Reading mode: Light Dark

The Ultimate PC

Go to last post
Josian Gattermeier said:
When looking for HDs, do not go for Western Digital, take my advise
DON'T BUY THEM!!!
Click to expand...
And why not? I have been using WD hard disks on all my PC's (at work and home) for the past 5 years without any trouble whatsoever. Absolutely none since day one.
BigBird113522 said:
Mouse: OPTICAL!!!

OS: WINDOWS XP PROFESSIONAL
Click to expand...
OS: Get Win 2000 if you can. There is hardly anything that XP can do that 2000 can't. And XP is a lot more bloated. And there's the product activation nonsense. When I was flying 31,000 ft in the air, the d*mn laptop asked me to insert the XP CD for some activation cr*p. Had to reboot and it was OK after that.
 
If you went with Dual 2.8ghz Xeons, they would (properly configured) blow
a 3.06ghz P4 right out of the water.
 
Do graphics pros like waiting forever for their tasks to finish instead of actually working quickly on a nice dual proc windows machine?
 
wzictrace said:
If you went with Dual 2.8ghz Xeons, they would (properly
configured) blow
a 3.06ghz P4 right out of the water.
Click to expand...
533 2.8GHz Xeons, Placer chipset, dual channel DDR

VS.

3.06GHz P4, 850E chipset, RDRAM:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=x28amp24&page=7

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=x28amp24&page=10

The 533 Xeons are 9 seconds SLOWER in PS on the filters used than the single P4. Hardly "...blowing a 3.06GHz P4 right out of the water..."

Properly configured? The ONLY chipset that OFFICIALLY supports 604pin 533 Xeons IS the Placer chipset, so yes, that IS properly configured.

As I've stated earlier, IF you run SMP specific actions/filters then yes, a dual proc MIGHT suit one's needs better than a single proc.

"...blow a 3.06ghz P4 right out of the water..." Hardly. Even my 3.2GHz Xeon rig running a 6 disk (Cheetah X15 36LPs) RAID0 array is slower than my 2 drive RAID0 (same drives, same SCSI RAID controller, 32bit/33 slots vs. 64/66 slots) 2808MHz - 3120MHz P4 rigs in BOTH RAW---> 16bit linear .tiff conversions AND "typical' FM PS actions.

Those 3.2Ghz Xeons are running on a highly modified 860 board, 2G RDRAM @ PC1066 speeds, with or without HT, WinXP Pro or Win2K Advanced Server, so by your definition, I guess that's NOT "properly configured," even though it's about 20% FASTER than my Placer rigs using the identical hardware.

Hmmmm...
 
bummer about the card info and firmware

I understand the hyper stuff quite a lot sadly I am a guy that has to learn this ;)

actually getting ready to start building my new box to replace my old dual setup

will be a dual xeon with the 15.3 drives using the 320 card though might as well since I am stepping up ;)
cant wait to get it going ;)
the 15.3 sound like the noise issue and heat issue is getting under control ;)
Hyperfish said:
Chad D said:
the way this reads sounds sounds like I am trying to be a D ick ;)
sorry didnt mean it this way at all heheheheh
jsut meant it as a another ref for ya ;)

I am behind ya especially on your thread below
not to many smart brains here on building puters
things like Scsi dont help etc.. make me laugh ;)

on the thread below I would look at the new 15.3 cheetah drives
not sure if ya seen the specs yet
Click to expand...
Thanks Chad-

Nah, I know you're not an a* hole like me. :)

Basically, what Intel is saying, (verified by the MS white paper I
linked earlier) is:

A Hyper Thread capable P4/Xeon is a single PHYSICAL processor
containing a "logical" processor, sort of like a processor within a
processor. (2fer deal)

Let's say Hyper Thread PHYSICAL CPU = P1 + L1 = HT1 where P1 = the
physical proc, L1 = logical proc & HT1 = the whole 2fer deal, the
proc with Hyper Threading enabled in the BIOS.

Where BOTH WinXP/2K are dependent on the BIOS to report the # of
actual procs, (physical & logical) they way WinXP addresses them is:

WinXP address = P1 + P2 (2nd PHYSICAL proc, dual CPU system) +
L1 + L2 (HT enabled in BIOS, L1 + L2 = the "logical" or HT
portion of each physical proc)
Since XP is certified/licensed for dual procs & it addresses the
physical procs before the logical (HT) procs during boot, all is OK
regarding OS LICENSING. (IE: The OS can tell the difference between
a physical proc & logical or HT procs)

Win2K address = P1 + L1 + P2 + L2
Win2K Pro is only licensed for TWO procs. Since it CAN'T tell the
difference between a physical or "logical" (HT) proc, it addresses
P1 + L1, fills the OS license out & won't even see your second
proc. (HT enabled in BIOS)

NOT optimal, (as shown on the Intel link you supplied) since you're
not even getting any use out of your second physical proc.

I went against the grain (As I always seem to do) & use Win2K
Advanced Server. Since it is licensed for a 4 CPU system, it sees
my 2 physical procs as well as the "logical" (HT) procs, as
evidenced by this screenie:
http://www.pbase.com/image/11160279

Win2K Pro would have only shown TWO procs, & if HT was enabled in
BIOS the two being used would NOT be your two PHYSICAL procs but
ONE + HT. Basically, no different than running a single 3.06GHz P4
desktop proc...

I'm toying with Windows.NET RC2 (Windows 2003 Server) which
seems to have addressed the whole XP/SCSI issue as far as
write cache enabled & write cache optimization, but we'll see, I
have very little seat time so far with it.

Regarding the X15.3K U320 drives-
The ones I have are early production, early firmware. They
underperform on my U160 SCSI RAID cards, verified by Seagate Tech
Support as well. (DieU at amdmb.com had the same prob)
They're supposed to be introducing new firmware to address it at
some point, of course the other solution would be to toss my U160
SCSI RAID cards & drop another $3K to outfit my rigs with U320 SCSI
RAID cards. Not likely to happen right now. :)
Click to expand...
--
Chad D (aka Honu)
http://www.panotools.com
http://www.happyfish.com
 
ditto what hyperfish wrote
you have to remebmer that duals have more overhead and that can task them
also remember duals do well in certain situations
and can pull ahead when multi tasking not just outlook and icq open ;)
but serious stuff with huge files

also remember one thing with a lot of duals on workstations and what makes them scream is good graphics cards with optimized drivers for special aps

those $500 - $1500 cards can make a system go faster than any regular card can in certain situations

also in what aps ???

Adobe uses duals but does a poor job of using them and not all filters are using them proper either

duals are great with certain cad programs etc...

just some other thoughts ;)
wzictrace said:
If you went with Dual 2.8ghz Xeons, they would (properly
configured) blow
a 3.06ghz P4 right out of the water.
Click to expand...
--
Chad D (aka Honu)
http://www.panotools.com
http://www.happyfish.com
 
zidar said:
--
It's not about stuff.
http://www.pbase.com/zidar
Click to expand...
I run an ageing Mac G3, when it hit the shops it was very swift. Now 350 Mhz is a bit sad. So I am in the process of wondering about a new computer. I was also recommended dual xeon for graphics as I am about to start doing some 3D modeling. I have also looked at the PIV 3 .06 machines. You certainly do get a big bang for the money. The Macs realy do need abig hike in speed.

But on the other side the guys that I talked to about building a machine (they do it for a living) none of them have had a good word to say about Windows XP. That was 3 different people at 3 different shops.

The fact is my G3 has and is earning me a lot of money at the speed it runs at now, so I figure a Mac a lot faster will do me fine. OSX now I have got used to it, is so smooth and well thought out. I am loathed to swap it for a flaky microsoft wannabe. Plus when I buy a scanner external drive or other additions it does not occur to me that when I plug it in and switch it on it will work, without me having to know about computer hardware.
What I want is a pentium running OS X.

I did wonder about Linux but I do not think P/Shop has a version. I asked one of the builders about Linux against windows his reply "It reminds me a bit of the old Ms dos system you use't run, in as much as when you tel the computer to do something it goes of and does it, were as windows goes and does what it thought you meant" having nevr used it I can not comment.

In a nut shell I think the Mac is best for me 'cos that's what I know. If I was starting again I might be tempted by a P IV.

Cheers,
Kevin
 
Member said:
In a nut shell I think the Mac is best for me 'cos that's what I
know. If I was starting again I might be tempted by a P IV.
Click to expand...
Keep your Mac, get a screaming fast PC and network them either with cable and a cheap ($20) router or with an Airport card in the Mac and a WiFi card in the PC. OS 10.2 handles networking with a PC via SMB very well. You can then share folders on each machine. I have this setup with a G4 and a PC. Make the PC do the heavy lifting (RAW conversion) and while it churns away you will be running Photoshop on the Mac.

Paul
 
Rich Claypole said:
Xeon CPU's are more expensive because of the greater amount of 2nd
level Cache. Pentium III / IV CPU's have 512K typically, XEONS come
(or used to) with 512K or 1Mb or 2Mb the more cahce the more
expensive the chips....The second level cache helps to improve
performance when running multiple CPU's. So for a dual CPU system
you may run XEON CPUS with 1Mb Cache. The XEON chips are therfore
more scalable than the standard consumer PIII or PIV chips. A dual
Xeon CPU system should perform better than a dual PIII or PIV
system of equivilant CPU speeds.
Click to expand...
Actually, not anymore, the price difference between a 2.8ghz P4 and a 2.8ghz Xeon DP is about 50$. The only difference between the 2 is that the Xeon supports 2 cpu and not the P4. The Xeon MP is the one that is alot more expensive since its supports 4 processors and up.

--
Joel
G2 galleries: http://www.pbase.com/joels/powershot_g2
D60 galleries: http://www.pbase.com/joels/d60

'A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.'
 
SCSI does have its place. Try advanced video editing while multitasking, believe me, you'll make an IDE system crawl on its knees. But, for a photo processing system, or some small time video editing, you are completly right, an IDE Raid system is very fast and a great value. Even better will serial ATA when it becomes available. Greater performance, same IDE prices.

--
Joel
G2 galleries: http://www.pbase.com/joels/powershot_g2
D60 galleries: http://www.pbase.com/joels/d60

'A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.'
 
Overall, it depends on your applications. Photoshop, will not get to much of a gain from the dual CPUs, only some part of PS take advantage of a dual system.

You can save alot of money if you activate Hyperthreading on a 3.06ghz system.....

--
Joel
G2 galleries: http://www.pbase.com/joels/powershot_g2
D60 galleries: http://www.pbase.com/joels/d60

'A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.'
 
With DDR2 coming this summer, faster FSB, activating hyperthreading, all those things will help alot on the speed of the system.

Don't put to much hope on RDRAM tough, Intel is abandoning it for now, no more new chipsets coming out with support for RDRAM. Next year, they are toughts about develloping a chipset for RDRAM 2.

I spent yesterday with some Intel technical guys :-)

--
Joel
G2 galleries: http://www.pbase.com/joels/powershot_g2
D60 galleries: http://www.pbase.com/joels/d60

'A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.'
 
I wouldn't say that. Lots of them use Macs, but also lots of them are switching to PC. There are no real advantages performance wise in favor of Macs. But, if you are used to the Mac interface, then you are working alot faster with it. Same goes if you know your PC interface well, you are working faster with it.

But MAcs are not faster, the platform is aging. Yes, you have a nice interface, a great desing overall wich adds to the appeal of a MAC, but, technologicaly, right now, they are a bit behind. That's not to say they won't be coming around soon with the ability to use better processors next summer, but for now, I see ALOT of people switching to PC for its performance and power.

--
Joel
G2 galleries: http://www.pbase.com/joels/powershot_g2
D60 galleries: http://www.pbase.com/joels/d60

'A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.'
 
Quality wise, AMD is not there. The Intel offerings are way better in quality. The overall Intel platform is better built than the AMD (this includes the motherboard and chipsets). Intel invest billions in R&D wich is not the cast with AMD.

We are building one of the biggest cluster in the world for our local University (I'm directly overseeing the project). It will contains over 1400 nodes. The nodes are custom built since this what the university wanted. At first, they where going with AMD, but after we sat down (multiple times) we convinced the customers of the better quality from Intel and we also saw from multiple tests that the Intel is better engineered, runs cooler and is a more stable platform.

--
Joel
G2 galleries: http://www.pbase.com/joels/powershot_g2
D60 galleries: http://www.pbase.com/joels/d60

'A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.'
 
Todays high preformance PC's, both AMD and Intel are memory bandwidth limited when running real applications that have huge data files. Adding a second cpu accessing the same memory usually does not improve overall performance.

Benchmarks, all benchmarks... can be missleading unless you understand exactly what is executed. If you don't know the details, all the details, snow jobs are easy.

Disk operations can make a huge difference. Operations using 2 arms are many times faster that a single arm moving any distance across the disk.

JG
wzictrace said:
If you went with Dual 2.8ghz Xeons, they would (properly
configured) blow
a 3.06ghz P4 right out of the water.
Click to expand...
 
Richard,

Xeon will only out perform P4 on server applications. If I was you and I had the money to buy 2 Xeon (dual Xean), then I would just buy 8 3.0Ghz P4. You can have 8 Photoshop running at the same time. Besides, 3.0Ghz P4 and higher have Hyper-Thread technology which will directly benefit Photoshop already.

Daniel
Richard Ropog said:
I have a good friend that loves to build computers. He is a server
expert and loves the new Xeon chips. I want to build the ultimate
PC for Photoshop but I know nothing about the Xeon since it is
primarily a server and workstation processor. He has promised to
walk me through it every step of the way allowing me to maximize my
results for a reasonable price. He does not care what I use, as
long as I am happy. I have read the Rob Galrbraith article on the
strength of the new 3.0 GHZ Pentium and was impressed with the
performance.
The last paragraph says that the only way to improve performance is
to go duel processor.
I have 2 questions:
1- is the Xeon 2.8 GHZ going to offer anything perceivable over the
3.0 Pentium?
2- is going to a duel processor of either chip going to offer much
of a difference.
Any and all advice would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top