oporto92

Yeah I will, all the parts have arrived except the Mobo, cant wait to put everything together and OC  the GPU and the CPU : D  
Will probably make a small log of the build and OC.

An 1070 is slightly faster then  the 980ti (stock) but it also uses less power and is a bit more future proof regarding driver updates.
I would always go for the newer card in this case.
 
So i would recommend the 1070

I would get the 1070

Another advantage for 1070 is the updated video decoder, supporting HDR and HEVC formats. That's alongside the lower power and larger video memory, compared to 980Ti.

Honestly from having a 980 ti, it depends on what your doing. For Pure gaming, it depends on the game and how they utilize resources. Generally the 1070 should be better, but it also depends on the type of games you play. 
 
Pros of 1070:
 
Easier to cool with the coolers due to the amount of TDP vs the 980 ti
 
Newest architecture with the bonus's that comes with pascal.
 
Bigger frame buffer and faster speeds.
 
Pros of 980 ti:
 
More raw performance in Rendering videos and such (1080 is roughly the same, if a bit slower in rendering with cuda)
 
Generally only 5-15% depending on the title, so is the 50$ worth that to you?
 
Generally a better price.

3000Mhz is good, but ideally anything over that is just better.
3600 would be the "best" (I mean, technically infinite would, but you're unlikely to get past 3600)
I'd recommend getting RAM that's single-rank using Samsung B-die, and then clocking it as high as it can go. that may be 3Ghz, maybe 3.4Ghz. nobody knows.
 
the capacity depends on your workload. if it will use 32GB or close to 32GB, then get 64 to be extra roomy (if you have the budget). if it only takes up 20GB, then you can stick with 32 just fine.
 
Maybe get a 4x8 GB kit to start, so you then have room to upgrade if you need more RAM in the future.
 
-------
 
as for motherboards, nobody knows yet, since there are no reviews out. the zenith extreme looks really good, and the NIC it comes with is a nice 10Gbps one, but in terms of pure functionality, any nice X399 board will be good enough. just don't get any MSI boards, since they're bad with AM4, and nobody knows if they will put in the effort to be good again with TR4.
 
 

Surprised this hasn't been posted yet.. 
 
So, for some time rumors have flown that Threadripper is made of "failed" Epyc chips, as there are only two of the four dies in use, but AMD has finally spoken up to clarify things. As it turns out, two of the dies are inert and do not even contain transistors. Basically, they are just spacers, there for structural integrity and nothing else.
 
Source: https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_clarifies_why_threadripper_uses_4_silicon_dies/1
 
 

If top-tier Vega costs as much as a 1080 Ti, then I would expect it to perform similar to a 1080 Ti.
 
The ~1080 performance scores we've seen could then be for a lower tier Vega card.
 
Or, the pricing rumour could be wrong.
 
AMD doesn't have the leader brand status that Nvidia has, so they'd have to price similar performance GPU's beneath Nvidia's offerings to be competitive. I don't think that AMD doesn't understand this. So, I think that either Vega has more powerful offerings than the ~1080 scoring card, or the pricing rumour is off.

After many years of service, good and bad, Adobe has pulled the plug on Flash and will be officially removed by 2020, the company announces.
 
In the early days of Flash, Flash was a fast growing platform under the hands of Macromedia. It came in and allowed, if well coded and implemented, rich web applications and multimedia playback solution to the web. It quickly replaced previous solutions of using the CPU intensive (at the time of our slow computer) Java VM plug-in which made system run down to a crawl when a website used a Java applet (Java-Script was still in its infancy, and could do everything that it can today) and for media purposes the mess of needing to install a bunch of video player plug-ins with the popular ones being RealPlayer, and QuickTime. Basically, each video codec had its players. It was a mess that Flash quickly cleaned up.
 
In 2005, Adobe bought Macromedia, mostly for the companies other software solutions and patents which the company incorporated in its own library. With no interest in Flash, Adobe, Flash development was quickly killed off, with limited efforts done to it. Security fixes took excessively log time to fix, and they mostly fixed ones that were reported instead of being pro-active as it once was.
 

 
Over the years, and I guess, sadly, due to its easy of coding, I suppose, it brought a great shadow on itself. Shitty web devs were making poorly made websites by using Flash when better solution could have been used. For example Flash was used for simple menus that could have been easily done with some HTML and CSS, or at worst a hint of Java-Script. Not to mention poorly coded which affected system performance and mobile device battery life severely. Basically, people that should not be touching code, was making stuff in Flash. This was amplified with shady ad agency that many websites went with, displaying crappy Flash made ads (which many were scams) that talked, played videos, flashing, and all around annoying.
 
People were fed up. It affected mobile phones and computers performance and battery life. Every year it became a bigger and bigger security hole, with a, virtually, complete stop in innovation since ~2005. People started to not want it. But, it was playing such a key part of the web, people where split. They hated it, but needed it. Apple went with the direction of maximizing security on its platform, maximizing performance and responsiveness for its web browser, and ensure great battery life on its new iPhone, no matter if you surf a poorly coded web site or YouTube by not having Flash plug-in for it. They included a YouTube app instead with the device.
 
Android users enjoyed or "enjoyed" Flash for few more years. But with Adobe provided 0 care, quickly made Android drop support for it, and Adobe killed its mobile Flash "initiative".
Not to mention that it didn't support all the same features and abilities as Windows version of Flash.
 
As HTML5 finalizes itself, web browsers implemented , and Java-Script continued to evolve rapidly as it always was doing, Flash became quickly obsolete on the web.
 
The Verge says:
 
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/25/16026236/adobe-flash-end-of-support-2020
 
From an outsider perspective, Apple seems to have waged war on Flash in 2007 by not porviding support on its new mobile device: The iPhone. But from a developer perspective Flash was already dead in 2005-06. Many professional web developers switch platform language (PHP, or Java-Script, for example), or other just changed aread (C/C++/C#/Java developer... basically leaving the web dev field). These devs knew that Flash was long gone back then.
 
If Adobe didn't kill Flash, Edge, Mozilla, and Google would have done so, as they all already announced the kill of plug-in support. In fact, Edge already doesn't support plug-ins, beside Flash, and right-now Flash follows a click-to-run approach beside on select white listed websites.
 

Yeah, thanks to all of you I have decided to do that. So thanks everyone! : )
haha i thought the same and the same happened  

Thanks, its satisfying to hear this. I think I will preorder the cpu and mobo only and if intel seems like the better choice I will finish the build and if not i will be able to sell at retail price without issues as it will be sold out everywhere for a while. specially if ryzen launches sooner than later which I sense will be the case to better compete with intel.

Yeah, thanks to all of you I have decided to do that. So thanks everyone! : )
haha i thought the same and the same happened  

Thanks, its satisfying to hear this. I think I will preorder the cpu and mobo only and if intel seems like the better choice I will finish the build and if not i will be able to sell at retail price without issues as it will be sold out everywhere for a while. specially if ryzen launches sooner than later which I sense will be the case to better compete with intel.

Repost or not, this just gives me another reason not to buy from this metrosexual hipster company.

This is a great WAN show topic, Linus.  Just sayin.

Cheeeeers mate!  I went for a Tt Water 3.0  : )

PCIe 2.0 x16 is plenty for even a GTX 780 Ti

I did a lot of research when setting up my editing rig. I found that aside from Mobo, CPU, GPU and RAM, Storage configuration can be a huge bottle neck for rendering previews, and final files.

Given the price and LOE of this build I think more could have been done in this department. Also, this being titled the "Ultimate Video Editing PC Buyers Guide" I would think necessitates covering more than the configuration they chose. Storage is relatively cheap these days and thus can provide a lot of flexibility for getting the optimal configuration for individual needs.
 
Separating the SSD for OS and applications from the RAID10 is about 2 steps/degrees of the 3 I've seen in most of the guides and tutorials.
Basically everyone recommends at least 3 physical disks (never partition a drive on an NLE machine) any or all of which can be a RAID array. 1 for the OS/Applications (SSD or the somewhat forgone 10,000rpm HDD), another for Media (stock footage, music, photographs, rendered/rendering) and finally a Scratch Disk for the Page file (Linus just did a video on Tech Quickie), Media cache and Render Output.
 
In this build they went with a RAID10 which offers a great balance of speed and redundancy. I can't say for sure that this would become any kind of bottleneck but generally reading/writing source files and your renders to the same disk/drive can result in performance hits. The striping accomplished with the RAID10 could negate this. I'm note sure. But you're also losing some performance in that every write is going out to 2 places. Also I think they've mentioned having a NAS/SAN with a superfast Ethernet NIC. So their source files might in fact be coming from different locations than their out files. This might not be feasible for many so I thought I'd try to shed some light on the matter.

My go-to resource in this matter is Harm (Harm Millaard) on the adobe forums. He's a professional Editor and has been active on the forum for years helping beginners, enthusiasts and professionals alike. Below is a link to an article he made about storage configurations.
 
Storage Rules for an editing rig. Some basics.
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/427772
Takeaways - 7200rpm at least, No Green drives, No partitions, no USB (other than backup), at least 3 drives, as many disks as possible, move the page file and make it 1.5x your RAM, turn off indexing, upgrade drive if your usage goes above 60-70%, defrag defrag defrag, cool dem drives, and RAID - onboard is fine for simple arrays, IOP238 chip cards for more advanced setups, RAID0 for data that is replaceable in case of failure (OS, renders/previews, cache, page file), RAID 3/5/6/10/30/50 for data that needs redundancy (Projects, media, etc...)
Hope this helps anyone trying to build an editing machine.

wait for maXwell dont buy any graphiCS CArd From eiTHER amd or nvidia (sorry if you cANt reAD my written text my keyboard and software is broken)
oh my bad welCOME TO the Linus tech tips forum hi my naME IS KINGSLEY ;D