Your PC should be able to handle any of the HD files that PD currently renders. Win 10, i7

I put together a similar system with a Core i7-2600K, 16G SDRAM, 128G SSD, and 1.9T RAID 10 where i have my files. The Mobo is an H67.

I made a 2:07 minute short movie with a 6 second basic title and no transitions. The video was shot in 1080p 60 on my TM700.

This rendered to High Quality DVD setting in 25 seconds.

The same clip renders to H.264 1920x1080p with Hardware Video Encoding in 2:00 minutes exactly.

The same clip renders to 1920x1080 24mbps with SVRT renders in 28 seconds.

I find these figures pretty impressive.

Very impressive Mingy, but I think you will find you could have saved on RAM , I though there was something wrong with my RAM so I loaded up my PC with

Render HD File
Watch DVD
Watch TV via Tuner card
run full virus scan

CPU was 100% on 8 threads

and could barely scrape past 4G mem usage.

Is there another RAM test you know of that will check if all RAM can be utlised?

Better to have it than not I suppose for future apps.

Must mention all chugged along nicely.

You can never have too much ram, especially when its $120 for 8G!

Mingy,

I assume you are using the HD3000 graphics?

I am drooling nonetheless ... PD9 seems to use these new CPUs quite nicely.

Dell Studio 1558 (laptop) * I5-520 * AMD HD 5470 * 4GB RAM - 1066MHz DDR3 * 320GB 7200RPM Hard Drive * Windows 7 Pro 64 bit * BluRay Burner

I am using whatever they call the GPU on the Core i7-2600K. The weird thing is, if you get a mobo with the 'low end' H67 chipset, the specially high performance on-chip video processing can be used. If you get a mobo with a 'high end' P67 chipset, you can't.

The price difference isn't that great, and I have no idea what Intel was thinking, but it seems that, if you want to use the Sandybridge video for transcoding & such, you want an H67 motherboard ....

I have no external graphics processor, just the 'one chip' version.

Mingy - sorry to dig up old thread.

But apart from the fast rendering/encoding - how is the general usage experience using the on-board graphics?

Does the app ever seem jittery or jolted?

I have used Power Director 8 a few times but am going to up grade apps as I am about to build a new system similar to yours and wanted to know if you are still happy with using the on-board graphics or if you are thinking of getting a discrete card?

Many thanks in advanced (again sorry for digging old thread)

Steve

Steve since using DOS in the days before win 3.1, I have never ever used a computer without a nice addon graphics board.

Considering I spent $250 back then on an ATI graphics board just to do 4 color graphics, the boards today are cheap.

I also remember RAM at $50 per Megabyte.

I have never had confidence in onboard graphics and OBG was always a bottle neck to me.

I think a good addon graphics board is essential for any computer that does any type of graphics or video rendering.

I would draw the line at a 8800GT 500MB minimum as that was the board that broke through a lot of graphic barriers and now that board is almost obsolete due to better less energy intensive boards.

8800 GT is a good gaming graphics board but if doing just graphics, I may recommend a NVDIA Quadro. The Quadro is required to run Sonic Scenerist a very professional video production program and is a good board for CADD also.

Onboard graphics IMO if for typing letters and doing spreadsheets and accounting.

Steve

There are no problems at all with the onboard graphics. The Sandybridge graphics are not your grandmothers on board graphics. though, perhaps, they may not be ideal for gaming. I do not play games so I do not care whether they are ok for games. I have run advanced professional CAD on the system and it seems to work fine, but CAD is not my strength.

Remember PD9 has been written to exploit the capabilities of the Sandybridge graphics, but you have to go with the H series (not P series) chipset, because of Intel stupidity.

As to the comment above regarding the insuitability of onboard graphics, it might be good if people stuck to stuff they know about. Things change in technology.

"Onboard graphics IMO if for typing letters and doing spreadsheets and accounting." is just wrong.

"I remember" when a "dedicated" graphics card with 1GB RAM would stutter and sputter on video files.

Current "on board" graphics cards can now play bluray without so much as breaking a sweat.

On board graphics has come A LONG WAY.

I agree ... dedicated video cards still has more "streams" and all the other buzz words ... in my opinion however ... if you want to save a few hundred bucks ... on board graphics are catching up REAL FAST these days and will probably do you good.

Of course do your research ... certain applications as noted REQUIRE dedicated graphics. Dell Studio 1558 (laptop) * I5-520 * AMD HD 5470 * 4GB RAM - 1066MHz DDR3 * 320GB 7200RPM Hard Drive * Windows 7 Pro 64 bit * BluRay Burner

Maybe I should not jump the gun too fast. The last OB graphics I had was 4 years ago and was the latest NVDIA chipset. It was a complete failure doing any graphics intensive programs.

Any computer can run Prof CADD but when the project gets big (lots of layers, text, symbols, and 3D geometry)it will eat any any OB graphics right up at least 4 yrs ago.

I don't see any OB Graphics incoorporating the Quadro graphics and Sonic Scenerist and Avid MC do require those.

Sony Vegas really needs a dedicated card also.

My brother just got a computer from walmart and I want him to bring it over as he wants to put Fallout New Vegas on it.

That should give it a test.

So what are the graphics specs for onboard these days that makes them so good. Just point to one with 500MB RAM and a good processor equal to a 8800GT and you may have me convinced.

Does the OB graphics have its own cooling system now that is required for all good graphics boards today ?

I feel like I have slept 20 years then.

But if worse comes to worse, one can always add a graphics board if they have room and a good power supply to handle the board.

I am not interested in convincing you of anything. If you want to spend $$$$ on a graphics card based on your limited knowledge of whats available today go right ahead. If you think 'a computer from Walmart' is going to havce the same on board graphics as the latest state of the art Intel processor, go with that as well.

I was simply confirming that Sandybridge graphics work extremely well with PD9. I make that comment from personal hands on experience, not a bias against something I clearly do not know much about.

Well Mingy, thanks for being easy on me.

The HD-3000 is a nice processor and very capable.

Thats what happens when you build a nice computer and it lasts flawless for 4 years and I have no need to stay updated on technology.

Most other people would just let the thread die, hide out or make a feeble argument and be in denial and take off.

But I am not.

I going to say I stand corrected by you here and my next computer build will be something similar to a sandy brige-I7-HD3000 myself.

Thats a nice computer he has there and I didn't bother to run hs specs. Thats good for gaminig also. Op and Mingy, I apologize for jumping the gun on onboard graphics and generalizing ignorantly

That would be a waste of a perfectly fine HD-3000 to put a card in that and would defy enven purchasing that system.

Now where is that bow down icon?

Not necessary.

I am sure there are things the Sandybridge graphics are not great at (and AMD and NVIDIA would be happy to point out) but it seems to work real good with DP9.

As you noted, you can always plug in a graphics card if you don't like what you get ...

If memory serves, the next version of Intel on board graphics will also support DirectX 11.

Again ... on board graphics are catching up very nicely. Dell Studio 1558 (laptop) * I5-520 * AMD HD 5470 * 4GB RAM - 1066MHz DDR3 * 320GB 7200RPM Hard Drive * Windows 7 Pro 64 bit * BluRay Burner

Its worthwhile noting that Sandbridge graphics are not just onboard but 'on chip' in the sense they are basically part of the CPU. I believe that is what makes them so useful for PD9 - the GPU is part of the CPU!

Correct ... everything is internal to the processor ... there is no external path from the graphics to the CPU that the older on board graphics needed. Very slick. Dell Studio 1558 (laptop) * I5-520 * AMD HD 5470 * 4GB RAM - 1066MHz DDR3 * 320GB 7200RPM Hard Drive * Windows 7 Pro 64 bit * BluRay Burner

Thanks for the response I was pretty well sold on it as it was good to hear you are having no dramas with it. I also do not game so no worries there.

One interesting test that was done was on the number of playback streams/instances that could be handled using hardware acceleration (this would be so much better if I had the link to show you) - HD3000 or the Quick Sync side of things was able to play back 4-5 HD movie streams without fault, GTX460 3 and an ATI 6XXXX managed one.

Again many thanks for answering an old thread,
Steve

To Mingy and HouseofMac,

Thanks so much for your very helpful discussion. If you don't mind, I have some questions about the new computer I want to build, and it seems you both have knowledge of the system I'm about to purchase. I plan on buying a 1080/60p camera (such as the TM700), mainly because I do a lot of slow-motion shots and I want the extra frames (and a better camera).

I'm switching from Premiere Elements to PD9 Ultra, because I want a 64-bit system, as it seems it could better handle the 1080/60p camera I want.

I'm thinking of building an i7-2600k with a GigaByte GA-H67MA-D2H-B3 Intel H67 Chipset. Here goes:

1. I know I need the H67 (as opposed to the P67) to take advantage of the i7 on board graphics (which I definitely want). It may be too late to ask this one, but do you have an opinion as to whether I should wait for the Z68 chipset, which apparently is a combo of the H67 and the P67? My thought is that I never play games, so I don't need the P67 or the Z68.

2. Do you recommend a solid state drive for your apps? PD9 recommends 20GB or 100GB for Blue-Ray burning, so I'm thinking I need at least 128GB or 256GB SSD, but they are expensive. Does it improve the video-editing experience to run your programs off a SSD?

3. It sounds like Mingy opines that a separate video card is not necessary. Is there any studdering when you are scrubbing over your video footage when editing 1080/60p footage in PD9 using the on-board graphics? Frankly, this is the singular most important reason I am buying a new computer. I want to edit quickly, with no hiccups or studdering as I edit the footage, especially when I use color correction, etc. and have mulitiple picture-in-picture windows of HD footage on the screen at once.

4. If you do experience studdering when editing, do you think a separate GPU would improve the process? My understanding is when using PD9, you have to choose either integrated graphics or GPU. (I may not know what I'm talking about on this last one.)

Bottom line, I would like a silky smooth experience when editing/scrubbing over the video timeline, and I'm willing to build a computer to achieve that. I just don't want to buy unnecessary parts ($500 video card) unless it will be worth it.

Any other thoughts would be much appreciated.

Thanks so much,
Geoff.