Looks like a very good build for an 'enthousiast' level machine. Well done. There are a few remarks though.
The GTX 670 is overkill on a 4-core system with only 2 HDD's and only 16 GB memory and may still be overkill when you opt for 32 GB memory. You could save quite a bit by choosing the GTX 650 Ti Boost or the GTX 660.
For OS, programs and pagefile a 128 GB Samsung 840 Pro is enough, no need to go for a 256 GB version.
A third HDD for previews would be nice to add.
Sorry, could not come up with any more criticisms.
PS. You have to realize, in light of your Topic description, that multicam edits with GoPro3 material and CS6 will bring even the stoutest machine to its knees. From that perspective and disregarding the budget consequences, a hexa core i7-39xx on a X79 platform may be better, unless you convert the GoPro material to Cineform first.
Agree w/ Harm - great build! Additional comments...
- great price for the HAF case!
- I would go for the 32GB considering the rest of your build
- AX850 is right-sized
- 212 EVO is fine; you could add a fan for push/pull cooling
Your #10 - as well as copying files for backups, do be sure to make a full backup of your boot drive
The product I use is at http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/image-for-linux.htm
Image runs off of a bootable CD via Linux (the Zip you download includes a program to
make the bootable CD) and it reads EVERYTHING on the drive, even the hidden
registration information, so everything is restored when needed... and you may restore
the image to a brand new drive in case of a crash, and not have to re-install anything
First, thanks to each of you for your helpful replies.
Ok, dropping to a GTX660 and 128 GB SSD saved $300. I'll use it to bump up the memory to 32 GB and add another fan and still have $150 left over.
I have $460 budgeted for the WD and Seagate disks. I could add the extra $150 and my $200 contingency money and still be in my max budget. So if you had $800 for your non-SSD disk configuration, what quantity and size drives would you get? Would it make sense to set up a BIOS-controlled RAID? I still wouldn’t be able to afford an Areca controller. My motivation would be for performance increase with reasonable reliability. I don’t have deadlines so it is not a big deal to be delayed due to a drive failure as long as I didn’t lose my work. Or should I just stick with the WDs and Seagate? If I stay with my original disk configuration, to Harm's comment, could I use the Seagate for backups and previews?
Harm, I had read your previous posts regarding GoPro material, so I started with trying to spec an i7-3930k build, but that powerful processor deserves more ram, better graphics card and a real RAID array, pushing me in the $3,500 - $4,500 price range. I just couldn't justify it as a hobby, so dropped back to the 3770k, and then they released the new 4770k. I guess I will just have to be patient and use Cineform to convert everything.
John, thanks for the backup recommendation. So should I use Image-for-Linux or would it be Image-for-Windows if I my OS is Windows 7 Pro? Or should I consider Linux as an alternate OS?
If you will re-read the description after the link I posted... the program runs from a bootable CD, which you make, so it is completely independent of Windows
The 1155 platform has some limitations, the most important one being the limited number of available PCIe lanes. The consequence is that it is not advisable to add a dedicated raid controller to such a system, because a PCIe-8x controller leaves only 8 lanes for the video card, so the available bandwidth of the video card is reduced from PCIe-16x to PCIe-8x, which effectively reduces the video card performance by around 10 - 15%.
So you have to use BIOS or software raid on such a system. Basically three sorts of raids are supported:
- Striped arrays, raid0
- The drawback is the lack of redundancy, one disk fails and all data is lost, but with two disks in (r)aid0 you have double the performance over a single disk.
- Mirrored arrays, raid1 which essentially keeps a copy of the first disk on the second disk, so no performance increase.
- Parity arrays, raid5 which gives redundancy (read safety against disk failure) but is slow and carries a large overhead for the CPU and requires at least 3 disks to give only around 0.5 x (n-1) x T in transfer rate, compared to a single disk.
The only raid that makes sense on such a system is raid0 but is it worth the risk of data loss? Often it is better to just use single disks, but spread the load as much as possible, within reason.
In your case, you could consider the following disk setup:
- C: SSD for OS, programs & pagefile. SATA6G
- D: SSD Samsung 840 Pro 256+ GB for media cache & previews, because of the fast access and high transfer rates, while still having good 'stable state' performance. SATA6G
- E: WD Black or Seagate Barracude 7200.14 for projects. SATA6G if available.
- F: WD Black or Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 for media. SATA6G if available.
- G: WD Black or Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 for exports. SATA3G
- H: SATA DVD or BD burner. SATA3G
Then you also need a backup disk, possibly connected over eSATA or USB3.
Sorry to be so long-winded, but I did that so you understand my considerations.
- Striped arrays, raid0
Thanks Harm! Exactly the level of detail I needed to understand the reasoning behind the recommendations.