@CubeAce

Hi Ray

. . . . I wonder if any difference would show if files were spread around the disks more and how large each file was? . . . .

I normally export to a different drive, usually the small SSD drive I have installed, to the one the data is coming from . This avoids, as much as possible, a drive switching from read/write mode and back again, with the result that the heads potentially move back and forth across the disc less. Whether this has any significant is difficult to determine, however I generally get about 5 years of life out of a disk used for video editing.

John EB

Hi,

A few years ago, when my C drive was failing, I replaced it with a 256GB SSD that quickly proved to be too small. I replaced that with a 512 GB SSD and connected the 256 using a SATA to USB cable so I have an external internal SSD drive. I use it for all exports. I also added an internal 2TB drive (B) for My Documents, Photos, Videos, Music, etc., that would normally be on the C drive.

I have asked the computer supplier to install this (O) 256 GB SSD as a third drive in the new computer.

I also have:

• (J) Seagate 1.5 TB (old) with old, old files and a second Videos folder started when my main drive was filling up
• (E) WD 6 TB with working Projects folder but not the main VPX folder (on B drive) and with Videos folder started when my J drive was filling up
• (G) WD 5 TB for backing up
• (K) WD 8 TB for backing up
• (N) WD 4 TB also for backing up, plus 70 GB instruments for Magix Independence, Motion Studios Vasco Streetmaps (242 GB), and OneDrive (I don't use OneDrive for backing up My Documents)
• (I) 2 TB WD My Passport portable for sharing/transferring files between laptop and desktop and for use with the laptop as space is very limited.

So, my new setup will have:

• (C) 512 GB SSD,
• (B) 2 TB WD internal,
• (O) 256 GB SSD,
• (E) for video files
• plus the others.

I presume that all WD drives are 5400 rpm, only the Seagate is 7200 rpm.

So, OS on C, My docs on B including the main place for Magix project files, Photos on B, Videos on B, J and E, and misc Project files on E, and exports to O.

I am so far behind in making my own videos that video files on B and J are rarely opened.

John CB

@johnebaker

Hi John.

The Western Digital Blacks have a five year warranty. Mine have lasted much longer. I only use them for current projects with all files needed on the drive at the time. A copy of which is on the second Black drive. Original files are always on my backup drives which are much newer. If or when a Black drive gives up the ghost it will be replaced.

It seems the buffer sizes are smaller than I remember.

Ray.

@johnebaker

@browj2

Hi,

however for certain activities eg video editing, there is an advantage in having an Intel processor, with an appropriate active iGPU and a Nvidia GPU, it is the capability of being able to use both GPUs in tandem with the newest versions of Movie Edit Pro, Video Pro X, and to some extent Photostory.

My opinion, for NLE on laptops AMD Ryzen 9 4900H is more suitable vs Intel Core i7-10750H (example).

AMD Ryzen 9 4900H in addition to the eight CPU cores (16 threads) integrates a Radeon RX Vega 8 integrated graphics card.
AMD Radeon iGU can be used by MEP 2022 or VPX13 for Hardware acceleration (import, Processing and Export).

John,

Have you looked at M2-NVMe SSDs?
Currently they are at an affordable price for a 512 GB (system unit and programs) and a 2 TB (jobs).
Read / write speeds are just incredible.

DéDé.

@sasiuk

Hi DéDé

I have looked at using SSD drives both NVME and SATA and they are on my list of potential upgrades, however at €750 each for 4TB modules they are of low priority.

I agree they are fast, what do the utilisation figures in Task Manager, Performance tab show when exporting 4K UHD source video to 4K UHD mp4 for a project with cuts only, no effects etc?

John EB

@johnebaker

@browj2

Hi John,

4TB NVMe M2 SSDs are still very expensive, prices will drop quickly.

If I understand correctly John CB's looks for a 500 GB system drive and a 2 TB working drive. The motherboards he is considering come with x4 M2 slots. It’s for this reason that NVMe SSDs can be considered.

KINGSTONE 500 GB M2 NVMe PCIe3.0 SSD is around 65 € and around 220 € for a 2TB. Prices in France.

Here is the screenshot of what you requested.

SONY ZV-E10 video files, UHD 2160P, constant 25 fps, XAVC-S, VBR 60.0 Mb / s (max), color matrix BT.709, MP4 container.

Project settings, Ultra HDTV 16 :9 (3840 x 2160), 25 fps

Program Settings, Hardware acceleration, Import, Processing & Export alls to NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

Project with 14 video files, without effects, total duration 03 ;57 ;03

Export as MPEG-4, preset MP4 UltraHD 3840x2160 25p (average bit rate 60000 kBits/s), Hardware encoding by GPU

Rendering Time with GPU Hardware encoding : 55 seconds.

Movie Edit Pro 2022 (21.0.1.87).

DéDé.

@sasiuk, @browj2

Hi DéDé, John

Thanks for the information on the export.

With my Seagate 5400 RPM drives, using the same video formats (Sony FDR-AX53e, 2160p, 25 fps, XAVC-S 60MB/s), a 3m 58s long project takes 67s to export using 2 drives one for read the other for write, using the same parameters as your test.

This is the normal method I use, and I get these figures

Read (W: drive),

Write (X: drive)

These compare favourably with an SSD, I think due to the large buffer sizes and the drives not having to switch read/write mode.

However if I used only the W: drive for both reading and writing then these figures do drop and the project takes 81 secs to export.

Read/Write (W: drive)

John EB

@johnebaker

Hi John,

From my point of view, this comparative test is not representative to conclude that HDDs have seemly performance compared to NVMe M2 SSDs.

In our tests, the read and write speeds depend only on the encoding speed by the GPU and not on the type of drive: HDD or SSD. It’s for this reason that our results are similar.

In my example the encoding time was 55s for a 03 ;57 ;03 movie duration and the encoded file size is 1.765 TB with an average bit rate of 59.4 Mb/s

Reminder: File size = average bitrate (kilobits per second) x duration

03 ;57 ;03 = 240 seconds with an average bitrate of 59.4 Mb/s this gives a file size of 14256 Mb or 1.782 TB written in 55 seconds which gives a write speed of 32.40 Mb/s in average value * and whatever disc type. Write speed will never be faster but limited by the encoding time.

* In my yesterday screen capture  42.7 MB/s write speed is the maximum value reached during the encoding process and over a space-time of 60 seconds.

Can you redo your tests by disabling hardware acceleration in the program settings and at the encoder level?
On my laptop, the encoding time increases to 9m 30s and write speed drops to 4.2 MB / s.

DéDé.

@sasiuk

Hi DéDé

. . . . In our tests, the read and write speeds depend only on the encoding speed by the GPU and not on the type of drive: HDD or SSD. It’s for this reason that our results are similar. . . . .

I agree with this, there has been a false impression, among some users in the forum, that having SSD's means the computer is a lot faster for rendering the video.

Repeating the test with no HWA - CPU rendering only using 6 cores / 12 threads the export time I get is 10m 50s.

In theory scaling my time from 12 to 16 threads to match the Ryzen should give an export time of 8m 7s.

In my view there is an optimum number of cores, 6 - 8 after which increasing the core count gives diminishing returns in the amount of speed increase obtained, there is also the rapid increase in cost for those extra cores.

John EB

@sasiuk

Hi DéDé

Have you looked at M2-NVMe SSDs?
Currently they are at an affordable price for a 512 GB (system unit and programs) and a 2 TB (jobs).
Read / write speeds are just incredible.

My original request was for "M.2 PCIE X4 1TB KINGSTON SSD A2000 SA2000M8/1000G " which is "A2000 NVMe PCIe SSD" I presume.

This was truncated by the current supplier to "DD960SSD-KIN DISQUE DUR SSD DE 960GO - KING" making me wonder if what I'm getting is the same as requested. I will ask.

Merci,

John CB

@browj2

Hi John

i would check with them - the code they have given does not include any model number so could be these cheaper lower performance drives

John EB

@johnebaker

Hi John EB,

I have sent an email. The price they gave me is slightly more expensive than the M.2 PCIE X4 1TB KINGSTON SSD A2000 SA2000M8/1000G as per Amazon Canada.

Thanks,

John CB

Hi all,

Finally received the computer today. They had trouble with some components that had to be replaced.

I haven't turned it on yet.

Which monitor should I connect to which port?

I have 2 HP Full HD monitors, one older (27in.) than the other (25in.).

The only HDMI ports are one from the motherboard, the other from the ZotacNVidia graphics card.

Thanks,

John CB

@browj2

Hi John.

It probably doesn't matter but whichever one you think is the most colour accurate I would personally plug into the nvidia card if that is where you are going to look at the editing monitor screen within VPX.. If you have the ability to produce individual colour profiles for each monitor then it probably boils down to which has the best contrast ratio. Presumably both are 60Hz monitors?

Ray.

@CubeAce

Hi Ray,

Thanks. I'll connect them up later and see what happens. The newer one is the one that I use for the monitors in VPX, so it will get the graphics card.

I'll let you know the outcome of this new experience.

John CB

Hi all,

I haven't plugged in the computer yet. I just spent some time looking at 4K monitors at my wife's suggestion.

Here is one that is not expensive, on sale, and looks like it would be much better than what I have.

LG UltraFind 27" 4K Ultra HD 60Hz 5ms GTG IPS LED FreeSync Gaming Monitor (27UP650-W) - White | Best Buy Canada

What do you think?

I could plug this into one of the Display 1.4 ports of the GeForce 3060, an old Full HD into the HDMI, and the newer 24in into the motherboard HDMI, I presume, giving me 3 monitors. Does this work?

Thanks,

John CB

@browj2 John, I think 4K would be overkill on a 27in screen. I must admit I'm not fully on top of screen resolutions, but did a fair amount of research when changing my screen regarding ease of seeing the menus and text elements of programs. From what I can gather, for images and videos, the more pixels the better, but for the program elements themselves, you don't wan the resolution to be too high otherwise it becomes difficult reading the screen.

For example, the fixed elements of MEP do not rescale on a bigger screen. Here's MEP on a 27in screen, the first at 1920x1080, and second at 2560x1440 (the screen's native resolution). I think 4k would make the elements too small to read comfortably without increasing the Windows system text size, which sort of defeats the purpose of the higher screen resolution.

1920x1080:

2560x1440:

@AAProds

Hi Alwyn,

Thanks for the comment. Would it be better to go for a larger monitor, say, 32in? It would probably block out too much of the view from my window.

I will try out my wife`s monitor.

The first startup was not without incident. My 2TB HDD is not there, but the old SSD that I had them add today is there. The HDD does not show in the BIOS. Back to the store tomorrow. I hope that the technician is working tomorrow.

Second problem, they put Windows French version on the machine. It took a few minutes, but it is now in English.

On the bright side, the new machine is very colourful and very quiet. Startup, with nothing much on the machine was so fast that I thought that something was wrong.

Now, I have to get the English Canada multi-lang. keyboard installed.

John CB

@browj2

Would it be better to go for a larger monitor, say, 32in? It would probably block out too much of the view from my window.

You know you can buy transparent monitors! 😁

Measuring across the bottom ie only the horizontal dimension, my 27" 1920x1080 (ie Full HD) monitor is 80DPI (1920/24"). The text on that is too big. On my 27" 2560x1440 (QHD) monitor it's 109DPI (2560/23.5"). I reckon that's about as small as I would like to go.

For a 4k UHD 32" monitor, that's 3810x2160 (28"x16"); 136DPI. That's smaller text by the same amount again. I think that would be too small for me but if you have good eyes, it might work. You'd certainly have a terrific amount of "real estate" on your screen.

Certainly check out your wife's; if it's 4k, all the better, as you can reduce the resolution to see what is best for you (remembering that a screen is sharpest at it's native resolution).

@AAProds @browj2

Hi.

I have always had the text slightly larger than at 100% (110%) on my 28" monitors without the need for anything else to be re-scaled. Icons and programs themselves are not altered and run at the native resolution.

My average viewing distance is a little over two feet. I don't see where you couldn't do the same regardless of the screen size although I prefer 28" over 27" screens. I will say that setting does not effect text size within programs such as MEP and VPX.

Those are my only thoughts though as I haven't owned that many monitors. My only experience of high density pixels on small screens is with smart phones and they do seem to benefit from having more pixels but equally the type of panel used and how it is lit may be a big part of that as would be it's maximum brightness. This is one area I would not personally dive into without a lot of research, possibly going to local dealers first and actually viewing some monitors and making notes first.

As for disks not showing,I remember me having the same problem. I can't remember the solution although it had something to do with the disk manager. I will ask my son when I see him later tomorrow.

I remember it can be done within Windows.

[Edit]

As an aside, the latest Windows 10 update seems to have changed some of the Windows Settings pages with the layouts and functions available.

Ray.

@browj2

Hi John

I agree with Alwyns comments on screen size and viewability of text etc - on a 27" screen 4K is overkill.

The HDD not appearing probably means they forgot to put one of the plugs in - could be embarrassing for them.

John EB

@CubeAce

I don't see where you couldn't do the same regardless of the screen size although I prefer 28" over 27" screens. 

Ray, the physical size of the screen isn't the issue, the readability of the menus and fixed features is determined by the screen resolution.