Need to learn about Asus computers...and computers in general

[Lilani]

I do motion graphics and computer animation for a living, and while I currently work for a company which provides a great computer for me, I may be going freelance sometime in the near future and it's occurred to me my current computer may not cut it. I currently have an iMac dualbooted with Windows. The problem is...I know very little about computers. I can look at the specs and tell you it's got a 2.66GHz Intel Core i5 processor, but I don't know what any of that means, or if that's good or not. I know it's got an ATI Radeon HD 4850 graphics card, but I don't know if that's good or not. And I don't really know what I need to effectively make 2D and 3D animations.

One of my coworkers recently told me Asus makes great computers that fill the needs of animators like me, hell he's got a LAPTOP that can easily run AVID (very powerful, professional-level video editing software). While I know I could buy something like his and know I'm getting something that does what I need it to do, I'd rather be literate in WHAT makes these computers good and WHY, just so I know what I'm getting and so I can possibly look into getting a machine assembled for myself much cheaper than buying an Asus. So I guess my question is, what resources do you know of which very clearly and concisely explain this sort of computer-spec jargon to beginners? I don't need something terribly in-depth, just enough to be literate in what I'm looking at when looking to buy a computer.

Also, on a semi-related note, if you happen to know of any similar resources for getting to know how cameras work that'd be great (preferably video cameras, but photography cameras are okay too). Since I'm on the graphics end of video editing I don't really have to worry about knowing much about how cameras work, but I'd like to know the basics just to know what I'm working with when they give me some footage. Also, when I venture farther into 3D animation it should help me there as well. Thanks~

 

[SnowyGamester]

I don't know any resources off of the top of my head so I'd probably suggest using Google if you want to go more in-depth.

At a very basic level your computer's performance is dictated by four things: CPU, RAM, GPU and storage drive (hard drive, SSD). These things can be limited by their interaction with each other and the motherboard but that's a bit deep for now. The CPU is what does the thinking i.e. most of the calculations. The 'speed' is roughly dictated by the number of cores times the frequency e.g. a 2.66GHz Intel Core i5 has four cores (though that isn't anywhere in the name, that's something you need to find out elsewhere) and runs at 2.66GHz so the full potential is 2.66 x 4 = 10.64Ghz. The faster the CPU the faster things can be calculated so the faster your computer will be. There are obviously other factors at play but that is the basic gist of it. If you want a direct comparison between CPUs look at www.cpubenchmark.net.

RAM is often equated to short term memory. It is where everything that is open on your computer is stored and has a size and a frequency (speed). In both instances bigger numbers are better. If you have more RAM your computer will perform better when you have lots of things open or have things open that use a lot of RAM (3D games, 3D rendering software, video editing software, etc). The frequency (speed) of the RAM, latency, etc is a much more complex issue but the fact is if you're building a modern desktop with DDR3 you probably won't notice the difference between fast and faster RAM.

GPU is the part that does graphics calculations and stores graphics data. It is probably the most important part or at least often the most underpowered part of a computer when it comes to prebuilts not designed for 3D applications. Most motherboards have an onboard graphics processor however if you want to do anything with rendering one of those won't give you the best performance. The main manufacturers of dedicated (discrete) GPUs are AMD (previously ATI before absorption) and NVidia. They make the chips which are put on boards and fitted with heatsyncs by other manufacturers (ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI, EVGA, Palit, Galaxy, Gainward, Sapphire, the list goes on). The names of GPUs aren't always the best indicator for how powerful they are (e.g. a GTX 680 is more powerful than a GTX 750Ti) but what I can tell you is the first number indicates the series (e.g. 7XX is newer than 6XX) and the following numbers indicate the position in the series (e.g. the 680 is more powerful than the 670). The older series for both NVidia and AMD had four digits (e.g. 9800) but the same system applies. Probably best to check www.videocardbenchmark.net to get a direct comparison between cards.

The hard drive or SDD dictates how quickly files can be read which can impact how fast games, files and software loads but has less of an impact after it's already in use. They don't really have any naming convention so if you're interested in performance you'll have to look into the read/write speeds of any given device. As a general rule SSDs are faster and don't have the issue of waiting to spin up after not being in use for a while.

If you don't plan on building yourself then you probably needn't worry about RAM and CPU compatibility with motherboards and power supply requirements so I think that makes for a reasonable summary.

Dealing with cameras and video footage is another big subject. Again I suggest Google if you want more info. The actual output of a camera (video, pictures) are usually measured in megapixels or pixel resolution which are more or less the same measurement but shown differently. The higher the resolution the more pixels there which means better potential image quality. That being said having a higher resolution or megapixels doesn't necessarily mean a better image because what is stored relies on the lens, the lighting, etc. Outside of the actual digital image files the components of a camera are fairly analogue which means a visual comparison of image quality between devices is the best indicator.

The size of the video and image files depends on the resolution of the image however that isn't all - compression, frames per second and number of colours are also a factor. There are two kinds of compression - lossless and lossy - with many different codecs (compression and decompression algorithms) for each. Lossless compression is less effective at reducing file size however it also means no data is lost from what is originally captured. Lossy compression can create a much smaller file size however it goes through an algorithm which doesn't create a perfect representation of the original image. Lossy compression supports different levels of compression which means smaller file sizes but more data loss. Google 'compression artifacting' or just 'image compression' for more on the subject. If you're viewing or editing video remember that your player or editor must support the relevant compression codecs to be able to view the files.

Frames per second dictates how many images are in a video per second. 24 is the old film standard however it is moving towards 48. Web video such as on YouTube is often 30. More frames per second means a smoother image but increased file size. Colours is also pretty simple. The more colours in an image the smoother it will be but the larger it will be. All of these factors are relevant when exporting video so may be important to know especially if uploading to or transmitting over the web.

I could go on for hours so I'm gonna just stop here and wait for specific questions.

 

[Aramis Night]

What xXSnowyXx informed you is largely accurate, I just feel compelled to clear up one small misconception that could arise regarding CPU speeds as was explained.

You will not actually get the combined speed of the cores of a multi core system to apply to a single program/process. Most programs are actually unable to utilize more than a single core. Some programs can utilize more than one but even in those cases you arrive at a computational speed bottleneck at around 4.8 gigs. It was actually this bottleneck that lead chip manufactures to go the multi core route since ramping up the speed on a single chip past this point was offering no practical improvements in data processing speed.

However, your computer is typically running several programs at once even when idle(Operating system, antiviruses, assorted software services), on top of whatever programs you are actively using at any given time. A cpu with multiple cores can however divide the workload among the cores rather than pushing it all on a single core to handle everything and having to divide up its processing power among the programs leading to slower performance. This means that it is possible to have a single active program using an entire core to itself while other cores handle the other background programs which allows you to have that program operate at the full speed of the available core speed. The more cores available, the more performance you can devote to individual programs, but only up to the maximum speed of the individual core, you would not actually get a full 10.64 gigs in speed applied to any program with an Intel i5. You could in theory, get a full 2.66 gigs of speed devoted to your program. But the Intel i5 would allow you to access more programs at the same time without a sacrifice in terms of performance over even a higher speed single or dual core.

Also as a shorthand for how well an overall system would perform for your graphic work, Look for a good gaming machine and it will perform just as well for your purposes since the requirements for both gaming and graphic/video rendering programs are typically similar. Asus does make some pretty good machines for this that in my experience compete favorably vs. the comparatively overpriced alienware machines. Anything from the Asus Republic of Gamers line would be ideal. I have an old Asus RoG laptop that I have had for years that seems to perform far better than its stats would otherwise indicate and has been very reliable.