Min specs needed for HD video and Photo handling

Hi,

I just bought a Sony HD camcorder (1080p 24Mbps AVCHD) and planning to buy a DSLR (12 MP or more) and shoot pics in RAW.

I was wondering what kind of specs I need to look for in a new laptop that I plan to buy soon, mainly the processor, video card (if it makes any difference) and RAM. Disk space is not an issue as I expect to back up quite often. Will be running Windows.

I don't plan to do a hardcore video or Photo editing but enough to make some adjustments, create video disks, some HDR, etc. I'm not a pro.

Also, I'm still debating whether to go for a laptop or a desktop, so desktop suggestions are also welcome.

Thanks.

 

Whether you go dekstop or laptop, a 1920x1080 screen is a must.

 

Thanks. I have 24 inch Asus external monitor capable of that resolution. So, I guess I'm covered there.

 

I run Adobe Lightroom 3 on my laptop and believe it or not, it works alright with 14MP images. It is obviously faster and smoother on my desktop or on my dad's mac pro, but there is really no problem running it on the low specs of my laptop. Since you already have a monitor, with an i3 and 4GB of ram you'll be set for what you want to do. Also look for ESATA, as for the large amount of storage you'd need for videos, high volume external 3.5" drives would be your best bet and USB 2.0 would really slow things down.

 

Duly noted on the ESATA. Great point.

But are you sure the i3 can handle AVCHD at 1080p?

 

Yes. It will work well. The Intel HD graphics supports H.264 acceleration, what you need for AVCHD. Playing the video itself will show very low CPU utilization.

 

Consider buying a desktop with enough power to do what you need (~$500, since you have the monitor already) and with the capacity to store your videos/pictures to. Also get a mainstream notebook to show off your finished work on (no editing powers needed).

Together, you'll have not only a backup solution for your data (if you keep your data on both the notebook and the desktop), but you'll also have a hardware backup too: you won't be dependant on a single system.

This solution offers you more overall capabilities for just slightly more cost than a single notebook that is capable of 'doing it all'.

Good luck.

 

Thanks. And what about the graphics card? Will an integrated card be enough for the editing too?

 

are you planning to get a laptop or a desktop for these sort of work? and what is your budget?

 

With a discreet video card you will see some improvement depending on the software you're using to do the editing. With CS5, the improvement can be dramatic with an nVidia (Cuda) solution.

As long as you're considering an i5 or higher system, I think the integrated video card should be sufficient for editing as a 'minimum' (on a notebook) but I would be shooting a little higher.

See:
Adobe CS5: 64-bit, CUDA-Accelerated, And Threaded Performance : How Should You Accelerate Adobe?

and

See:
SSD or 8 GB of Memory: Researching Reasonable Upgrade Options (page 5) - X-bit labs

On the link above, look at what a difference 8GB RAM makes vs. what an effect an SSD has on PS CS5.

Hope this is helping.

 

what kind of video rditing do you plan to do? how long? how complex? what program will you use?
1080p at 24mbps and avchd at that will be tough even with the most minimal of transitions and effects.
playing the video will be no problem but editing and encoding it at that high a bit rate and that resolution will require some cpu horsepower. i would consider an i7 quad if video editing is important to you.

 

I haven't decided on the budget. Maybe less than $900.
I wanted to find out the specs needed and then maybe decide on how much I'll want to spend.

As for editing, this is my first camcorder so I'm not entirely sure what I'll be doing. So far, I plan to use either Sony's Picture Motion Browser and/or Adobe Premier with some basic transitions, etc.
Most probably I'll end up "compiling" DVDs rather than doing a lot editing or pros production.

My main aim in buying the cam was to keep a record of our trips and the new addition to our family due next month.

 

With $900, I suggest to seriously consider my two system option:

A ~$500 desktop and a ~$400 notebook.

You'll have system redundancy, backup redundancy and enough horsepower on the desktop to do more than even a $900 notebook will be able to do.

Especially with 'keeping a record of the memories', place just as high a priority on backup solutions (in multiple places) rather than spending your whole budget on simply on producing/editing those memories you wish to preserve so much.

The two system solution offers that by default (and you can add a third, external HD at any time which you can hopefully store off-site from your notebook/desktop systems for even added peace of mind from fire/theft/power surges/etc.).

Good luck.

 

OK.
So, what specs should I be looking for in the desktop and laptop?

I'm open to buying a bare bones system and adding on the proc, vid card and memory later.

 

i suggest you do away with premiere pro for video editing and use either cyberlink power director or muvee reveal instead. they are much easier to learn, less expensive, require less resources and flexible enough.
i use the laptop in my sig to edit and encode (usually) short videos for events semi-proffesionally. i use 720p 5mbps avchd for input and ouput. it takes me around 10minutes to encode a simple 4min video with fades and a soundtrack only. your video quality is around 5x mine so a 4min clip would encode in 50 minutes. also, playback/preview during encoding could be a bit choppy because of your high bit rate.
and this is already with my highend laptop.
you will be fine with even an i3 for simple photoshop work even with raw. but as you can see,its a different thing with FHD video editing. i personally recommend a minimum of an i7 740qm cpu but would recommend getting an 840qm. a good discrete gpu would be a plus but not entirely necessary. with those specs, you will still need a lot of patience when encoding and writing your files to dvd/bd.
i dont know if you will find a laptop with those specs within your budget, but good luck and tell us how it goes

 

Check this out.

AMD 3.2Ghz hexacore processor, 8GB ram, 4.3TB of drive space, motherboard with all the bells and whistles. Of course the price could be cut down considerably with only 4GB of ram, less hard drive space, and maybe a cheaper case and power supply, but I think this is good for starters and will be way better than any sub-$4k laptop at what you want to do with it.

 

I would look at these builds:

See:
System Builder Marathon, Sept. 2010: $400 Gaming PC : How Low Can You Go?

is a $400 system (don't let the 'gaming' title fool you).

or,
See:
System Builder Marathon, June 2010: $550 Gaming PC : The Budget Build Returns

for a $545 system.

Note that you should be able to get better prices (hopefully) now, especially on the second link (the 'June 2010' system).

With the $355 to $500 dollars left over depending on what you chose above for your desktop system, I would look at an Acer Aspire One with the Intel cpu's, or any system with an i3 based platform for your 'portable' solution if you can stretch the budget that far.

Good luck.

 

Gee thanks trvelbug, trottle and tilleroftheearth.
Those are great suggestions and got me started. I'll dig deeper.

So, to summarize, here is what I understand:
1. i3 should be enough to play full hd without trouble
2. i7 needed for most of the editing
3. Graphics card doesn't make much of a diff although a supported card will help leverage certain editing software

correct me if I'm wrong

 

Oh by the way, looks like its economical to put together an AMD based system. Whats the comparable (or better) AMD processor to the i7?

 

AMD Phenom II X6 1090 is the closest one to the i7 950.

PassMark - AMD Phenom II X6 1090T - Price performance comparison

 

I heard from a colleague who is an AMD fan, that a new generation of Hexacore Phenoms are coming out as well as a 3.7 GHz Phenom II X4, so I would hold off on purchasing a processor for now, probably the reason why just cut the price on the Thuban cores.

AMD is offered the better performance to price ratio, but supposedly AM3R/AM3+ is coming out soon, same DDR3 memory but that would require a new motherboard and a load of headaches. 1366 will not have a radical change anytime soon so might be safe bet on Intel right now.

 

First of all, I think it is a horrible idea to play the waiting game unless you know something is coming out in the next month.

Second of all, your info is a bit backwards. Socket 1366 is going nowhere fast with the release of socket 1155.

Lastly, why pay hundreds more for 1366 to get the same performance of AM3?

 

Given that the Sandy bridge 1155 will be faster than current X58, this is not the platform replacing it, it will be in Q3 2011 with a new socket 2011 with quad channel memory and probably six core cpus with better value.

To what i have read, AMD still has nothing that can beat X58 i7, all benchmarking sites still do their reviews with i7 and not amds, that not to say they dont give good performance, just not the same.

 

The only thing 1366 has going for it over the upcoming 1155 are the six-core Gulftown processors. For all regular consumers, Intel is getting rid of the stupidity of having two sockets and merging their consumer processor lines from 1366 and 1156 into 1155. Late next year when Ivy Bridge comes out with 8-core consumer processors, there will be an official replacement even for the top end six core Gulftown processors. So unless you have plans to drop the big bucks for a hexacore i7 in the near future, there is no point in going 1366.

Yes, the top Intel will soundly defeat the top AMD. But the top Intel costs 5 times as much, for the price of the top AMD, you can't even get a low end i7, and the top AMD performs like a mid-range i7. Unless you are going to spend the big bucks to get the big power, the Phenom II X6 1090T offers a much better bang for your buck.

 

1155 is the "lower" end socket according to Wikipedia, and 1356 is going to be the higher end. 1155 still hampered by DMI, and is still based off 1156 so I don't see how it is going to bench higher than X58 bandwidth wise.

1090T is about equal to a Core i7 950 which the 950 is slightly more money (50 USD)
Top of the line 890FX board floats between 180-220, while it's 300 for X58
4 GB DDR3 1600 is around 110, 6 GB DDR3 1600 is like 160ish

So X58 platform is maybe around 20-30% more money, and has higher bandwidth than AM3. So your 600% more cost is...unless you are referring to 980X which AMD has absolutely no competition...yet.

Besides I got my X58 running for 179 (i7 940), 280 for my motherboard (Gigabyte UD5 which is a higher end board), and 180 for my RAM (6 GB DDR3 1600 Dominator) for around 650 which isn't too shabby.

 

There is a new socket in sandy bridge called 2011, not sure if it will be changed but thats what you will find it with, what you are seeing now is the 1156 replacement, we might see a six core on it but i doubt it, intel wont drop their triple channel into 1155 platform, they will do quad channel memory on 2011 socket, so yes its faster and better than what we have atm available, but the real high end comes half of 2011.

 

I suppose so, but then again my X58 is overkill. All I do is gaming on it. I have a ton of Core 2 Quad builds, and Intel offered the Big Deal so I decided to do a Core i7 rig. I think I will wait for Haswell when 8 core are standard lol.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "hampered by DMI." Do you even know what DMI is? Anyway, of course dual channel socket 1155 will not have as much memory bandwidth as triple channel socket 1366. But outside of actually testing memory bandwidth, you will never notice a difference. I also don't know how you expect Sandy Bridge i7's to be lower-end compared to Nehalem i7's for the next year.

The 1090T is $230, a decent motherboard is $90. The i7 950 is $295, and socket 1366 motherboards start at about $130. The memory used can be the same. So you have a 33% price premium for the i7 950. The 1090T offers a better bang for the buck. Also memory bandwidth doesn't matter. I don't know why you are so obsessed with that.

If something costs 5 times as much, it costs 400% more.

I don't know why you refer to your computer by the chipset model number, but I built my i7 860 system for a lot less. $60 for 4GB DDR3 memory, $90 for the motherboard, and $205 for the processor. But just like with you, these were not regular deals. I know nobody can walk into a store and pay $179 for an i7 940. For my the ram was on ebay, the processor OEM from ebay, and the motherboard a special with rebate on Newegg.

1155 is replacing socket 1156, and also partly socket 1366. Why would they release a "lower end" socket a year before the comparable "higher end" socket comes around? Considering socket 1156 i7's are on par with socket 1366 i7's, socket 1155 i7's are in a position to be rather superior to the socket 1366 i7's, of course barring the hexacore Gulftown processors.

 

correct.
the issue arises from the video camera of your choice. at 1080p 24mbps, that is equal to reference quality blu-ray. as an example, avatar bd, acknowledged to be the best in picture quality/video has an ave mbps of 33. and your dealing with avchd at that, which is more compressed and thus requires a little more cpu overhead.
of course you could lower the quality of your video encodes to save time and space, but whats the use of getting such a great camera if you do that right?

 

Why cause there are always people that want more and willing to pay more. 1155 is the low/mid end, its going to be faster than even the i7 980x (not all but some), but the gain is not that huge, most are guessing 10-20% faster, but the real jump for people that own X58 boards is LGA2011/X68, which is suppose to be the higher end socket, with quad memory channel, the one that is suppose to share sockets with ivory bridge.

Intel Sandy Bridge: Details of the next gen

 

Yes. I tried lowering the quality and it didn't look very good on my 50 inch TV.

 

Wouldn't that be 500%?

 

It would cost 500% of the price, but only 400% more. Remember that "more" means you compare the difference, not the totals.

 

You have all of the above 'correct'.

Just keep in mind that performance in notebook vs. desktop CPU's are not comparable - the desktop CPU with the higher power/heat envelope will smoke anything in a mobile platform (unless, you're buying a desktop cpu based 'mobile' system).

I would suggest sticking with Intel cpu's - (just no point in the current AMD offerings).

Specifically, an i5 Processor 760 2.8GHz w/ 8MB cache offers greater than the best i7 mobile performance for around ~$150.

While a desktop i7 will be faster - it will also be (almost) your entire desktop's budget.

 

Great timing.

I've been doing some research on the system build but also have an eye out on laptop deals. I noticed some deals out for a laptop with an Intel i7 740QM and was wondering how it compared with the desktop i7.

From what you say, the desktop version is almost one class above the laptop one?

 

Yeah, basically.

Sorry if I posted this here before:

See:
Is That A Notebook? MALIBAL's Six-Core, Dual-GPU, Speed Demon : Incomparable Performance?


Short version: even a desktop cpu in a mobile platform is slower than a desktop cpu in a desktop platform - while both handily destroy anything with the word 'mobile' associated with them.

 

what tiller said

also the new intel sandybridge is coming out q1 next year. if you can wait, you could get the present i7's (mobile or desktop) at discounted prices or you could opt for the new ssandybridge system altogether.

 

Again, thank you all for answering my questions.

I've been doing more research and am coming up with more questions. Since they are desktop build related, I'll take them to a relevant forum.

As much as I'd like to go with an i7-950 based build, it looks like I'll get more value with a Phenom II based build. Maybe I can live with the performance. Also, I'll be able to build something below $500 or even $400.

 

Although your statement is true, it lacks real world practicality: That's equivalent to saying a Corvette can go faster than a Honda Civic S. In absolutes it can, but for all practical uses, the higher speed is meaningless; and it would only matter to professionals...on a race track!

 

Except that in this case, we sort of are on the equivalent of a race track; the purpose of the machine that's being talked about is photo and video editing, which is one of the few places where the performance difference being discussed will actually be noticeable (to the average user).

 

Your choice of course, but my post was meant to show that an i5 based desktop would be just as powerful (maybe even more so) than a notebook based i7 system.

AMD is the least expensive route, but I would disagree about it having more value in the long term.

 

Krane, Judicator got it.

We are saying here what is the most computing power and data backup/system redundancy we can get for a fixed price (about $900).

For the tasks that need the most cpu power; the (cheaper) desktop will handle it much, much better than spending even the full $900 on a notebook system.

 

Good point.

Yes. I've already dropped the idea of buying a laptop. I'm building my desktop. My comments earlier were solely about desktops. I wasn't talking about an i7 laptop vs an X6 desktop.

 

Ah! I didn't know you were changing directions.

Well, a ~$900 AMD based desktop is going to be more than 'good enough' for the next few years.

Don't forget to add a backup solution.