Considering PC build over Mac

i6turbo

i6turbo

New Member
I know this can get heated :rolleyes: but what I want to accomplish is a somewhat fast system for AVCHD rendering/editing...prob 30-60 min at a time.

I'm not looking at the virus problems but mainly speed vs. price between the two, my sis has a Macbook pro and loves it...I like it but not so much the $1600 pricetag.

The PC I plan on building is as follows:

ASUS M4A89TD PRO AM3 890FX MB
Phenom II X6 1055T 2.8 GHz Six-Core
Sapphire Radeon HD 5830 1GB 256-bit
Corsair Dominator 8 GB (4x2GB) DDR-3 1333 Timing is 7-7-7-20 Latency-7
WD Caviar Black 640GB

For about $900, hopefully lower after I visit a PC show, I feel this is a good build..thinking maybe $800 at the show or lower but we'll see.

Would this be an ideal build or should I consider a Mac? I will be using Sony Vegas Pro 8 for my editing software with the PC, figure on the standard iMovie for the Mac for now...FinalCut is nice but now we're talking big bucks.

Based on my build, would a Mac be leaps and bounds faster or easier?

I appreciate any help, please..lets keep it clean. :D
 
Thats a very fast build, even the top mac's would be kept on their toes by that one. I've never used any of the software your talking about, but i know that it would have to be very demanding for that system to struggle.
 
Problem is after using a nice Mac, the screen can be arranged in so many ways it's sick...FCP is just an awesome editing program but of course it has many bells and whistles I may not use.

I know it sounds like my mind is made up with the PC, just that dillema of forking out a few more hundred to have a Mac. I have not used one for intensive editing with multiple fixes added to the rendering so i'm not up to speed on how powerful they are as a video editing machine.

I have veered from the Intel build mainly because AMD has more compatibility options and Intel likes to change things up way too frequently.
 
As of right now Intel makes a better processor, but AMD can be considered "best bang for your buck."

If your budget is only $900, you may want to get a PC. If you wanted to get a serious rendering Rig I would recommend a Mac Pro, that has dual xeon processors in it. It would render anything you tossed at it.

Also, I read that the first transformers movie was all edited on 3 macbook pros.
 
Checked out some iMac's today and it seems i'm looking at around $2300 for a quad-core setup...so I will stay with the PC for awhile. Needless to say I enjoyed messing around with FCP which was loaded for "our enjoyment" but that adds another grand to the system.

As far as memory timings are concerned...is there a relation to slower timings (9-9-9-9) and HD rendering considering the bandwidth as a more ideal approach than the 7-7-7-7 of what I spec'd out?

Regardless of the editing, is the 7-7-7-7 going to still be more efficient/faster?
 
I'd still get a mac. a 21.5" imac is still sufficient for the getting into hard core editing + a copy of final cut EXPRESS. Its final cut pro without some codecs and the other apps. Sony vegas was a Bitch when I was a PC. I didn't know how to cut sides of the video and move it on the screen with ease. And by cut i don't mean like timeline cut the ends but cut the visual as in the frame image
 
Apple sadly doesn't offer anything particularly powerful for your budget, so I think you're right in moving to PC.

7-7-7 memory will be better than 9-9-9, but it's not a huge thing compared to how fast your processor is, and for most people it's really not worth paying too much extra for. G-skill does have some really good 7-8-7 memory on sale right now, though:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231303
 
Drenlin said:
Apple sadly doesn't offer anything particularly powerful for your budget, so I think you're right in moving to PC.

7-7-7 memory will be better than 9-9-9, but it's not a huge thing compared to how fast your processor is, and for most people it's really not worth paying too much extra for. G-skill does have some really good 7-8-7 memory on sale right now, though:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231303
Click to expand...

this train of thought is sadly old, outdated, and very monolithic. Hardware can only perform as efficient as the OS allows regardless of specs.
 
But what do they have in his budget that can out-power a PC with a 1055T and a 5830? What I said was in agreement with post #5, was it not? For $900, the only available Mac is the Mini, which has a C2D and a 320M. Not even close.
 
Last edited:
Drenlin said:
But what do they have in his budget that can out-power a PC with a 1055T and a 5830? What I said was in agreement with post #5, was it not? For $900, the only available Mac is the Mini, which has a C2D and a 320M. Not even close.
Click to expand...

$900 can get you a maxed out Mac mini, or close to the entry iMac. A video card will have little to nothing to do with video loading and editing. It will be pure processor and RAM and how the OS handles resources.

Hardware is not a factor as much as it is about OS and application preference for the OP. If he wants to use Final Cut Studio, then get a Mac. If he wants to use video toaster then get a PC. Also, Macs come with FW800 out of the box, which is what most modern HD cameras use to interface with. Also, out the box the Mac can load video, edit it, and author DVDs with built in software. While, iLife is not as powerful as some professional tools it will get the OP started, and it comes at no additional cost.

If you think video cards make a huge difference on video editing then I have some beach front property and a bridge I would like to sell you. Dedicated cards do increase over all performance. I won't argue that, but upgrading your video card to a gaming card isn't going to increase your disk I/O or encoding/decoding because that is all HD and processor based.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top