5D MKII Video Editing Build

[Ju$tice]

1) What will you be doing with this PC? Gaming? Photoshop? Web browsing? etc2)
Video editing - Premiere CS5
Photo editing - Photoshop CS5


2) What's your budget? Are tax and shipping included?
1200 - 1500 $USD

3) Where do you live?
New Zealand

4) What exact parts do you need for that budget? CPU, RAM, case, etc. The word "Everything" is not a valid answer. Please list out all the parts you'll need.
CPU, MOBO, RAM, PSU, GPU, HDD, DVD Burner

6) Will you be overclocking?
Only if necessary

7) What size monitor do you have and/or plan to have?
Already have HP ZR24W

8) When do you plan on building/buying the PC?
December

9) What features do you need in a motherboard? RAID? Firewire? Crossfire or SLI support? USB 3.0? SATA 6Gb/s? etc.
What ever is reccomended

10) Do you already have a legit and reusable/transferable OS key/license? If yes, what OS? Is it 32bit or 64bit?
Windows 7 64bit

Im looking at bulding an entirely new rig that can handle editing the amount of 1080HD
5DMKII video footage I as of recent have had to deal with. My previous rig is unable to handle this without constant lag and frustration. Stuck in Premiere CS4!
Its a been a long time since Ive built an entire system so I am completly out of date with current hardware.

All help much appreciated.

Thanks in Advance.

George.

 

[Dangman]

Considering that you're planning on buying in December, come back then and ask for advice again. Whatever parts we recommend today won't probably be exactly the same parts we recommend in December. So if you want the most up to date deals, hardware selection, etc, just hold off till you're about two weeks away from buying the PC and ask again which parts to buy.

 

[Ju$tice]

I was looking more to get an idea of realistically how much I would have to spend, and what hardware is currently reccomended / available so when it comes to the final build I have some idea and can contribute to the over all build.

Cheers,
George.

 

[Dangman]

I was looking more to get an idea of realistically how much I would have to spend, and what hardware is currently reccomended / available so when it comes to the final build I have some idea and can contribute to the over all build.

Cheers,
George.

Ok, then. Are there any online computer hardware stores that ship to New Zealand? Can't exactly recommend parts if we don't know what's available in your country.

 

[Ju$tice]

Ok, then. Are there any online computer hardware stores that ship to New Zealand? Can't exactly recommend parts if we don't know what's available in your country.

http://pricespy.co.nz/

http://www.staticice.com.au/

 

[nakedhand]

You need an i7 rig (930) with plenty of fast SSD action going on to handle those frames. Maybe 2 x OCZ Vertex 2 120 GBs.

 

[Dangman]

You need an i7 rig (930) with plenty of fast SSD action going on to handle those frames. Maybe 2 x OCZ Vertex 2 120 GBs.

He's not in the U.S so his budget won't allow for any of that setup. $1500 USD comes out to about $2000 NZD. As with other places around the world, the hardware prices for New Zealand is jacked up pretty high.

Here's an prelim setup:
$453 NZD - Intel Core i7 870
$233 NZD - Asus P7P55D-E Intel P55 ATX Motherboard
$314 NZD - 2 x Corsair CMX4GX3M1A1333C9 4GB DDR3 1333 RAM
$220 NZD - eVGA GTS 450 1GB PCI-E Video Card
$178 NZD - Corsair 650TX 650W PSU
$450 NZD - OCZ Vertex 2 120GB SSD
$90 NZD - Samsung Spinpoint F3 HD 103SJ 1TB Drive
----
Total: $1938 plus tax and shipping

Again, please note that we may not be recommending these same parts in December.

 

[Ju$tice]

You need an i7 rig (930) with plenty of fast SSD action going on to handle those frames. Maybe 2 x OCZ Vertex 2 120 GBs.

Is something like a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 16MB 500GB insufficient in raid 0 or a Western Digital VelociRaptor in raid 0

 

[Ju$tice]

He's not in the U.S so his budget won't allow for any of that setup. $1500 USD comes out to about $2000 NZD.

I wrote my estimated budget in $USD, $1500 USD is the maximum I would like to spend + / -$200 if its going to make a huge performance difference.

 

[Ju$tice]

Here's an prelim setup:
$453 NZD - Intel Core i7 870
$233 NZD - Asus P7P55D-E Intel P55 ATX Motherboard
$314 NZD - 2 x Corsair CMX4GX3M1A1333C9 4GB DDR3 1333 RAM
$220 NZD - eVGA GTS 450 1GB PCI-E Video Card
$178 NZD - Corsair 650TX 650W PSU
$450 NZD - OCZ Vertex 2 120GB SSD
$90 NZD - Samsung Spinpoint F3 HD 103SJ 1TB Drive
----
Total: $1938 plus tax and shipping

Again, please note that we may not be recommending these same parts in December.

Ive had really bad experiences with 2 x Asus mobos and even an Asus laptop, can it be swaped out. Also is 8GB of ram suffiecent, I thought I would need something around 16GB?

Thanks heaps for the help so far Danny!

George.

 

[Dangman]

Ive had really bad experiences with 2 x Asus mobos and even an Asus laptop, can it be swaped out. Also is 8GB of ram suffiecent, I thought I would need something around 16GB?

Thanks heaps for the help so far Danny!

George.

8GB of RAM is sufficient. However RAM is easy to upgrade later on. As for the mobo, I recommend this mobo instead:
$130 - Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD3 Intel P55 ATX Motherboard

 

[Zepher]

You need an i7 rig (930) with plenty of fast SSD action going on to handle those frames. Maybe 2 x OCZ Vertex 2 120 GBs.

No, you don't need plenty of SSD's to handle those frames.

Current 7200 rpm drives are plenty fast for video work.
8GB will be fine for Premiere, not if you start getting into After Effects with very complex timelines, then 12+GB would probably help.

Before I upgraded my friends Rig to handle 7D footage natively, he just used Cineform to convert the native files to the cineform format that was much easier for the his PC to handle.
I upgraded his machine to 8GB, Intel Q9550, eVGA GTX285 video card and it is a night and day difference from his E6400, 4GB, 8600GT setup.

 

[Dangman]

Is something like a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 16MB 500GB insufficient in raid 0 or a Western Digital VelociRaptor in raid 0

Well both options of those options are not that good:
- Despite being of a single platter design, that Seagate drive is still slower than Western Digital's 500GB Blue, Samsung's F3 500GB and 1TB drives.
- The Samsung F3 1TB drive that I posted is roughly 90% as fast as a single WD VRaptor but at a significantly lower price and significantly more storage.

I wrote my estimated budget in $USD, $1500 USD is the maximum I would like to spend + / -$200 if its going to make a huge performance difference.

I know you wrote your budget in USD but all the sites you gave me quoted prices in NZD. hence why I did the conversion.

 

[E4g1e]

- The Samsung F3 1TB drive that I posted is roughly 90% as fast as a single WD VRaptor but at a significantly lower price and significantly more storage.

Actually, sequential performance wise only the 600GB version of the Velociraptor is any faster than the Samsung F3. The smaller-capacity versions of the Velociraptor are only slightly faster sequentially than the original version of the 1TB WD Black (the three-platter version).

 

[Dangman]

Actually, sequential performance wise only the 600GB version of the Velociraptor is any faster than the Samsung F3. The smaller-capacity versions of the Velociraptor are only slightly faster sequentially than the original version of the 1TB WD Black (the three-platter version).

What about the seek times though?

 

[E4g1e]

What about the seek times though?

The seek times on the Velociraptors are clearly quicker than in any 7200 rpm hard drive. That much I'd give. However, in this day and age the Velociraptor is a not-so-good compromise between the higher capacity of a mainstream HDD and the speediness of an SSD, which is the explanation for my thought that the Velociraptor is far from the best of both worlds.

 

[Ju$tice]

No, you don't need plenty of SSD's to handle those frames.

Current 7200 rpm drives are plenty fast for video work.
8GB will be fine for Premiere, not if you start getting into After Effects with very complex timelines, then 12+GB would probably help.

Before I upgraded my friends Rig to handle 7D footage natively, he just used Cineform to convert the native files to the cineform format that was much easier for the his PC to handle.
I upgraded his machine to 8GB, Intel Q9550, eVGA GTX285 video card and it is a night and day difference from his E6400, 4GB, 8600GT setup.

I have had to use cineform with my current work, but still the jerky playback and constant lag and wait is just to much. Turns editing footage into something I really dont enjoy doing.

 

[Ju$tice]

Thanks again guys, its great to have so much input!

Thanks for the reccomendation regarding a mobo alternative and RAM Danny.

Is it worth me spending the extra and getting a i7 rig (930) like reccomended earlier in the post?

Im really just want a rig thats on the medium to powerfull side of video editing, something thats going to handle the video footage we ease. I understand that if I want things seamless im going to have to invest a lot more.

Does my current budget allow for that?

Cheers,
George.

 

[Ju$tice]

Well both options of those options are not that good:
- Despite being of a single platter design, that Seagate drive is still slower than Western Digital's 500GB Blue, Samsung's F3 500GB and 1TB drives.
- The Samsung F3 1TB drive that I posted is roughly 90% as fast as a single WD VRaptor but at a significantly lower price and significantly more storage.

I know you wrote your budget in USD but all the sites you gave me quoted prices in NZD. hence why I did the conversion.

Is Raid 0 a good idea for premiere scratch disks ?

 

[Dangman]

Is Raid 0 a good idea for premiere scratch disks ?

It is apparently. No it's not worth the extra cash for the i7 930 rig. The i7 870 provides roughly the same performance.

Yes your current budget does allow for that. Just look at the list I provided.

 

[Ju$tice]

It is apparently. No it's not worth the extra cash for the i7 930 rig. The i7 870 provides roughly the same performance.

Yes your current budget does allow for that. Just look at the list I provided.

Im going through the parts now, seems to be quite the price difference between the Asus and Gigabyte Mobo. Although from what I have read they both preform on par, although the Asus is more prepared for SLI and USB 3.0.

It seems all I have to do now is get the money together then get in contact with you nearer the time.

Also is the eVGA GTS 450 1GB PCI-E Video Card supported by CS5 GPU acceleration?

 

[Dangman]

Also is the eVGA GTS 450 1GB PCI-E Video Card supported by CS5 GPU acceleration?

Not officially. You''ll have to do this hack/mod to get GPU acceleration:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1532552

 

[nakedhand]

Is something like a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 16MB 500GB insufficient in raid 0 or a Western Digital VelociRaptor in raid 0

I would stick to a fast SSD, like I suggested at first, such as OCZ Vertex 2 120GB.

He's not in the U.S so his budget won't allow for any of that setup. $1500 USD comes out to about $2000 NZD. As with other places around the world, the hardware prices for New Zealand is jacked up pretty high.

Here's an prelim setup:
$453 NZD - Intel Core i7 870
$233 NZD - Asus P7P55D-E Intel P55 ATX Motherboard
$314 NZD - 2 x Corsair CMX4GX3M1A1333C9 4GB DDR3 1333 RAM
$220 NZD - eVGA GTS 450 1GB PCI-E Video Card
$178 NZD - Corsair 650TX 650W PSU
$450 NZD - OCZ Vertex 2 120GB SSD
$90 NZD - Samsung Spinpoint F3 HD 103SJ 1TB Drive
----
Total: $1938 plus tax and shipping

Again, please note that we may not be recommending these same parts in December.

hehe it wont allow for any of that setup, except the 50% of the hardware I suggested good one.

Anyway, I agree with you that a slower CPU should be fine. Is it worth it in the long run with what he is doing, speaking from personal experience, no.

No, you don't need plenty of SSD's to handle those frames.

Current 7200 rpm drives are plenty fast for video work.
8GB will be fine for Premiere, not if you start getting into After Effects with very complex timelines, then 12+GB would probably help.

Before I upgraded my friends Rig to handle 7D footage natively, he just used Cineform to convert the native files to the cineform format that was much easier for the his PC to handle.
I upgraded his machine to 8GB, Intel Q9550, eVGA GTX285 video card and it is a night and day difference from his E6400, 4GB, 8600GT setup.

I disagree entirely. Sure if you convert your frames into some further degraded format, it will work out for you. But full HD on a 7200 rpm, breaks my rhythm and creativity. Sure if you work at a slow pace, its ok, but if you do lots of scrubbing and have a ton of clips and tracks its going to drive you insane. SSD is the answer, its almost 2011 these days. It is the single most important investment for someone needing endless high intensity reads and writes.

If he is looking to do any compositing, which most people who do video are nowadays, the 7200 rpm is going to be a nightmare as well, unless his hierarchies and trees are severely limited or simple.

I didnt say that "you need plenty of SSDs" by the way. I said "plenty of fast SSD action". Meaning that you need plenty of fast SSD action as opposed to plenty of old school slow HD action.

One 120GB is OK, but he will run out of space quick, if he does high volume work. Hence I suggested 2, but I see the limitation of the budget. One is a good start, just like Danny Bui agreed with me (judging from his following list).

 

[E4g1e]

It is apparently. No it's not worth the extra cash for the i7 930 rig. The i7 870 provides roughly the same performance.

In fact, the i7-9xx/X58 is recommended if you're going to use a new hardware RAID card instead of onboard RAID. You see, very recent hardware RAID controllers eat up more than the maximum available bandwidth of PCI-e 1.x - and the LGA 1156 platform does not have enough PCI-e lanes to fully utilize those controllers without dropping the graphics PCI-e bandwidth to x1.

This sentence is just info for those considering editing setups with more than five HDDs or for anything requiring a parity RAID (such as RAID 3, RAID 5 or RAID 6).

 

[Neb]

Why would parity RAID have an effect on the PCI-e bandwidth? All of the parity bandwidth is processed internally on the card so the PCI-e buss never sees any of that.

 

[E4g1e]

Why would parity RAID have an effect on the PCI-e bandwidth? All of the parity bandwidth is processed internally on the card so the PCI-e buss never sees any of that.

Tests have shown that the LGA 1156 platforms simply do not have enough PCI-e lanes to run both a single GPU and one of the newest hardware RAID controllers at anywhere near their full bandwidth simultaneously. The newest hardware RAID controllers require all 16 PCI-e lanes fed to the card in order to work properly. It's the RAID controller chipset that matters here. Some testing using one of those cards indicate far slower performance on the fastest LGA 1156 system than on the slowest LGA 1366 system, especially with more than four or five HDDs attached to the same hardware RAID controller. In the case of the LGA 1156 platform, there is no place for the newest RAID cards to go: The RAID card gets bottlenecked by too few PCI-e lanes fed to the card. If it's bad enough in PCI-e 2.0 x8 mode, it's even worse when those cards are run at PCI-e 1.0 x4 or x1 bandwidth. Hardware RAID controller cards are much more sensitive to any drop in PCI-e bandwidth than any GPU is. However, these cards are on the expensive side -- $500 and up. You get what you pay for, in this case, since the cheaper cards (priced at $200 or less) misuse the CPU because the cheaper controllers are software-based (like the onboard RAID controller on motherboard chipsets).

On the other hand, if the user does not use any of those higher-end video editing software packages but is instead stuck on a cheap consumer (~$100) editing software suite, then these differences are moot because currently available consumer editing software does not take anywhere near full advantage of even previous-generation mainstream systems (although AVCHD editing still needs a decently powerful PC).

 

[Blue Fox]

Tests have shown that the LGA 1156 platforms simply do not have enough PCI-e lanes to run both a single GPU and one of the newest hardware RAID controllers at anywhere near their full bandwidth simultaneously. The newest hardware RAID controllers require all 16 PCI-e lanes fed to the card in order to work properly.

Find me a hardware RAID card that uses more than 8 lanes on a PCIe slot and I'll believe you. Don't waste your time though as they don't exist. RAID cards do not need more than PCIe x8 and even then, a slower slot will not limit it. With your PCIe x4 example, very few hardware RAID cards can even do more than 1gb/s, so it will be far from a limitation.

 

[E4g1e]

Find me a hardware RAID card that uses more than 8 lanes on a PCIe slot and I'll believe you. Don't waste your time though as they don't exist. RAID cards do not need more than PCIe x8 and even then, a slower slot will not limit it. With your PCIe x4 example, very few hardware RAID cards can even do more than 1gb/s, so it will be far from a limitation.

Actually, I have already proved this by my own actual testing. I borrowed a friend's i7-870 system, and it has already proved noticeably slower than my own i7-920 (at stock speed) in this particular application. However, it might have also been caused by a compatibility issue between that RAID controller's chipset and either the CPU's integrated PCI-e controller or the P55's PCH.

And yes, PCI-e x16 RAID controllers are still very rare because many of them have just started shipping, and might not have reached the reseller channels yet. The existing x8 PCI-e RAID controllers currently in resellers' inventory are relatively ancient three-to-four-year-old designs that cannot take full advantage of even four PCI-e 1.0 lanes internally. And why put in a hard drive controller card in a PCI-e x1 slot if that slot is going to be slower than a single onboard SATA 3.0 Gbps (SATA II) port?

And I also post in the D V I n f o . n e t forum, where there are a few fanatics that still believe that the LGA 1156 platform has only 16 total PCI-e lanes with no room at all whatsoever to even add a single PCI-e x1 card into such a system and that the GPU always uses up all 16 PCI-e lanes on the CPU. I tried to correct them on this, only to have them reject my view in favor of their own. In this case, over there I tried to steer a middle ground.

 

[Blue Fox]

Still has nothing to do with the number of PCIe lanes like you had stated and instead other factors. You were quite adamant that you need 16 lanes when hardware RAID cards don't even have the electrical contacts for more than 8 lanes.

 

[E4g1e]

Still has nothing to do with the number of PCIe lanes like you had stated and instead other factors. You were quite adamant that you need 16 lanes when hardware RAID cards don't even have the electrical contacts for more than 8 lanes.

That may be the case with hardware RAID cards that are currently in resellers' stock. These are, as I stated (after many edits), relatively ancient, three-year-old designs whose designers never even heard of LGA 1156 or P55 (or more specifically, the entire LGA 1156 platform was not yet in the planning stages when the controller manufacturers designed their chipsets).

On the other hand, I should have clarified my original x16 stance: I should have stated that many LGA 1156 motherboards cannot accomodate both a graphics card and a hardware RAID controller card simultaneously. This is because such motherboards have only PCI-e x1 slots (and artificially restricted to PCI-e 1.0 bandwidth, at that) for expansion (after accounting for the single PCI-e x16 slot on those particular boards). And a fair number of regular ATX boards of that platform are saddled with such restrictions. By contrast, all of the current X58 motherboards have two PCI-e x16 slots.

 

[Neb]

If you say that there may have been a compatibility issue, can you really say that you have proved it to yourself? Did you test with other setups? A sample size of one is a rather limited data set to base such a conclusion on.


One possible reason to put a hardware raid card in a pci-e 1x slot is to gain the redundancy of raid. Sometimes it's redundancy that you need, not the raw speed.

 

[E4g1e]

If you say that there may have been a compatibility issue, can you really say that you have proved it to yourself? Did you test with other setups? A sample size of one is a rather limited data set to base such a conclusion on.

Admittedly, it was that particular controller card (whose brand name I could not recall). I will retry this test when I visit that friend's place - this time with an Areca card.

One possible reason to put a hardware raid card in a pci-e 1x slot is to gain the redundancy of raid. Sometimes it's redundancy that you need, not the raw speed.

There is where the problem starts. PCI-e 1.0 x1 has a maximum theoretical burst bandwidth of only 266 MB/s (versus 300 MB/s for SATA II). Split this limited 266 MB/s total bandwidth into more than four or five drives, and you could see performance that's substatially slower than the slowest of single-drive systems or onboard software RAID (using current-generation hard drives). That's because the controller uses independent device timing only if it is fed sufficient PCI-e bandwidth to function to its full potential. But when the bandwidth fed to the card falls short of what's needed for optimal performance, then the drives will start sharing the restricted (limited) bandwidth.

 

[Blue Fox]

That may be the case with hardware RAID cards that are currently in resellers' stock. These are, as I stated (after many edits), relatively ancient, three-year-old designs whose designers never even heard of LGA 1156 or P55 (or more specifically, the entire LGA 1156 platform was not yet in the planning stages when the controller manufacturers designed their chipsets).

I wouldn't call my Areca 1680ix-24 or 1880i old. Both have performed admirably and at full speed in a PCIe 1.0 x8 slot.

There is where the problem starts. PCI-e 1.0 x1 has a maximum theoretical burst bandwidth of only 266 MB/s (versus 300 MB/s for SATA II). Split this limited 266 MB/s total bandwidth into more than four or five drives, and you could see performance that's substatially slower than the slowest of single-drive systems or onboard software RAID (using current-generation hard drives). That's because the controller uses independent device timing only if it is fed sufficient PCI-e bandwidth to function to its full potential. But when the bandwidth fed to the card falls short of what's needed for optimal performance, then the drives will start sharing the restricted (limited) bandwidth.

It's actually 250mb/s per lane on PCIe 1.0.

 

[E4g1e]

It's actually 250mb/s per lane on PCIe 1.0.

In other words, if an LGA 1156 system has to be used, the motherboard should have at least one x4 or x8 slot (in addition to the primary x16 slot). The big-money-spending fanatics (who own individual systems priced at upwards of $20K apiece) over there made it sound like an astronomically expensive platform is required just to even edit video.

 

[Blue Fox]

In other words, if an LGA 1156 system has to be used, the motherboard should have at least one x4 or x8 slot (in addition to the primary x16 slot). The big-money-spending fanatics (who own individual systems priced at upwards of $20K apiece) over there made it sound like an astronomically expensive platform is required just to even edit video.

Most 1156 boards I've seen (P55 based at least) have 2 x PCIe x16 slots. They'll of course be limited to x8 when both are being utilized, but you don't really need a crazy system for video editing or to support a nice RAID card. Alternatively, if the board has a PCIe x4 slot, you could use that too. Here's my older system for example: http://stfcc.org/bluefox/hdtach.png

 

[Neb]

There is where the problem starts. PCI-e 1.0 x1 has a maximum theoretical burst bandwidth of only 266 MB/s (versus 300 MB/s for SATA II). Split this limited 266 MB/s total bandwidth into more than four or five drives, and you could see performance that's substatially slower than the slowest of single-drive systems or onboard software RAID (using current-generation hard drives). That's because the controller uses independent device timing only if it is fed sufficient PCI-e bandwidth to function to its full potential. But when the bandwidth fed to the card falls short of what's needed for optimal performance, then the drives will start sharing the restricted (limited) bandwidth.

Well it's not really a problem since any PCIe x1 slot raid card would be a two disk affair You're making a lot more sense now you've clarified your point. "The newest hardware RAID controllers require all 16 PCI-e lanes fed to the card in order to work properly." certainly had me scratching my head.

 

[Dangman]

hehe it wont allow for any of that setup, except the 50% of the hardware I suggested good one.

Technically, it's actually 33% of the hardware you suggested since you recommended a Core i7 930 and two OCZ SSDs. I only have one SSD due to budget reasons. So only 33%.

 

[Ju$tice]

hehe it wont allow for any of that setup, except the 50% of the hardware I suggested good one.
.

What do you mean by " wont allow for any of that setup"?

Is it worth spending money to get a GPU that will support accelration natively?
One you softmod you can game with it can you?

Is it worth buying SSD's straight away or should I wait it out until the become cheaper, at the rate hardware technology is advancing by the time they drop alot of the hardware I have will be quite outdated will it not?

Thanaks again.

 

[Dangman]

What do you mean by " wont allow for any of that setup"?

Don't worry about that. It's in reference to something I said earlier in this thread. Read through the thread again if you really want to know but it's very minor.

Is it worth spending money to get a GPU that will support accelration natively?

Right now and in your country, no not worth spending the extra cash for an officially supported GPU. However, that may not be the case two months from now when you actually buy the PC. Who knows? Maybe the GTX 470 (the cheapest Nvidia card for CS5 GPU accleration) might drop that much in price for it to be cost effective.

Is it worth buying SSD's straight away or should I wait it out until the become cheaper, at the rate hardware technology is advancing by the time they drop alot of the hardware I have will be quite outdated will it not?.

It really depends on several factors: Whether or not nakedhand is right in that a SSD or necessary, whether or not Intel will actually be releasing their cheaper, newer, and faster SSDs in New Zealand, what's your preferred level of $ per GB and space, etc, etc,

 

[Ju$tice]

The time has come.
Within a few weeks I will have the funds to put together a new video editing rig.
A few things have changed.
I have started teaching myself after effects, so will be using that and premiere a majority of the time on this new rig, plus a small amount of gaming. MW2
I am also now going to run a multiple monitor setup an additional HPZR24w
I have moved to live in Melbourne for work, so now all parts will need to be sourced through getprice.com.au, thankfully the Australian dollar is stronger if not right behind the American dollar.
A few questions, is it now worth running the os off a SSD and then I think I will run scratch disks for premiere off two Spinpoint F3 in RAID 1? or is it worth runing the entire rig on Spinpoint f3's then waiting out till the SSD's drop in price.
Also probably the most frequently asked question on hard forum is it worth waiting for sandy bridge or should I take advantage of the discounts on i7 cpu's?
I am also upping the budget to $2000

Cheers,
George.