Building a PC

Started Apr 13, 2013 | Discussions
OP Tareq Abdulla Regular Member • Posts: 259
Re: Memory rank

raminolta wrote:

32gb may be more than what you need unless you do video editing. Working with a single photo in Photoshop, Lightroom or similar, would needn't probably need that much ram, IMHO.

Yes, i am sure that 32GB will be more than what i need, and i said i will start with video too, i have one friend who is using my gear for rents to help me and he is getting into video world a lot, so he pushing me to start and buy video gear more, that means sooner or later i may start video-graphy as well.

 Tareq Abdulla's gear list:Tareq Abdulla's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark II N Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 5D +18 more
rhit
rhit Regular Member • Posts: 246
Re: A "better" PC

Sounds like you're basically attempting to "future proof" your machine at time of purchase.  Every two years, CPUs and GPUs theoretically double in number of transistors per die.  They also run cooler, allowing them to run faster before hitting thresholds.

That's all fine and good, but if you buy a Ferrari to commute to your market down the street, you're wasting a perfectly good machine.

Personally, I think you're looking at peoples' answers with the machine you intend to build already in mind.  And that's fine.  Who are we to tell you what to build?

But, in your pursuit of future proofing, do consider this before you drop your money on hardware.  I built my machine three years ago.  It has an i7-950 (OC'd to 4Ghz), 12Gb RAM (OC'd), a GTX 680 SC (OC'd as well), an Intel 510 SSD (main drive), and two WD Caviar Black disk drives for data and backup.  Everything that can be overclocked is.

I'm not a huge gamer, but when I do run games, the machine runs everything on "ultra" at 60 FPS.  And PS CS5, LR4, Pinnacle Studio 15 all run without a hitch.  I don't like to wait on a computer ever, and, three years after the build, I still never have to wait for this one to get the job done.

Whatever you buy, keep in mind that it will be obsolete in 6 months.  Also keep in mind that the pace of software development optimized for multi-cores and super GPUs is far behind the pace of CPU and GPU development.

I think Chris Noble makes a good point in PSUs.  A good PSU is super important.  I'd also add that a good case makes a huge difference in effective cable management and airflow.  I have the Corsair Graphite 600T.  It keeps things cool, has two giant 200mm fans to suck air in and blow it out, built-in grommets for cable management, clasped side doors (no screws for access), modular hard drive racks, mesh screens to keep dust out, and it doesn't have any stupid lights to make it looks like something out of "Fast and Furious."  Three years on, temps in my machine have remained the same as Day 1, there's never any dust in the machine, and all cables are tucked away behind the panel that holds the motherboard.

 rhit's gear list:rhit's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +8 more
OP Tareq Abdulla Regular Member • Posts: 259
Re: A "better" PC

rhit wrote:

Sounds like you're basically attempting to "future proof" your machine at time of purchase.  Every two years, CPUs and GPUs theoretically double in number of transistors per die.  They also run cooler, allowing them to run faster before hitting thresholds.

That's all fine and good, but if you buy a Ferrari to commute to your market down the street, you're wasting a perfectly good machine.

Personally, I think you're looking at peoples' answers with the machine you intend to build already in mind.  And that's fine.  Who are we to tell you what to build?

But, in your pursuit of future proofing, do consider this before you drop your money on hardware.  I built my machine three years ago.  It has an i7-950 (OC'd to 4Ghz), 12Gb RAM (OC'd), a GTX 680 SC (OC'd as well), an Intel 510 SSD (main drive), and two WD Caviar Black disk drives for data and backup.  Everything that can be overclocked is.

I'm not a huge gamer, but when I do run games, the machine runs everything on "ultra" at 60 FPS.  And PS CS5, LR4, Pinnacle Studio 15 all run without a hitch.  I don't like to wait on a computer ever, and, three years after the build, I still never have to wait for this one to get the job done.

Whatever you buy, keep in mind that it will be obsolete in 6 months.  Also keep in mind that the pace of software development optimized for multi-cores and super GPUs is far behind the pace of CPU and GPU development.

I think Chris Noble makes a good point in PSUs.  A good PSU is super important.  I'd also add that a good case makes a huge difference in effective cable management and airflow.  I have the Corsair Graphite 600T.  It keeps things cool, has two giant 200mm fans to suck air in and blow it out, built-in grommets for cable management, clasped side doors (no screws for access), modular hard drive racks, mesh screens to keep dust out, and it doesn't have any stupid lights to make it looks like something out of "Fast and Furious."  Three years on, temps in my machine have remained the same as Day 1, there's never any dust in the machine, and all cables are tucked away behind the panel that holds the motherboard.

Good to hear that, thanks.

Well, i didn't decide yet, and i try to discuss all possibilities, but mostly people recommend the cheaper options always over something more expensive, and later on they recommend something expensive when they know what will be the purposes, I only decided on which CPU and RAM, the other things are all not a problem to choose whatever, believe me, i heard some advice me even to go for i3 and i5 and forget i7, so i think either i accept all people recommendations, or take when i need from them and i go with some i need for myself, or better not to ask because everyone will put his opinion and experience as a right suggestion regardless of budget or reason to use.

 Tareq Abdulla's gear list:Tareq Abdulla's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark II N Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 5D +18 more
rhit
rhit Regular Member • Posts: 246
Re: A "better" PC

Tareq Abdulla wrote:

rhit wrote:

Sounds like you're basically attempting to "future proof" your machine at time of purchase.  Every two years, CPUs and GPUs theoretically double in number of transistors per die.  They also run cooler, allowing them to run faster before hitting thresholds.

That's all fine and good, but if you buy a Ferrari to commute to your market down the street, you're wasting a perfectly good machine.

Personally, I think you're looking at peoples' answers with the machine you intend to build already in mind.  And that's fine.  Who are we to tell you what to build?

But, in your pursuit of future proofing, do consider this before you drop your money on hardware.  I built my machine three years ago.  It has an i7-950 (OC'd to 4Ghz), 12Gb RAM (OC'd), a GTX 680 SC (OC'd as well), an Intel 510 SSD (main drive), and two WD Caviar Black disk drives for data and backup.  Everything that can be overclocked is.

I'm not a huge gamer, but when I do run games, the machine runs everything on "ultra" at 60 FPS.  And PS CS5, LR4, Pinnacle Studio 15 all run without a hitch.  I don't like to wait on a computer ever, and, three years after the build, I still never have to wait for this one to get the job done.

Whatever you buy, keep in mind that it will be obsolete in 6 months.  Also keep in mind that the pace of software development optimized for multi-cores and super GPUs is far behind the pace of CPU and GPU development.

I think Chris Noble makes a good point in PSUs.  A good PSU is super important.  I'd also add that a good case makes a huge difference in effective cable management and airflow.  I have the Corsair Graphite 600T.  It keeps things cool, has two giant 200mm fans to suck air in and blow it out, built-in grommets for cable management, clasped side doors (no screws for access), modular hard drive racks, mesh screens to keep dust out, and it doesn't have any stupid lights to make it looks like something out of "Fast and Furious."  Three years on, temps in my machine have remained the same as Day 1, there's never any dust in the machine, and all cables are tucked away behind the panel that holds the motherboard.

Good to hear that, thanks.

Well, i didn't decide yet, and i try to discuss all possibilities, but mostly people recommend the cheaper options always over something more expensive, and later on they recommend something expensive when they know what will be the purposes, I only decided on which CPU and RAM, the other things are all not a problem to choose whatever, believe me, i heard some advice me even to go for i3 and i5 and forget i7, so i think either i accept all people recommendations, or take when i need from them and i go with some i need for myself, or better not to ask because everyone will put his opinion and experience as a right suggestion regardless of budget or reason to use.

Fair enough.  

I would not recommend an i3 or i5.  i7 is the way to go.  The real question is just is if you need those two extra cores.  Personally, I don't think your need those two extra cores.  If you are, however, dead set on a CPU with more than 4 cores, I think you should check out AMD's line up as well.  No harm in taking a look.

Here's a link  that has a comparison of all current chips applying 6 filters to a 69mb TIF file.  Should give you some ideas as to performance.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/-33-Adobe-Photoshop-CS-6,3169.html

 rhit's gear list:rhit's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +8 more
Jim Cockfield Forum Pro • Posts: 16,333
what are you using now?

What do you have now?

Judging by your recent thread about improving boot time for a laptop, you're spending a lot more money than you should be spending, given price/performance ratio.

It's your money.   But, you can probably get 90% of the performance for half the cost if you're a good shopper.

IOW, that last 10% is what typically costs [a lot] more.

Future proofing may sound like a good idea.  But, from a value perspective, it's a terrible idea.

That's because technology is improving at a very rapid rate.

So, I'd buy a typical mainstream box using a Core i7 3770 now; and upgrade it again in another 2 or 3 years.

Chances are, you can find a machine that's much faster 2 or 3 years down the road for the same price. versus spending twice as much on a machine that's faster than everything else now, and trying to stretch it's usefulness to more than 2 or 3 years.

Heck, you can probably buy something like a Dell XPS 8500 with a Core i7 3770, plenty of memory, mSATA slot for an SSD without wasting a drive bay, wireless n/bluetooth, 64 Bit Win 8 (or Win 7 if you're a good shopper), plenty of storage space, dedicated video card, etc., for under $1K.    Yet, by the time you add all of the extras in (drives, operating system, etc.), you could easily spend twice as much on a system with a Core i7 3930K or dramatically more expensive 3960x or 3970x.

Yet, you're just not going to get twice as much performance, even though you may spend twice as much.   Sorry, you are just wasting your money going to anything faster than a typical mainstream Core i7 3770 based machine from Dell, Lenova, HP, etc.; unless you have very specific needs and requirements; since the performance difference is just not worth the price you'd have to pay.

-- hide signature --

JimC
------

OP Tareq Abdulla Regular Member • Posts: 259
Re: A "better" PC

rhit wrote:

Tareq Abdulla wrote:

rhit wrote:

Sounds like you're basically attempting to "future proof" your machine at time of purchase.  Every two years, CPUs and GPUs theoretically double in number of transistors per die.  They also run cooler, allowing them to run faster before hitting thresholds.

That's all fine and good, but if you buy a Ferrari to commute to your market down the street, you're wasting a perfectly good machine.

Personally, I think you're looking at peoples' answers with the machine you intend to build already in mind.  And that's fine.  Who are we to tell you what to build?

But, in your pursuit of future proofing, do consider this before you drop your money on hardware.  I built my machine three years ago.  It has an i7-950 (OC'd to 4Ghz), 12Gb RAM (OC'd), a GTX 680 SC (OC'd as well), an Intel 510 SSD (main drive), and two WD Caviar Black disk drives for data and backup.  Everything that can be overclocked is.

I'm not a huge gamer, but when I do run games, the machine runs everything on "ultra" at 60 FPS.  And PS CS5, LR4, Pinnacle Studio 15 all run without a hitch.  I don't like to wait on a computer ever, and, three years after the build, I still never have to wait for this one to get the job done.

Whatever you buy, keep in mind that it will be obsolete in 6 months.  Also keep in mind that the pace of software development optimized for multi-cores and super GPUs is far behind the pace of CPU and GPU development.

I think Chris Noble makes a good point in PSUs.  A good PSU is super important.  I'd also add that a good case makes a huge difference in effective cable management and airflow.  I have the Corsair Graphite 600T.  It keeps things cool, has two giant 200mm fans to suck air in and blow it out, built-in grommets for cable management, clasped side doors (no screws for access), modular hard drive racks, mesh screens to keep dust out, and it doesn't have any stupid lights to make it looks like something out of "Fast and Furious."  Three years on, temps in my machine have remained the same as Day 1, there's never any dust in the machine, and all cables are tucked away behind the panel that holds the motherboard.

Good to hear that, thanks.

Well, i didn't decide yet, and i try to discuss all possibilities, but mostly people recommend the cheaper options always over something more expensive, and later on they recommend something expensive when they know what will be the purposes, I only decided on which CPU and RAM, the other things are all not a problem to choose whatever, believe me, i heard some advice me even to go for i3 and i5 and forget i7, so i think either i accept all people recommendations, or take when i need from them and i go with some i need for myself, or better not to ask because everyone will put his opinion and experience as a right suggestion regardless of budget or reason to use.

Fair enough.  

I would not recommend an i3 or i5.  i7 is the way to go.  The real question is just is if you need those two extra cores.  Personally, I don't think your need those two extra cores.  If you are, however, dead set on a CPU with more than 4 cores, I think you should check out AMD's line up as well.  No harm in taking a look.

Here's a link  that has a comparison of all current chips applying 6 filters to a 69mb TIF file.  Should give you some ideas as to performance.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/-33-Adobe-Photoshop-CS-6,3169.html

Well, in that link you posted i see that i7-3930K is the fastest, and it is the one i was thinking to get, i know it is not that much improvement over i7-3770K, but thinking about just processing 69MB TIFF givin those results, then what about 100-500MB TIFF files? Well, i will go with the fastest then, 5-10seconds different can be a lot if i process hundreds of photos converting to TIFF, i deal with 60MP RAW files and most of the time i convert them to TIFF instead of JPEG, not sure why i have to save money here if it will not save time even for seconds which will turns to minutes or hours if i process loads of photos, and i upload them one by one or send them by email at the same time.

 Tareq Abdulla's gear list:Tareq Abdulla's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark II N Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 5D +18 more
rhit
rhit Regular Member • Posts: 246
Re: A "better" PC

Tareq Abdulla wrote:

rhit wrote:

Tareq Abdulla wrote:

rhit wrote:

Sounds like you're basically attempting to "future proof" your machine at time of purchase.  Every two years, CPUs and GPUs theoretically double in number of transistors per die.  They also run cooler, allowing them to run faster before hitting thresholds.

That's all fine and good, but if you buy a Ferrari to commute to your market down the street, you're wasting a perfectly good machine.

Personally, I think you're looking at peoples' answers with the machine you intend to build already in mind.  And that's fine.  Who are we to tell you what to build?

But, in your pursuit of future proofing, do consider this before you drop your money on hardware.  I built my machine three years ago.  It has an i7-950 (OC'd to 4Ghz), 12Gb RAM (OC'd), a GTX 680 SC (OC'd as well), an Intel 510 SSD (main drive), and two WD Caviar Black disk drives for data and backup.  Everything that can be overclocked is.

I'm not a huge gamer, but when I do run games, the machine runs everything on "ultra" at 60 FPS.  And PS CS5, LR4, Pinnacle Studio 15 all run without a hitch.  I don't like to wait on a computer ever, and, three years after the build, I still never have to wait for this one to get the job done.

Whatever you buy, keep in mind that it will be obsolete in 6 months.  Also keep in mind that the pace of software development optimized for multi-cores and super GPUs is far behind the pace of CPU and GPU development.

I think Chris Noble makes a good point in PSUs.  A good PSU is super important.  I'd also add that a good case makes a huge difference in effective cable management and airflow.  I have the Corsair Graphite 600T.  It keeps things cool, has two giant 200mm fans to suck air in and blow it out, built-in grommets for cable management, clasped side doors (no screws for access), modular hard drive racks, mesh screens to keep dust out, and it doesn't have any stupid lights to make it looks like something out of "Fast and Furious."  Three years on, temps in my machine have remained the same as Day 1, there's never any dust in the machine, and all cables are tucked away behind the panel that holds the motherboard.

Good to hear that, thanks.

Well, i didn't decide yet, and i try to discuss all possibilities, but mostly people recommend the cheaper options always over something more expensive, and later on they recommend something expensive when they know what will be the purposes, I only decided on which CPU and RAM, the other things are all not a problem to choose whatever, believe me, i heard some advice me even to go for i3 and i5 and forget i7, so i think either i accept all people recommendations, or take when i need from them and i go with some i need for myself, or better not to ask because everyone will put his opinion and experience as a right suggestion regardless of budget or reason to use.

Fair enough.  

I would not recommend an i3 or i5.  i7 is the way to go.  The real question is just is if you need those two extra cores.  Personally, I don't think your need those two extra cores.  If you are, however, dead set on a CPU with more than 4 cores, I think you should check out AMD's line up as well.  No harm in taking a look.

Here's a link  that has a comparison of all current chips applying 6 filters to a 69mb TIF file.  Should give you some ideas as to performance.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/-33-Adobe-Photoshop-CS-6,3169.html

Well, in that link you posted i see that i7-3930K is the fastest, and it is the one i was thinking to get, i know it is not that much improvement over i7-3770K, but thinking about just processing 69MB TIFF givin those results, then what about 100-500MB TIFF files? Well, i will go with the fastest then, 5-10seconds different can be a lot if i process hundreds of photos converting to TIFF, i deal with 60MP RAW files and most of the time i convert them to TIFF instead of JPEG, not sure why i have to save money here if it will not save time even for seconds which will turns to minutes or hours if i process loads of photos, and i upload them one by one or send them by email at the same time.

Keep in mind that the test is the application of six CS6 filters to a TIFF file.  The test doesn't specify if it's six at once or in sequence; I think it's most likely in sequence.  In real world use, the difference won't be nearly as noticeable.

If you have the money for the top-of-the-line chip, go for it.  The performance per dollar drops significantly, however, once you go into the higher level 6 core chips as compared to the 3770.  It's all about diminishing returns.  You can spend more money, but with each additional dollar you put in, your return on that cost is reduced.  The only applications that would really really really max out the chip would be very complex mathematical calculations, modeling and simulations, or intensive 3D rendering involving many vectors, particles, etc.

I'm not sure what would be more beneficial to your photo editing - the 6 core chip or running SATA III SSDs in RAID0.  Hopefully someone else can comment.

 rhit's gear list:rhit's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +8 more
OP Tareq Abdulla Regular Member • Posts: 259
Re: A "better" PC

rhit wrote:

Tareq Abdulla wrote:

rhit wrote:

Tareq Abdulla wrote:

rhit wrote:

Sounds like you're basically attempting to "future proof" your machine at time of purchase.  Every two years, CPUs and GPUs theoretically double in number of transistors per die.  They also run cooler, allowing them to run faster before hitting thresholds.

That's all fine and good, but if you buy a Ferrari to commute to your market down the street, you're wasting a perfectly good machine.

Personally, I think you're looking at peoples' answers with the machine you intend to build already in mind.  And that's fine.  Who are we to tell you what to build?

But, in your pursuit of future proofing, do consider this before you drop your money on hardware.  I built my machine three years ago.  It has an i7-950 (OC'd to 4Ghz), 12Gb RAM (OC'd), a GTX 680 SC (OC'd as well), an Intel 510 SSD (main drive), and two WD Caviar Black disk drives for data and backup.  Everything that can be overclocked is.

I'm not a huge gamer, but when I do run games, the machine runs everything on "ultra" at 60 FPS.  And PS CS5, LR4, Pinnacle Studio 15 all run without a hitch.  I don't like to wait on a computer ever, and, three years after the build, I still never have to wait for this one to get the job done.

Whatever you buy, keep in mind that it will be obsolete in 6 months.  Also keep in mind that the pace of software development optimized for multi-cores and super GPUs is far behind the pace of CPU and GPU development.

I think Chris Noble makes a good point in PSUs.  A good PSU is super important.  I'd also add that a good case makes a huge difference in effective cable management and airflow.  I have the Corsair Graphite 600T.  It keeps things cool, has two giant 200mm fans to suck air in and blow it out, built-in grommets for cable management, clasped side doors (no screws for access), modular hard drive racks, mesh screens to keep dust out, and it doesn't have any stupid lights to make it looks like something out of "Fast and Furious."  Three years on, temps in my machine have remained the same as Day 1, there's never any dust in the machine, and all cables are tucked away behind the panel that holds the motherboard.

Good to hear that, thanks.

Well, i didn't decide yet, and i try to discuss all possibilities, but mostly people recommend the cheaper options always over something more expensive, and later on they recommend something expensive when they know what will be the purposes, I only decided on which CPU and RAM, the other things are all not a problem to choose whatever, believe me, i heard some advice me even to go for i3 and i5 and forget i7, so i think either i accept all people recommendations, or take when i need from them and i go with some i need for myself, or better not to ask because everyone will put his opinion and experience as a right suggestion regardless of budget or reason to use.

Fair enough.  

I would not recommend an i3 or i5.  i7 is the way to go.  The real question is just is if you need those two extra cores.  Personally, I don't think your need those two extra cores.  If you are, however, dead set on a CPU with more than 4 cores, I think you should check out AMD's line up as well.  No harm in taking a look.

Here's a link  that has a comparison of all current chips applying 6 filters to a 69mb TIF file.  Should give you some ideas as to performance.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/-33-Adobe-Photoshop-CS-6,3169.html

Well, in that link you posted i see that i7-3930K is the fastest, and it is the one i was thinking to get, i know it is not that much improvement over i7-3770K, but thinking about just processing 69MB TIFF givin those results, then what about 100-500MB TIFF files? Well, i will go with the fastest then, 5-10seconds different can be a lot if i process hundreds of photos converting to TIFF, i deal with 60MP RAW files and most of the time i convert them to TIFF instead of JPEG, not sure why i have to save money here if it will not save time even for seconds which will turns to minutes or hours if i process loads of photos, and i upload them one by one or send them by email at the same time.

Keep in mind that the test is the application of six CS6 filters to a TIFF file.  The test doesn't specify if it's six at once or in sequence; I think it's most likely in sequence.  In real world use, the difference won't be nearly as noticeable.

If you have the money for the top-of-the-line chip, go for it.  The performance per dollar drops significantly, however, once you go into the higher level 6 core chips as compared to the 3770.  It's all about diminishing returns.  You can spend more money, but with each additional dollar you put in, your return on that cost is reduced.  The only applications that would really really really max out the chip would be very complex mathematical calculations, modeling and simulations, or intensive 3D rendering involving many vectors, particles, etc.

I'm not sure what would be more beneficial to your photo editing - the 6 core chip or running SATA III SSDs in RAID0.  Hopefully someone else can comment.

I feel so happy that you care about money, so it is not just any advice, i have to keep in mind, still i didn't decide to build yet, maybe within 2 months i will be done on decision, but i really will tell you that i have good enough budget to buy some expensive without any regret, if i feel i don't want to spend money then your recommendations are the reason for sure.

 Tareq Abdulla's gear list:Tareq Abdulla's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark II N Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 5D +18 more
Leon Obers Senior Member • Posts: 2,788
Re: A "better" PC

rhi Gb file t wrote:

I'm not sure what would be more beneficial to your photo editing - the 6 core chip or running SATA III SSDs in RAID0.  Hopefully someone else can comment.

It greatly depends to the kind of work.
e.g. I am in school photography business. Many hundreds of files for one school, but not particular big files. (Processing for 5x7 inch printing files). Batch processing images within CS6 for optimizing images, copy several smaller pictures at one print, unsharp mask etc., output to JPG. There is hardly any benefit using RAID-0 setting of two Samsung 840 Pro SSD's (over 1000 Mb/s), in comparison to a normal hard-drive. Set CPU (i7 3770K) to 4200 Mhz (100% x42). Processing of 280 images takes 10 minutes, 30 seconds. The same processing to a hard-drive takes only 10 seconds more. CPU over-clock to 4500 Mhz, it is only 15 seconds faster.

I guess advantages using RAID-0 SSD can be found when processing huge files, e.g. to stitch 16 bit PSD files for panorama's in rows plus columns for big advertising prints (several meters). Or converting blue ray HD-movies of many Gigabytes of data. Editing movie files etc.
For that, I think you have benefit from both a fast CPU processing + RAID-0 SSD setting as well.

(E.g. 16 bit - 4.9 Gb file is loaded within Photoshop CS6 in about 5-6 seconds.)

-- hide signature --

Leon Obers

Roland Wooster Senior Member • Posts: 2,092
What applications do you plan to run?

Tareq,

The best PC, whether on a budget, or completely unconstrained is often based on variables such as what software you plan to run, how many monitors you need to drive, and your workflow.

If you are doing video editing the 6C/12T SNB-E Core i7 39xx series is the way to go, the extra cores, particularly combined with nVidia graphics enable a very smooth editing work flow. I personally use the 3960X along with an Asus X79, 64GB memory, and SLI graphics, for a very slick triple monitor 1080P/60 video solution, one screen has the video full screen, another the premiere pro tools, and the third is used for Audition.

If you are looking at "future proofing" for video editing I have also been editing 4K Red Scarlet 3840*2160/24fps footage, transcoded through Cineform AVI, on a SNB-E 62/12T system, again with 64GB, nVidia graphics, and a SSD.

For gaming, the killer benefit of the X79 platform, and 6C CPU's, is actually no so much the cores, but the 40 lanes of PCIe that the CPU supports. The standard Core i7 4C/8T CPU's have only 16 lanes of PCIe. So if you need to drive multiple graphics cards, or graphics cards and additional server grade RAID controllers for massive storage (not for games, but video apps), then the High End Desktop is again the route to go because you've got so much more bandwidth for plugin cards.

The High End Desktop (X79) platform also has 4 memory channels, which with some motherboard designs means 8 memory slots. Given the memory slots for Core i7 are limited to 8GB per slot, you can get up to 64GB only with the X79 platform, and limited to 32GB for the mainstream Core i7.

32GB is plenty for most users, but 64GB can benefit you if you create, or edit multi layer huge pano files, if you use After Effects, and if you plan to edit 4K video files.

Do not forget to load the system up with SSD's, these make an absolutely critical performance difference to the system. At a minimum you should get a Sata GenIII, 6Gbps drive for your boot and appliations. If you want to take a step up from there you can get two and RAID-0 them together, which doubles your sequential read and write performance - which is largely what a photo or video editing applciation will benefit from. I've used Intel SSD's with great success, and have many in RAID-0 arrays, on one system I'm even running 10 in the same box and although it's heavily overclocked and hot, they humm along with 100% reliabilty.

Roland.

-- hide signature --
OP Tareq Abdulla Regular Member • Posts: 259
Re: What applications do you plan to run?

Roland Wooster wrote:

Tareq,

The best PC, whether on a budget, or completely unconstrained is often based on variables such as what software you plan to run, how many monitors you need to drive, and your workflow.

If you are doing video editing the 6C/12T SNB-E Core i7 39xx series is the way to go, the extra cores, particularly combined with nVidia graphics enable a very smooth editing work flow. I personally use the 3960X along with an Asus X79, 64GB memory, and SLI graphics, for a very slick triple monitor 1080P/60 video solution, one screen has the video full screen, another the premiere pro tools, and the third is used for Audition.

If you are looking at "future proofing" for video editing I have also been editing 4K Red Scarlet 3840*2160/24fps footage, transcoded through Cineform AVI, on a SNB-E 62/12T system, again with 64GB, nVidia graphics, and a SSD.

For gaming, the killer benefit of the X79 platform, and 6C CPU's, is actually no so much the cores, but the 40 lanes of PCIe that the CPU supports. The standard Core i7 4C/8T CPU's have only 16 lanes of PCIe. So if you need to drive multiple graphics cards, or graphics cards and additional server grade RAID controllers for massive storage (not for games, but video apps), then the High End Desktop is again the route to go because you've got so much more bandwidth for plugin cards.

The High End Desktop (X79) platform also has 4 memory channels, which with some motherboard designs means 8 memory slots. Given the memory slots for Core i7 are limited to 8GB per slot, you can get up to 64GB only with the X79 platform, and limited to 32GB for the mainstream Core i7.

32GB is plenty for most users, but 64GB can benefit you if you create, or edit multi layer huge pano files, if you use After Effects, and if you plan to edit 4K video files.

Do not forget to load the system up with SSD's, these make an absolutely critical performance difference to the system. At a minimum you should get a Sata GenIII, 6Gbps drive for your boot and appliations. If you want to take a step up from there you can get two and RAID-0 them together, which doubles your sequential read and write performance - which is largely what a photo or video editing applciation will benefit from. I've used Intel SSD's with great success, and have many in RAID-0 arrays, on one system I'm even running 10 in the same box and although it's heavily overclocked and hot, they humm along with 100% reliabilty.

Roland.

-- hide signature --

Thank you very much!

Well, your post is making me to be sure going with i7-39xx model then and something else, i did say many times i will do videos sooner or later, i will use Adobe Master Collection CS6, Phocus for my Digital Hasselblad files, video softwares, AutoCAD, Panos, PC games,...etc, so i want the machine to be able for anything i throw at it from files/games to videos, and i have a plan also to go for 4K videos in the future, i have one friend asking me very much to start video and buy a high end video gear if possible, in this case i don't want to buy or build a PC that will be limited later because i use it heavily, you said i need to go higher, others said i will be fine with middle performance even using videos, i really feel confusing, are they recommending according to performance or according to budget?!!!

 Tareq Abdulla's gear list:Tareq Abdulla's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark II N Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 5D +18 more
ilysaml Forum Member • Posts: 91
Re: What applications do you plan to run?

i really feel confusing, are they recommending according to performance or according to budget?!!!

Ok Mr Tareq, can you please finally rephrase your budget and mainly your puropse of the new machine, I've a wide experience in home builds but actually too lazy to track the thread from the beginning with the mixed thoughts and opinions.

OP Tareq Abdulla Regular Member • Posts: 259
Re: What applications do you plan to run?

ilysaml wrote:

i really feel confusing, are they recommending according to performance or according to budget?!!!

Ok Mr Tareq, can you please finally rephrase your budget and mainly your puropse of the new machine, I've a wide experience in home builds but actually too lazy to track the thread from the beginning with the mixed thoughts and opinions.

Ignore the budget because i can put anywhere between $1000-2500, i don't want to go more than $2500-3000.

For what purpose? Games, Photos processing including Panos stitching, videos, CAD.

 Tareq Abdulla's gear list:Tareq Abdulla's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark II N Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 5D +18 more
ilysaml Forum Member • Posts: 91
Re: What applications do you plan to run?

Tareq Abdulla wrote:

ilysaml wrote:

i really feel confusing, are they recommending according to performance or according to budget?!!!

Ok Mr Tareq, can you please finally rephrase your budget and mainly your puropse of the new machine, I've a wide experience in home builds but actually too lazy to track the thread from the beginning with the mixed thoughts and opinions.

Ignore the budget because i can put anywhere between $1000-2500, i don't want to go more than $2500-3000.

For what purpose? Games, Photos processing including Panos stitching, videos, CAD.

Alright, first of all if you intend to play games at a high resolution and ultra settings (maxed out) you'll need a very high end card such as HD 7970 GHz or GTX 680, if you're planning to play at 2560x resolution with ultra settings, you definitely gonna need to CF/SLI one of those to cope up with the most recent titles and get a smooth gameplay @ 40+ FPS.

However, Desktop Graphics cards are more intended for games, Workstation graphics such as nVidia Quadro or AMD FirePro cards are more intended for Pros and high end Amateurs for intensive Graphics works such as Photo editing, Video editing, 3D, Animation, Maya, Autodex and so... the mid range of those cards can cost you the whole budget you set for the build, and an entry level Quadro or Firepro may be better than a GTX/HD card as those cards have a very precise drivers and they are optimized for those  applications so you have to determine whether you want a Professional graphics card for your professional work, or you're just an amateur and can get away with desktop graphics card, most of the Adobe Suite benefits well from both CUDA and OpenCL/Open GL so you'll have a good acceleration with those cards too.

Speaking of the Platform, I don't see any reason to go for a X79 based Chipset unless every second in your rendering work is valuable, for gaming, a quad core CPU like the core i5 3570K is gonna perform equally to a core i7 3770K CPU, as games is not optimized for more than 4 cores, and doesn't benefit from HTT. Now look at the differences between multiple CPU when it comes to multi-threaded applications and tell me if the huge $$ between i7 3770k and i7 3960X justify the additional gain in seconds.

As you can see, there's no difference between a $100 CPU and $1000 CPU when it comes to playing games at high resolution, and this resolution specifically is GPU intensive than CPU. so now as you see there's no real world benefit of the x79 platform unless you know what you're doing. If you settle on the Z77 based system I'll recommend you parts in the next post, or better idea, if you're not in a hurry, wait for Haswell.

DVT80111 Senior Member • Posts: 2,908
Get the i7-3930 laptop for $2K

They make them for the mobile gamer

 DVT80111's gear list:DVT80111's gear list
Sony RX100 Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 70D Sony Alpha a7R II
DVT80111 Senior Member • Posts: 2,908
here
 DVT80111's gear list:DVT80111's gear list
Sony RX100 Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 70D Sony Alpha a7R II
OP Tareq Abdulla Regular Member • Posts: 259
Re: Get the i7-3930 laptop for $2K

DVT80111 wrote:

They make them for the mobile gamer

Why you didn't tell me about it earlier before 1 month ago, so i wouldn't buy a laptop that i use now [i7-3630QM]

I am soon buying that PC with i7-3930K, i went to a computer shop as the manager or one person there told me it is available, but he was going to cheat me as i saw it with i7-870 or something in that series, i told him bring i7-3930K and i will pay, so tomorrow will see what he will bring me with.

 Tareq Abdulla's gear list:Tareq Abdulla's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark II N Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 5D +18 more
Roland Wooster Senior Member • Posts: 2,092
Re: What applications do you plan to run?

Does the $2500-3000 include monitors, and if so, how many, and what size? This will make a large difference to your optimal build.

Of the applications you list, if you want to do gaming on a 27" 1440P screen, or a triple 24" solution you will need SLI graphics (this means two matching graphics cards - I recommend nVidia based ones, at least 660's, but if you have the cash 670's or 680's). The benefit of the X79, and X39xx CPU series is that this is the only platfrom that can provide a full 16 lane PCI bus to the CPU for each of two cards, and for high end SLI gaming the PCIe bandwidth between the CPU and graphics cards becomes increasingly important as you increase the resolution (or number of monitors, and thus total resolution).

For video editing with Adobe Premiere Pro (part of the Master Collection) the 6C/12T CPU's will make a very large difference, it's not just that you can actually edit faster, but it's that you can do things you simply can't do on the Core i7 mainstream 4C/8T. Specifically, if you are editing 4K video, and you want to preveiw the footage at 50% resolution (i.e. fill a 1080P screen) you'll need a 6C 3930, if you only have 4C you can only run the video at 25% resolution, which is a quarter of a 1080P screen's area, and frankly that's rather sub optimal - although it's all you'd want if you only have one monitor as you need to be able to see the tools - so take that into account.

Anyway, even including monitors here's what I would suggest:

2 Dell U2412M monitors  $300 each

X79 based motherboard $250

Core i7 3930 CPU $550

Intel Watercooler, it's by Astek, $90

Intel 520 SSD, 240GB - it's about $240

3TB Seagate HDD $200

850W PSU $100

Nvidia 670 Graphics card  $400 (one is plenty for video editing, and single monitor gaming, you'll need two if you go to a 27" 1440P monitor, or with triple monitor gaming)

32GB memory  $200 - buy 4*8GB sticks, so if you need to go to 64GB you can add another 32 later

Case $100

Blu Ray Burner $70

Hardware cost: $2800 including monitors, cost and or taxes may be different where you live, so that's a bit of an estimate.

Roland.

-- hide signature --
OP Tareq Abdulla Regular Member • Posts: 259
Re: What applications do you plan to run?

Roland Wooster wrote:

Does the $2500-3000 include monitors, and if so, how many, and what size? This will make a large difference to your optimal build.

Of the applications you list, if you want to do gaming on a 27" 1440P screen, or a triple 24" solution you will need SLI graphics (this means two matching graphics cards - I recommend nVidia based ones, at least 660's, but if you have the cash 670's or 680's). The benefit of the X79, and X39xx CPU series is that this is the only platfrom that can provide a full 16 lane PCI bus to the CPU for each of two cards, and for high end SLI gaming the PCIe bandwidth between the CPU and graphics cards becomes increasingly important as you increase the resolution (or number of monitors, and thus total resolution).

For video editing with Adobe Premiere Pro (part of the Master Collection) the 6C/12T CPU's will make a very large difference, it's not just that you can actually edit faster, but it's that you can do things you simply can't do on the Core i7 mainstream 4C/8T. Specifically, if you are editing 4K video, and you want to preveiw the footage at 50% resolution (i.e. fill a 1080P screen) you'll need a 6C 3930, if you only have 4C you can only run the video at 25% resolution, which is a quarter of a 1080P screen's area, and frankly that's rather sub optimal - although it's all you'd want if you only have one monitor as you need to be able to see the tools - so take that into account.

Anyway, even including monitors here's what I would suggest:

2 Dell U2412M monitors  $300 each

X79 based motherboard $250

Core i7 3930 CPU $550

Intel Watercooler, it's by Astek, $90

Intel 520 SSD, 240GB - it's about $240

3TB Seagate HDD $200

850W PSU $100

Nvidia 670 Graphics card  $400 (one is plenty for video editing, and single monitor gaming, you'll need two if you go to a 27" 1440P monitor, or with triple monitor gaming)

32GB memory  $200 - buy 4*8GB sticks, so if you need to go to 64GB you can add another 32 later

Case $100

Blu Ray Burner $70

Hardware cost: $2800 including monitors, cost and or taxes may be different where you live, so that's a bit of an estimate.

Roland.

-- hide signature --

Thank you very much!

The cost is not including the monitor, i will add another budget for the monitor, and yes, i will go with 27" monitor, i have Apple Cinema Display 30", but i am thinking to buy 2 monitors of 24" or 1 27" monitor, i still have my Eizo ColorEdge 22" that i don't use yet, so maybe one 24" with this one, in all cases i didn't plan on which monitor yet and i will have a separate budget for it.

The specifications you listed is same as or even more than what i was planning to go, so i think you give me the best i can go for and no need to think about it anymore.

 Tareq Abdulla's gear list:Tareq Abdulla's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark II N Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 5D +18 more
OP Tareq Abdulla Regular Member • Posts: 259
Re: Building a PC

Refreshing this thread again.

I talked with one local computer shop near of my house, and they told me they will try to bring the computer with most of what i get but other things are not available, and they give me a starter price, about $1550, it will be ready tonight mostly, so before i go and buy it, do you think the price is fair enough or it too much high?

CPU: i7-3930K

Mobo: Gigabyte X79 [not sure which model], they said this one has a wireless built-in, there are without wireless and also there is Asus motherboard same price of that wireless but without wireless option, Yesterday they were putting Intel ?75 as the motherboard

GPU: Zotec something, Nvidia 4GB, i will be sure to checkout this, but it costs about $135

Memory: 8GB Kingston DDR3

Power: 900W

Cases: Black one i like the design not that much complicated and simple look but elegant

All above price is without HDD, i told them i have the drives [SSD + HHD] to install, so do you think it is too much expensive? If i order the parts all online then it may cost me almost closer with shipping and Tax or duties, so about $50-100 more buying locally is not a bad idea after all, but if you feel that they put too much cost then please let me know quickly.

 Tareq Abdulla's gear list:Tareq Abdulla's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark II N Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 5D +18 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads