands on one of them... I personally have only ever seen one board that had two CPU sockets, and it was $600. Ouch. Of course, it supported up to 16 GB or RAM and dual-core procs (just think; 4 CPUs on one board!), so I guess it would be a worthwhile investment if you had the cash. Save a tree, eat a beaver. Save a tree, wipe with an owl. Every time a bell rings, a thread gets hijacked! ding, ding! Give Andavari lots of money and maybe even consider getting K a DVD-RW drive. If it's not Scottish, IT'S CRAP!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Posted December 31, 2005 Author Share Posted December 31, 2005 That Intel would be a better choice or more stable in video editing is just some urban myth or old thing from 15 years ago. An AMD is as good if not even better. And for video editing, you might want an AMD Opteron (it is the server/workstation CPU). And go with a embedded NIC (Network Interface Card) is probably a good idea. You can buy a add-in card, but it would probably just be a waste of money. I think the embedded should be more than good enough. 25568[/snapback] What are the pros and cons of embedded LAN versus add-in card (other than the obvious use of a slot for the card)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobrakommander56 Posted December 31, 2005 Share Posted December 31, 2005 having more space, basically, and i guess faster speeds becuz it allows the cpu to communicate more efficiently since its embedded in the semiconductor board. Insert random C4 joke here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokoike Posted December 31, 2005 Share Posted December 31, 2005 What are the pros and cons of embedded LAN versus add-in card (other than the obvious use of a slot for the card)? Most new mobos already have inbedded gigabit LAN, so really, you might as well stick with the ethernet on the board. Pros of inbedded: Frees up a PCI or PCI-X slot. Less drivers and installation crap to deal with. Less cost; integrated is usually cheaper than a card. Potentially faster access, like kobrakommander56 said. Cons: Eats up a couple CPU cycles and some RAM. Motherboard gets slightly hotter? Umm... that's about it. I wouldn't make integrated LAN the selling point, but if you can find a board with everything you want, plus integrated LAN, get it! Plus, then if you decide you want more LAN connections, you can always use your free PCI (-X) slot for that. The same does not go with integrated video and audio. Both of these require substantial processing power, so having them built-in to the board is not a wise decision. Video and audio adapters have their own memory and processors, so when you go with "cards" that are integrated into your board, you are making your system's RAM and proc act like a video card and sound card as well. Not to mention, electrical "noise" from your board can be a detriment to your sound if it is integrated. So, basically, integrated LAN, USB, FireWire, etc. are fine, but integrated video and audio are a big no-no. Save a tree, eat a beaver. Save a tree, wipe with an owl. Every time a bell rings, a thread gets hijacked! ding, ding! Give Andavari lots of money and maybe even consider getting K a DVD-RW drive. If it's not Scottish, IT'S CRAP!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Posted January 1, 2006 Author Share Posted January 1, 2006 Most new mobos already have inbedded gigabit LAN, so really, you might as well stick with the ethernet on the board. Pros of inbedded: Frees up a PCI or PCI-X slot. Less drivers and installation crap to deal with. Less cost; integrated is usually cheaper than a card. Potentially faster access, like kobrakommander56 said. Cons: Eats up a couple CPU cycles and some RAM. Motherboard gets slightly hotter? Umm... that's about it. I wouldn't make integrated LAN the selling point, but if you can find a board with everything you want, plus integrated LAN, get it! Plus, then if you decide you want more LAN connections, you can always use your free PCI (-X) slot for that. The same does not go with integrated video and audio. Both of these require substantial processing power, so having them built-in to the board is not a wise decision. Video and audio adapters have their own memory and processors, so when you go with "cards" that are integrated into your board, you are making your system's RAM and proc act like a video card and sound card as well. Not to mention, electrical "noise" from your board can be a detriment to your sound if it is integrated. So, basically, integrated LAN, USB, FireWire, etc. are fine, but integrated video and audio are a big no-no. 25700[/snapback] Thanks, this is helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobrakommander56 Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 no prob, i always help out someone when they have the same first name as me, I'm somewhat biased. Insert random C4 joke here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now