In my experience, Asus motherboards are amongst the most stable around. In addition, when working for a system builder, this brand was the prefered supplier.
In my opinion, overclocking should not be considered with an editing environment where redundancy and stability are of paramount importance. Indeed, the 'perfect compromise' PC should certainly not include running system components beyond their designed tolerances: overclocking places increased stress on system components, thereby increasing the propensity to fail. It could be argued that overclocking does no harm to the components, but there is no argument that overclocking will increase the RISK of failure.
As a proportion of the times spent editing, encoding / rendering is insignficant. Given the time savings associated with overclocking, the percieved gain is outweighed by the potential loss. There is a real danger of your editing project becoming corrupt should a PC fail during rendering. This could involve a siginificant loss of work.
There's a vested interest in CPU manufacturers pushing encoding times as a selling point of their processors. However, given that encoding times certainly do not provide an increase in talent, and when taken in context of the total production time, the productivity gains of spending more on (or indeed overclocking) a processor is negligible.
To answer the OP's question, I would say the ultimate machine for a videographer is one that's built by a system builder. Why? Well the videographer is reliant on the machine working at the right time and to specificiation. If there is any kind of hardware failure, the vendor and not the individual is responsible for putting it right. Morever, you get the experience of experts matching components - an essential requirement for stability.
To summarise, you need stability. You also need redundancy.
|