Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: tived on May 28, 2009, 02:58:43 am
-
Hi guys,
my Dual Opteron is getting a bit long in the tooth (2x 285's) and noisy.
So I am looking at my options, Intel certainly has come a long way since I build my workstation with their Xeon 5500 series, AMD is releasing their Istanbul 6 core as we speak. but which way to go?
What are you building or having build these days?
purpose of this is to build a fast, very fast Photoshop machine, moving large files around, by large I mean 1GB or larger (last few monster files for me was just under 15GB pano's) so, it is not for the faint heart'
this will be a windows machine x64
what platform, INTEL or AMD can get you the most memory for least amount of money and still be fast?
I will probably build this in stages, but CPU's RAM and mainboard in one hit, new graphics card (current Quadro FX 3400) and hard drives (current various SCSI-3 and Sata2) in steps before or after
I look forward to hear what you have to say - NO MAC thanks!
Henrik
-
The new intel i7 processors with a X58 chipset mother board is hard to beat these days. The triple-channel memory architecture is a big boost as long as you populate the modules in sets of 3 -- an "upgrade of 3GB(3x1GB) to 4GB(2x2GB) RAM will result in reduced performance.
I'm a Western Digital HD fan - Seagates are too noisy.
Video - If you are using LightRoom avoid nvidia cards. Otherwise get the best you can afford. $ and performance is a pretty linear scale in the video arena.
-
The new intel i7 processors with a X58 chipset mother board is hard to beat these days. The triple-channel memory architecture is a big boost as long as you populate the modules in sets of 3 -- an "upgrade of 3GB(3x1GB) to 4GB(2x2GB) RAM will result in reduced performance.
I'm a Western Digital HD fan - Seagates are too noisy.
Video - If you are using LightRoom avoid nvidia cards. Otherwise get the best you can afford. $ and performance is a pretty linear scale in the video arena.
Thanks for your replay MBehrens,
I am sort of looking at Dual Xeon or Dual Opteron's again, the Intel certainly has it going for them. Both AMD and Intel is, are they not always, about to release a couple a new CPU's, AMD's Istanbul which is a 6 core cpu and intel with their Xeon i7, forgot the model number, but its faster then the previous one ;-)
Why go for the dual processor platform, well because there i can add more ram, above 24gb, at least that is the idea.
having said that, the cost of workstation grade computers are quite expensive...eg my dual Opteron cost 2-3 times more then my Quadcore Intel box, not quite comparing apples with apples here but still. However benchmarking them, there is only 10% performance difference, with the advantage to the Opteron.
I guess we can all live the a 10% performance hit, and save $5-8k, but there is something about the Opteron, the way it feels, the way it response that makes it so much nicer to use. its a bit like sitting in a Marc and a Glof GTI, both a great drives, but the Merc is just that much smoother, probably a bad analogy.
So why the question, Henrik? You know the answer ......hmm, well, this next box is going to last me the next 3-5 years, with minor upgrades to it. So, I like to get it right and is therefore seeking opinions.
Going for the Dual processor/workstation option, is more expensive, but I have more options for upgrading, in particular when it comes to memory. there will be 2x4cores and perhaps 12 cores the following year (if I go intel, then most likely one would have to replace the mainboard, as the socket will be different, but with AMD, they support their socket for a longer period, in this case socket F and will support their next 6 core processors)
If I went for the desktop version, it would most likely be an Intel i7, not even considering AMD there. cheaper, and I guess i could upgrade the whole rig more often, but I still can only add 24gb of ram.
For the mac people here, peeking in, the Dual Processor workstation is the equivalent to your MacPro.
hmm, I will have to add it all up. I will be using this a lot
thanks all for looking ;-)
Henrik
PS: MBehrens, if you fill all the memory slots the clock speed will also drop :-) therefore you are better off getting 3x4GB sticks over 6x2GB sticks in the x58 board. In my case this is not enough, I want more ram :-)
-
It looks like the recession is taking its tall here, no one is investing in computers, or at least not in PC's :-) ohh well, I am hurting too and having looked at the cost for a new rig, it may even be out of my own reach $5-7k (cpu, mainboard, ram, SSD)
Henrik
-
It looks like the recession is taking its tall here, no one is investing in computers, or at least not in PC's :-) ohh well, I am hurting too and having looked at the cost for a new rig, it may even be out of my own reach $5-7k (cpu, mainboard, ram, SSD)
Henrik
One small note form my side. I would not focus to much on ram itself. I mean I think something between 12-16gb is enough. I would focus on larger raid 0 SSD arrays. Why ? You can get more speed you could ever imagine. On the other hand many SSD drives will probably be the most expensive part.
-
One small note form my side. I would not focus to much on ram itself. I mean I think something between 12-16gb is enough. I would focus on larger raid 0 SSD arrays. Why ? You can get more speed you could ever imagine. On the other hand many SSD drives will probably be the most expensive part.
Thanks Christopher,
Good point, If I am to make the transition, I will have to replace CPU, Mainboard and RAM. which is 2x 3.2GB Xeon, 24gb ram and SuperMicro or tyan mainboard. For SSD disks, I am looking at two Intel disks, for starters.
Alternatively I upgrade my current box, a Dual Opteron 285, with 8GB. by replacing the RAM with 16gb which is the max, and get the SSD disks, and that could potentially sparks some more life into it.
Having said that, there is not a lot more performance gained by going for the Xeon system, only the access to more ram is the biggest benefit, as it can go to either 48GB or 96Gb but the later will definitely be too expensive :-)
I have found that my old Opteron, isn't far behind Xeon when it comes to photoshop, which is the target application.
kindest regards
Henrik
PS: christopher, are you using any SSD disks atm??
-
Wait until the Win7 OS is available, that way you will have a clean install of the OS rather than an upgrade. Also, there are nice Asus mobo available.
I think the optimal RAM config is dependant on the motherbaord, and not just the chipset...but I am not too familiar on this, maybe someone can explain this, as in my situation, I would want 12GB on a 6 bank Asus board(P6T-se). What would be the optimal, as the large and pricepoint stick size is 2GB/stick. That would mean to fill all 6 banks, would that cause a bottleneck?
-
You need to get an AMD processor and a 64 bit OS, plus *not* have an Intel chipset/memory controller(weak spot in the chain). That will allow you to properly use all of your memory bandwidth and workspace. Toss 16GB in your box and turn off the swap file. This will give you loads more speed than a faster processor, since every time you hit swap you are going 1/500th as fast as the memory.
EDIT - or just avoid Windows entirely and run 32-bit *IX with PAE enabled on such a board.
Another trick is an ANS-9010/9010B with memory in it as a temp swap space/swap drive. This is as fast as a SSD but bulletproof and about the same cost.
-
Plekto...
Those are some interesting options. I used to have a RAMDISK as a swap. It worked pretty good.
How does the Intel chipset limit the RAM use in 64bit Windows (Vista/7)?
I am open to AMD processors, but I have always read the the floating point math instructions on AMD had some issues. I have no idea of what that even mean really, but I have had that tossed around often.
On my editing station, I have 4 apps always open, CS4 with a number of plugins(I have more than I should, and find a select couple useful), Capture1, InDesign is open, Acrobat, ACDSee 2.5Pro(gave up on Bridge, it cant manages many drive...my conclusion), Int Explorer, Win Explorer.
I have a Q9650 Core2Quad now with 4GB of slow mem, and OS is on a 10K drive, and 2 scratch disks 10K. 6TB of data and NAS backup for the 6TB.
here is what I put together last night to see what I can build / thinking of going 64Bit (but waiting for Win7)......
-
Hi Christopher,
Good to hear from you on the site.
My own plans is to build a machine that would be based on Dual Xeon 5500 processors. The new Nahalem architecture offers exceptional performance. The machine will have at least two SSD drives in raid 0 for the OS, program files and swap areas. And then a number of large SATA drives for the images and other data. Regarding SSD it is important to recognize that the best performance comes from single layer cell technology which means lower capacity drives, but much better write performance. the larger capacity multi layer cel SSD drives have great read speads but poor write performance by comparison.
I am likely to wait until the fall, when Intel releases their "toc" processors, this will result in lower prices for the exceptional processors recently released.
John
-
Hi Christopher,
Good to hear from you on the site.
My own plans is to build a machine that would be based on Dual Xeon 5500 processors. The new Nahalem architecture offers exceptional performance. The machine will have at least two SSD drives in raid 0 for the OS, program files and swap areas. And then a number of large SATA drives for the images and other data. Regarding SSD it is important to recognize that the best performance comes from single layer cell technology which means lower capacity drives, but much better write performance. the larger capacity multi layer cel SSD drives have great read speads but poor write performance by comparison.
I am likely to wait until the fall, when Intel releases their "toc" processors, this will result in lower prices for the exceptional processors recently released.
John
Hi John,
It is my understanding, that in order to gain the best performance using windows in general, but more so in photoshop, is to separate the OS, from its swap file and again, having Photoshops scratch disk separate again....3 drives, not partitions!! If you have sufficient RAM, this separation becomes less important.
However, if you are using your computer like anything I do, then you will need more and more, bigger and bigger. Eg, images becomes bigger and bit dept higher...suddenly files are no longer in 100s of megabytes but in multiple of gigabytes.
Something to watch out for, if you are building yourself, or for that matter buying it ready-made, is the number of RAM sockets, the new pairs are threesome's :-) and in order to gain the highest clock rate, you need to fill them as described above. And, you may have 12 sockets, eg 4 pairs (of 3's) using 2gb sticks which is the sweet spot you are "limited" to 24gb, using 4gb sticks you will very likely see the price triple, for 48gb. However, if you can find a mainboard, with 18 ram sockets, you can get into the 36gb of ram, which I think will be todays comfort zone, for a power user. anyway, just some food for thoughts
regards
Henrik
PS: which SSD drives have you been looking at? I have been eying off the Intel E versions 80gb
-
The issue with 32-bit Intel chips and motherboards is that even if they could use PSE to get 32-bit Linux or BSD/Hackintosh to run more than 4GB, the memory controllers in the Intel chips themselves plus the Intel southbridges are incapable of actually allocating more than 4GB to any process. There's a hard-engineered 32 bit path in the way they work and so you either have to go entirely 64-bit processor, board, and OS, or you can run AMD and one of their boards. This allows you to create a hackintosh that runs with PAE enabled.
http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=53725 (http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=53725)
Read the last reply (by me). It's long but explains why while it is possible to use a 32 bit os with PAE, it doesn't work 90% of the time due to hardware issues beyond just the chip. But it IS possible, nonetheless.
BTW, great site - highly recommended for technical information about any computer.
-
I built a quad core machine last fall, with 8 gigs of fast ram, running Vista 64 bit. It is one fast machine, haven't run into any memory problems with 5dMK2 files in photoshop. I put my money into a monitor, a NEC 2690, very nice setup.
-
Just to avoid confusion:
- Currently no AMD processor can be used with an Intel chipset (and vice versa).
- All current AMD cpus have the memory controller integrated on die, i. e. on the cpu itself, it is no longer on the chipset (has been since Athlon64).
- Intel has also integrated the memory controller on the cpu with the new Nehalem architecture.
- As a reference: Digloyd PhotoShop Performance Guide (http://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshop-Intro.html). He's also done the same for Lightroom and looks at SSDs. Unfortunately, since he only looks at Mac Pros, his tests are only valid for Intel based systems. The I/O-Subsystems though (save RAM) should be comparable to AMD systems since there isn't much difference between those controllers. If you're going with AMD: more GHz, more speed, the newer the architecture, the more speed per GHz.
- Also worth a click: AnandTech CPU Comparison (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=25). A similar spec'ed Xeon/Opteron will fare essentially the same as its desktop counterpart. They have also more thorough reviews on the site.
So with current processor architectures generally the chipset (or rather the board's use/implemention thereof) only limits the amount of RAM by the number of RAM sockets available, whether it can support single/double sided RAM modules and how big the modules can be (GB/module, often this is limited by the board's support for single/double sided RAM modules).
-
Everything I read right now says that multiple CPU's is not all t5hat useful for Photoshop. I think that was basically your conclusion, other than teh ability to load more RAM?
I would go with an i7 920 right now. The premium for eth i7 940 and 965/975 is just too steep. Add in as much good quality DDR3 RAM as you can. The premium for 4GB sticks might be worth it there if it saves yoiu from going the whole 2 prtocessor route. Then try SSD and RAID on 10,000 RPM. But if you can avoid swappinmg (doing everything out of RAM), they may nor add much.
\
FWIW, I saw a Dell i7 920 with 3GB of DDR3 foe sale yesterday for $900 with a monitor., Think the max RAM was 18GB? Probably sufficient for me. Run Windows 7 on that (I think if you buy after June 26th you get a free upgrade to Windows 7 when it is released.) Big question is how much RAM do you reallythink you need.
PS is alos making uise of GPU's more extensively than in teh past. But a normal 1GB card shoulds be suffoicient - recommended cars on teh Adobe PS blog.
Here is an example of a CNET review of a dual Xeon box that they said offered no benefits for Photoshop. That corresponds to ecerything else I am seeing (and it is a $3K box, vs. the Dell at $1K plus RAM ...)(FWIW as an example only, I know you are looking at PC)
http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/apple-mac...7-33541093.html (http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/apple-mac-pro-two/4505-3118_7-33541093.html)
Apple Mac Pro (Two 2.26GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon, Winter 2009
... The bad:
Relatively slow performance on programs such as Photoshop that rely on single-core CPU speed; we wish it had eSATA instead of FireWire 800 for external hard-drive connections
..... First, it's important to note that the new CPUs' core 2.26GHz clock speed is significantly slower than the pair of 2.8GHz chips in the older model. This does not mean that the new Mac Pro is slow across the board, because remember it still has faster memory and a whole new CPU architecture with a more efficient cache structure. But what it does mean is that for applications that rely heavily on single-core processing speed, such as Photoshop, our review unit actually lagged behind both the older model (in 4GB and 8GB configurations), and less expensive Windows desktop from Velocity Micro. We should add that the less expensive four-core version of the new Mac Pro has a single 2.66Ghz quad-core chip, which could close the performance gap on these kinds of tests
Let us know ho0w your research progresses and what you decide on!
Best,
Mi8chael
(sorry for all of teh typos! late for me ...)
-
Driversheaven has a DDR3 review comparing 3 versions of DDR3 RAM: Kingston, OCZ, GSkull, including some overclockings.
Somewhat interesting. It would be **much** more interesting if they had also tested some DDR2 for comparison in the same mobo.
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=793 (http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=793)
Also a SSD review:
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=799 (http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=799)
They also have a database of Photoshop test results.
Great idea, crappy execution. People list RAM, but not always how much. No info on video cards, etc.
They do have a test suite that you can run on your own system. If anyone runs that it would be great to see the results here with more systems info! (registration required, but it is free.)
http://www.driverheaven.net/photoshop.php?show=results (http://www.driverheaven.net/photoshop.php?show=results)
There is also an Excel spreadsheet here with a few timings for Photoshop using a handfull of processors, including the i7. No multi-CPU tests:
http://www.ixbt.com/cpu/images/intel-ci7-950/results.xls (http://www.ixbt.com/cpu/images/intel-ci7-950/results.xls)
Linked from this article:
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci7-950-p2.html (http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci7-950-p2.html)
-
Having looked at some of the links of not most of them,
the i7 single processor, seems to fair very well, of cause the higher the clock speed the higher the performance, at least in these benchmark test, that the various computer hardware site uses. One could question if they are relevant to what we need our computers for.
I haven't priced this out yet, but lets say that one picked the i7 extreme version (the fastest they have) and you can find 4GB DDR3 sticks at the fastest rate. I think you max out at 6x 4GB, so 24GB in total. this would not be a bad base for a photo editing system, add a couple of SSD disks, one for OS, and one for Scratch disk, and use 4x SATA disks for RAID 01 for your image storage (a separate RAID controller will often perform better then the built-in controller). Good graphics card, I don't think Photoshop could take advantage of SLI-technology yet (if ever). Something like this would have some serious horsepower. BUT....
....how will it fare when we are sorting and converting raw files, processing the them in batch, while you get on with your photoshop artwork, or modification, or as some would say beautification :-). While we start working in Photoshop, our raw processor is still chewing away on our last shoot (obviously this could not work with Bridge/ACR) so it will either have to be Lightroom or some other 3rd party converter. Now you are busy, you finish art-working some of your "Photoshopped" images, and save them. I can see a bottleneck here...writing to disk...both the raw converter and photoshop are now busy writing and saving files to disk.... I am not sure if I am the only one here who works like this? I could be, but I doubt it :-) so what do you do...have a second Array of 4 disks?
Will the i7 be able to compete with a Dual Xeon 55xx, when you have several applications running and working at the same time, as we often do, in our line of work?? will the added cost of a Dual CPU system, save us time?
:-)
Henrik
-
....how will it fare when we are sorting and converting raw files, processing the them in batch, while you get on with your photoshop artwork, or modification, or as some would say beautification :-).
... I am not sure if I am the only one here who works like this? I could be, but I doubt it :-) so what do you do...have a second Array of 4 disks?
Henrik
That is actually a very important point Henrik.
I did not realize how much my process flow has changed through the use of Lightroom and Capture One Pro.
With my DSLR, I shoot RAW + JPEG. I use the JPEG for quick web posts or reviews - for models, etc. Then I review, rate, tweak, crop, etc. all of my pictures in one of those two packages.
It is not until I am almost done that I do a RAW conversion on just a handful of files, maybe 5, to take to Photoshop. Yesterday I did the conversion very easily 4 or 5 times in the background with no problem to get different color spaces (sRGB, ARGB) and make a few small changes.
So that is a different model from when I shot all RAW and would come home and convert 400+ files before starting to work with them. My machine now really is more of a graphics workstation in a traditional sense.
I suppose all that info "sharing" was what you already new - trying to convince myself I guess.
I like your term "beautifiucation."
Good luck! Let us know what you decide!
Best,
Michael
-
thanks for the test and other links mmurph,
I just did the test on driverheaven with my Q9650 running 32bit os cs4 with 4gb ram, and the ram is so slow, I got 428.5
:-(
Extrude test was slowest at 141.5, and SmartBlur at 84.8
interesting to see what the system I posted above will do in the tests!
(except the vid card will be the 1GB version)
-
Thanks Phil, that is interesting! I too would love to see teh rating on that new machine you are dreaming of!
I iwll run it on a few plain vanilla machines plus a laptop I have around here for comparison.
It would be interesting to see what you got at 64 bit! I am in the process of converting a low end machine to Windows 7 just to test. I have Seagate drives so I did an image copy of tyhe existing drioves using their disk manager software. I'll try to get before and after measurements with 32 bit Windows XP and 64 bit Windows 7.
FWIW today is the last day for the Dell with the i7 920 and 6GB DDR3 at $950. I checked, an upgrade to 12GB of RAM was $300, which is reasonable (6 DIMM's.) An upgrade to 24GB is $2,850!
Cheers!
Michael
-
Funny, I was checked the Dell refurbs, and the 24GB was my aim (to populate all at 4gb per stick). there were 2 machines above$3K.
I surely dont want a mini tower, so my start price was about $1250 in the 950 processor with 6GB ram.
Anything like more drives and 1gb vid card or sound card, kicked it up to $1500-1700.
The system I have above using pretty much the "top" components with 16GB (using 4GB per stick x 4 /16gb is about $750. room for 8more) with all the extras...drive bay, the fan control. the faster RAM, the Asus mobo, the vid card, the CASE (one of the most important parts, as it will make or break things for upgrades and changes.(the case in my list holds 12-15 drives!). I will likely have this thing installed with the 6TB and the 3 scratch drives plus the OS drive......For the SAME price as refurb Dell! All doing 64bit (which will be interesting in compatibility with certain plugs, drivers etc)
I would hate to get the Dell then realize the ram is specific and hard to upgrade to more with faster speeds, etc.
If you are happy to build your own, and install the OS, which takes about a day(maybe more to perfect things with your PS tweaks), and you cross your fingers all the parts have no issues, and no shipping glitches...Provided that you have another machine running connected to the web for updates and patches!....Then it is the thing to do. You get all the top gear with years to come to expand. But when something goes down, don't look for a support # to call...hehehe. I have at least 1 system running along the main editing machines in case one needs a swap out...or in this case you can't get the new machine up and running in time, and all a sudden you need to work on something.
FYI, HP also had a good deal with some rebates for those not wanting to build a system.
I am having second thoughts as I am getting reactions from tech folks that my Q9650 processor is a good 4core 3.0ghz, and I would see major gains with just new Mobo and RAM. So, yes I am now a confused individual...hahaha..
Going through the trouble of removing the Mobo, the ram, and reconnecting everything, and saving about $1000 worth not having a completely new system? Besides my OS is in a need for a FRESH install.
My question is.....
What Motherboards is compatible with the Q9560 cpu AND support the i7 cpu with the DDR3 1333mhz memory? Do the i7 Mobo all handle the older cpus that are LGA775, but just not mention in the specifications? or are they different?
-
Sorry Phil, I just wiped out a long post when I dropped my mouse. Quick post now in psuedo-english to replace it. More tommorow.
**********************************
As far as Dell: If you went that route, I would just buy the base machine with 6GB of RAM< a 600GB hhard drive, and teh processor. Then you can add opn RAM< storage, etc. much more cheaply!
I can't buy the CPU, the OS, a motherboard, the base RAM, the case, and a power supply as cheaply as I can get teh base unit from Dell. But I can buy hard drives and ram much more cheaply than teh add ons from them! I don't mind building, but it just doesn't pay as long as teh Dell has teh basic specs for growth.
I surely dont want a mini tower, so my start price was about $1250 in the 950 processor with 6GB ram.
Anything like more drives and 1gb vid card or sound card, kicked it up to $1500-1700.
Yeah, add those all in yourself. The good news is taht you have enough slots on that thing to add in the 2GB RAM sticks. Another 6GB of RAM would only be $100 for OCZ 6GB! A GEForce 9500 1GB is only $55 right now, so $55 to $125 for a video card.
OK, next. The biggest question to you on the i7 I think is this: How much RAM do you need in the new machine?
If you need 24GB of RAM, that is going to cost a ton of money with DDR3 4gb modules! The Kingston 12GB modules cost $1,400, so $2,800 for 24GB. Then you need to buy the RAM you are going to keep and use for the long term.
If you can get by with 12GB of RAM, the whole solution is much cheaper.
I can't find an X58 mobo taht says it supports the quad. No info on the Intel site either. It might work, but ...
So I would say, try to upgrade the existing solution with the quad for as littel money as possible. Then move on later to the i7 or whatever is next when you arenb;t right on that point of diminishing - almost negative - returns! Throwing big bucks at small gains.
What box is the 9650 in right now? Does it make sense to upgrade that box? This is what I would do:
Buy a cheap 775 mother board. There aren't a lot that support more than 8GB of RAM, but I saw 2 decent ones trhat would support 16GB. One was $80, the other $120.
They both only have 4 slots foir DDR2. So you have to go with the more expensive 4GB sticks/. The Corsair is $175 for 8GB. So 2x8GB = 16GB at $350.
Add a 600-750 watt power supply if you need it. $80. Install Windows 7 for now. Total $120+$350+$80= $550 to get the quad going (or $470 w/o the power supply.) With the two 10K drives that you have, that should scream! If you could find mobo's that had 6 or 8 slots and could use 2GB sticks, you could do 3x4GB at $50 each, $150 for RAM + $100 mobo = $250 + $80 power supply! Cheap!
From there you can tweak it little by little: add SSD, video card, etc. from there as needed, but you shgould have most of what you need with the additional RAM!
Also, FWIW: I did the Photoshop tests on a box I have here. A Pentium D 2.80 GHz, 3GB of RAM< Photoshop CS2, Windows XP SP2 32 bit. Total was 654. Extrude was 160 seconds, Smart Blur was 106 seconds.
your quad should kick ass compared to my CPU! Get taht thing on 64 bit, get the 12GB of RAM in there, it shopuld be a great machine for $250-$500!!
Ugh, what a mess of a post. Sorry. Hope it is on track.
Cheers,
Michael
-
Photoshop doesn't require a fast processor. It really requires getting a fast swap file/temp directory for all of the tiny background tasks that it does and the layers and manipulation and so on.
A standard 8GB system with a fast SSD or ram drive is enough. Just getting the temp directories off of the boot drive is a godsend for speed.
-
Thanks Michael, I understood the post :-)
Here is what I figure with 12GB Ram.(See system build below)
The SSD Is something down the line when it is mainstream with the faster write.
For now I will make the scratch disk across 2 10K drives (I have 3 10k drives, but I might want to use one for the OS). btw...Acronis Backup software makes moving things around very easy.
So for $1500, I get much more at newegg than I would at Dell(Major price is putting it together myself).
Costing with $200-300 more than the Dell starting point.
Plekto...8GB is enough, I might agree. but doesn't the file size matter? Lets say you have a 1.5 GB file that has bunch of layers..Doesn't continuing the work on it, having the options to undo, and even making more layers etc take more and more? And at what point does the 8GB get maXXXed out? Doesn't the fact that I have C1 open, and Acrobat, and InDesign, Color calibration software, ACDSeePro(For those ditching Bridge) also tax my RAM? considering I did clear out all the junk that StartsUp on boot, like QuickTime and the few others.
Using dual screen, I am always going back and forth between ACDSeePro2.5 and CS4. How about a number of plug-ins that are installed...(even if I dont use 85% of them).
So where does the RAM get tapped out for scratch?
Michael, the case I have is max... I have a Mid tower with 7drives stuffed in it, the Mobo as we discuss needs to change, the ram does also. Your numbers sound good, say $400 I should be good to go.
So the options are....
$400-500 (I think I would be happy with 12GB DDR2 ram) for mobo and ram...plus all the time to clear the mobo and install new, with new ram, and reconnect all else, and do a clean install of a new OS, with ALL the software and tweaks(easy 1-2day project). This will keep my Core2Quad Q9650 cpu.
OR
$1500 for All new gear with i7 3.0ghz 950cpu, and lots of extras(See image below) with 12GB DDR3 of RAM maxing out the mobo....plus repeat...all the time to clear the mobo and install new, with new ram, and reconnect all else, and do a clean install of a new OS, with ALL the software and tweaks(easy 1-2day project).
both systems would carry over my drives...10K on OS, and 2x 10K for Scratch (how much faster is 3drives vs2) ..all 6TB data on eSATA using the 4drives-in3bay enclosures +2 in the case.
lets not count the 6TB RIAD backup I need to finish installing FREENAS on..(I never bought so many WD black caviar drives:-)
This makes me wonder how much a difference in speed my 1st option is vs the second.
-
I think either makes sense. The Quad should be pretty close to the i7 for Photoshop I think. I would probably just rebuild that.
Here are some numbers to ballpark it all:
From the IXBT Excel spread sheet. The i7 has better times than a 9300 quad:
PHOTO i7 Core 2 Quad 9300
Photoshop
Blur 0:03:26 0:05:18
Color 0:01:00 0:01:08
Filters 0:03:42 0:04:42
Light 0:01:18 0:01:48
Rotate 0:01:28 0:02:30
Sharp 0:01:28 0:02:14
Size 0:00:34 0:00:52
Transform 0:01:11 0:01:58
Group Score 166 114
Here are some passmark benchmark numbers, this time to a Q9650. But testing multiple cores, not a PS test. About 40% more raw power in the i7:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html)
i7 950: 6,196
Q9650: 4,443
Here are the "official" Photoshop test suite numbers from DriverHeaven for the i7. This one done by them, not users, in case you did not see them:
The Core i7 system is based around a 965EE, 3x2gb DDR3-1333, Intel SSD/Raptor (again a 64bit Vista OS installation).
Core i7
64 bit 3.2ghz
Texturiser 1.3
CMYK 1.1
RGB 1.2
Ink Outlines 16.5
Dust & Stratches 1.4
Watercolor 16.5
Texturiser 1.4
Stained Glass 10.6
Lighting 1.2
Mosiac 8
Extrude 59.6
Smart Blur 43.3
Underpainting 16.6
Palette 14.4
Sponge 22.8
Total 215.9
I got 428.5
So basically 1/2 teh time as your current set-up. But I think you can get almost tehre. 64 bit alone looks liek abouyt a 7% improvement.
Finally, a DDR2 Q9650 system just barely beat - almost tied - an i7 920 DDR3 system in this CNET Photoshop CS3 test. But the 9650 had 8GB of RAM to 6GB for the i7. Still pretty close. Your i7 950 would probably be a bit better than the Q9650 when you are done.
http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/velocity-...l?tag=mncol;txt (http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/velocity-micro-edge-z/4505-3118_7-33377877.html?tag=mncol;txt)
Ugh! Too many numbers. What next?
Best,
Michael
-
Thanks for getting those numbers Michael! Very helpful to put things in perspective!
I am leaning towards a new machine as I can use another (Q9560) station on another desk. I wanna mess with it once, and forget it for as long as possible.
( What I will wait for is the Windows7 release. The most painful part of it all is the install of new OS, and all the software and the tweaks to get the workflow singing a sweet tune. The last thing I wanna do is have a beta running or Vista, and later need to do a clean install of Win7 ALL over again....reminds me...Forgot the cost of Win7. I have purchased XP64bit almost a year ago. I tried to get it running and had to back out due to too many incompatibles. So I hope I can upgrade my license from that.
come to think of it, I will likely need a couple days on massaging my 32bit apps to the 64bit OS alone. likely need to use vertual machine on some things.
Which makes me wonder...will I need a different version of CS4 for 64bit?!
Since I see the chart you posted, it got me dreaming...
It would be interesting to have a mobo that pipes together multiple CPU's and memeory of different systems.... meaning you take 3 or 4 systems and have some port like a firewire ..and you link the computers together. Only one is booted up with the OS, the others boot to some subsystem, that takes all the instructions and spreads it across all the computers (mem spead would be an issue...to say the least)...hahaha
With a bathroom remodel and the 6TB raid I recently got started, and this new system.....I better get some calls with projects!!!
Also forgot my usual "routine" I have been following for the past 4 systemss...Always keep my main editing PC running. build and stage the new system, then cut over when the new system is running and can replace the old.
-
Plekto...8GB is enough, I might agree. but doesn't the file size matter? Lets say you have a 1.5 GB file that has bunch of layers..Doesn't continuing the work on it, having the options to undo, and even making more layers etc take more and more? And at what point does the 8GB get maXXXed out?
Windows ALWAYS uses its swap file for what it thinks are background tasks and Photoshop does as well. If they are on the same SATA channel(even if separate drives) they fight each other for bandwidth. If they are on the same drive, they fight each other for access to the head/build up a rather long process backlog) . Notice the enormous cleanup of files and thrashing that happens when you shut down Photoshop after a long session? That's because the hard drive goes hundreds of times slower than memory.
The trick here is to turn all of that swap space(s) into ram or something much faster than a hard drive. If the swap space is as fast as ram or close to it, you essentially have unlimited ram. Why this might be good is because 4GB modules are pricey as hell right now. 2gb modules are dirt cheap. Loading 8gb in ram and 8gb in a SSD might cost a lot less than 16GB of ram(and since the thing is a separate physical drive in either case, you can fool Windows and gain enormous speed across all applications)
Note - iirc, Windows 7 and Linux/BSD will allow you to properly turn off all of this is you have enough ram - but Photoshop doesn't understand this and will toss crap anyways into a temp space/directory - and that needs to be moved to a ramdisk or SSD at the least. Partitioning off 2GB, for instance, for Photoshop as a swap space/directory alone is a cheap way to see improvements. This can be done with many ram disk utilities in a few minutes to try out.
-
Pletko.. you mention RANDISK !!...I used to have this card in my system with 4gb(1gb sticks), and I recently took it out when I got the 2 10K 150GB drives. The RAM I have in the Gigabyte RAMDISK is Kingston KVR400.
Its is sitting here...maybe swap the ram in here out with 8gb and use it again? I forgot about this thing.
btw, how do you check if the SATA drives are on the same or different channels?
-
It's tricky. If you're running RAID, you likely cannot add another SATA drive to the machine. If it's just extra drives, it won't make any difference really as the Gigabyte only operates at half of a SATA 2's maximum speed, so there's tons of overhead in that case)
-
It's tricky. If you're running RAID, you likely cannot add another SATA drive to the machine. If it's just extra drives, it won't make any difference really as the Gigabyte only operates at half of a SATA 2's maximum speed, so there's tons of overhead in that case)
You would have to run RAID over a separate controller
Henrik
-
As of now I have....
OS on 10K 300gb drive/SATA
2x 10k 150gb that are going to be RAID 0, as I know that it will write much faster/ SATA
4x 1TB drives internal /SATA
3x1TB drives on external eSATA enclosures/eSATA
The 6TB of data gets backed up to other external drives, I regularly backup (that is getting moved to a NAS box shortly)./eSATA
I plan to run RAID0 on the 2 10k's that are dedicated for scratch
Is there a link that explains how I need to setup 2 differnt RAID controllers? I know that there are $300-600(for a good one) RAID controller cards that will do it, but is that the way to go?
Sounds like I got most of the hardware specs I need out of the way...How would I set this up to make things run snappy?
-
Forgot the cost of Win7. I have purchased XP64bit almost a year ago. I tried to get it running and had to back out due to too many incompatibles. So I hope I can upgrade my license from that.
Newegg has the upgrade to Windows 7 Premium at $50 ($70 off it's "regular" $120 price.)
It doesn't quite say upgrade from what - XP, Vista, which version, etc. Guess I'll check the MS site.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16832116713 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116713&Tpk=N82E16832116713)
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade - Retail
Price valid till 7/11, or while supplies last(limit 1 per customer)
Original Price: $119.99
You Save: $70.00
$49.99
Free Shipping
OK, also $100 Professional version with XP emulation mode and $220 "Ultimate" with no discount at MS site. Limit 3 per version at MS. Upgrade from XP or Vista.
http://store.microsoft.com/microsoft/Windo...mhpfeature_win7 (http://store.microsoft.com/microsoft/Windows-Windows-7/category/102?WT.mc_id=msccomhpfeature_win7)
-
According to this article...http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/upgrade-advisor.aspx
Xp and Vista is good to go, but Home is $49, and the Pro is $99
There is also a MS advisor tool that will check the hardware.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7...de-advisor.aspx (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/upgrade-advisor.aspx)
-
I just pre-ordered the Pro version for $100, but it is limited to 1 per customer
-
As of now I have....
OS on 10K 300gb drive/SATA
2x 10k 150gb that are going to be RAID 0, as I know that it will write much faster/ SATA
4x 1TB drives internal /SATA
3x1TB drives on external eSATA enclosures/eSATA
The 6TB of data gets backed up to other external drives, I regularly backup (that is getting moved to a NAS box shortly)./eSATA
I plan to run RAID0 on the 2 10k's that are dedicated for scratch
Is there a link that explains how I need to setup 2 differnt RAID controllers? I know that there are $300-600(for a good one) RAID controller cards that will do it, but is that the way to go?
Sounds like I got most of the hardware specs I need out of the way...How would I set this up to make things run snappy?
Phil,
You can plug in as many controllers as you can fit, as long as the OS can allocate resources to it, I had in my old P4 box four raid controllers, and it was all running, but by today's standard very slow :-)
unfortunately, as far as I know, you can not do RAID across multiple controllers, but some one know that you can please let me know because that could maybe increase the speed of things (anyway just a tangent)
good luck and test your system before you change it so you can see the change in numbers
Henrik
-
Phil,
You can plug in as many controllers as you can fit, as long as the OS can allocate resources to it, I had in my old P4 box four raid controllers, and it was all running, but by today's standard very slow :-)
unfortunately, as far as I know, you can not do RAID across multiple controllers, but some one know that you can please let me know because that could maybe increase the speed of things (anyway just a tangent)
good luck and test your system before you change it so you can see the change in numbers
Henrik
Which controllers are recommended?
Good point on the testing.
-
Which controllers are recommended?
Good point on the testing.
Hi Phil,
which controller is a good point,
Areca http://www.areca.com.tw/ (http://www.areca.com.tw/)
3ware http://www.3ware.com/ (http://www.3ware.com/)
LSI http://www.lsi.com/storage_home/products_h...raid/index.html (http://www.lsi.com/storage_home/products_home/internal_raid/index.html)
and the all time favorite Adaptec, stable but not very fast http://www.adaptec.com (http://www.adaptec.com)
but as you may know in the end of town, speed isn't everything and therefore some controllers put more importance's on data security then I/O performance... so, which to choose is a very good question. also are you going for 4 channels 8 channels or even more, or do you go for two controllers to distribute the load :-) ...with questions like this for almost every part it is no surprise why many people choose off the shelf boxes, like Dell HP or Mac
I would say, go with one of the two first if performance is the most important issue, actually I think 3Ware would be the market leader (in terms of performance/speed) but don't quote me.
if you choose a RAID controller with cache, try to see if you can get a battery backup for it too, so in case of power failure, you don't loose your work.
good luck, and do make a test before swapping things out
Henrik
-
Henrik,
Looks like there is a range from $180-350, then jump to $450-600 +
The pricey ones take more drives and have external port. I wonder if there is also a speed difference or a more reliable/faster chipset used ?
here is a list of what I am considering...
I don't want to spend more than $300, unless there is some major reason.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16816118087 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816118087)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16816103102 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816103102)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16816103050 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816103050)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16816116065 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816116065)
As far as battery backup, do you mean on the card? I have about 5000 watts of APC backup for power failure.
I considered a generator, but the install of the APC was much easier :-)
btw, HD Tune is a nice app for drive speed and tenp/monitor etc.
my
WD Raptor 300gb drive average 105mb/s (7.1ms seek); burst 180mb, (The 150gb slightly faster bursts 192mb/s))
WD Black caviar1TB 7.2K is 89average(12.2ms seek) burst 140mb
-
I checked out 3ware and they are all pretty much the same features..., just more drive support on the upper models.
-
Henrik,
Looks like there is a range from $180-350, then jump to $450-600 +
The pricey ones take more drives and have external port. I wonder if there is also a speed difference or a more reliable/faster chipset used ?
here is a list of what I am considering...
I don't want to spend more than $300, unless there is some major reason.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16816118087 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816118087)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16816103102 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816103102)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16816103050 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816103050)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16816116065 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816116065)
As far as battery backup, do you mean on the card? I have about 5000 watts of APC backup for power failure.
I considered a generator, but the install of the APC was much easier :-)
btw, HD Tune is a nice app for drive speed and tenp/monitor etc.
my
WD Raptor 300gb drive average 105mb/s (7.1ms seek); burst 180mb, (The 150gb slightly faster bursts 192mb/s))
WD Black caviar1TB 7.2K is 89average(12.2ms seek) burst 140mb
Hi Phil,
for backup I was thinking of the controller, I have a HP DL-server with RAID which also has a battery backup unit to as well as a APC for the whole system, just a thought, but I think you could probably get away with the APC, I got mine, just incase I wasn't using it on site and I would not have an APC available... really just doubling up :-)
Henrik
-
Fascinating discussion from people far more knowledgable than me. I'm in the market for a new rig too, but the main stumbling block for me is that DxO and Nik only support 32 bit! The main reason I want to upgrade from my old dual core P4 is that my 24mpx files process very slowly, particularly the RAW conversion in DxO and multi-layered files (usually about 500/600 megs) in CS3 take forever to even save!
What's the point in going to a fast quad core, lots of RAM and a 64 bit OS ? Looks like I can't use the extra horsepower.
-
Fascinating discussion from people far more knowledgable than me. I'm in the market for a new rig too, but the main stumbling block for me is that DxO and Nik only support 32 bit! The main reason I want to upgrade from my old dual core P4 is that my 24mpx files process very slowly, particularly the RAW conversion in DxO and multi-layered files (usually about 500/600 megs) in CS3 take forever to even save!
What's the point in going to a fast quad core, lots of RAM and a 64 bit OS ? Looks like I can't use the extra horsepower.
Well first of all I don't know if DxO supports multi CPUs but I expect it.
The very first question which always comes to my mind is how much do you want to spend. I find a disscussion before that a little sense less. Why ? Pretty easy for some just want to spend under 1500 US and others really want something big and are willing to spend 3000 upwards. It changes a lot of things.
For general advice here are some thoughts:
- CPU I wouldn't spend the money on workstation Xeon CPUs or a extrem edition of a Core i7. You can save already nearly 500 bucks by choosing a cpu which is not the top end at the moment. (The performance lost would most of the time be less than 5%)
-RAM I would go between 8 and 12 gigs, that however depends on what you need. If you really are thinking about working on larger files an panoramic stuff you should consider going towardes 12+
- OS 64 bit is the only way to go. I still would say Vista if it is a workstation for serious work, if not you can try Windows 7 which has it's benefits.
- Most important point in a workstation hard drives. Here it also depends on how much money you are willing to spend. When it comes to working with larger files, saving loading them, NOTHING is faster than a few SSD drives in raid 0. You easly can get write and read speeds over 500 mb/s. However this is also the expensive rout, especially if you need a lot of harddrive space.
I can give you more ideas and thoughts, when I know how much you really would like to spend.
-
Fascinating discussion from people far more knowledgable than me. I'm in the market for a new rig too, but the main stumbling block for me is that DxO and Nik only support 32 bit! The main reason I want to upgrade from my old dual core P4 is that my 24mpx files process very slowly, particularly the RAW conversion in DxO and multi-layered files (usually about 500/600 megs) in CS3 take forever to even save!
What's the point in going to a fast quad core, lots of RAM and a 64 bit OS ? Looks like I can't use the extra horsepower.
I know that some programs need to emulate a 32bit OS and will run fine under 64bit native OS, but will not gain the added muscle.
-
Well first of all I don't know if DxO supports multi CPUs but I expect it.
The very first question which always comes to my mind is how much do you want to spend. I find a disscussion before that a little sense less. ....
- CPU I wouldn't spend the money on workstation Xeon CPUs or a extrem edition of a Core i7. You can save already nearly 500 bucks by choosing a cpu which is not the top end at the moment. (The performance lost would most of the time be less than 5%)
That is all a great lead in to these type of discusions.
Personally, I like to hold back a couple of steps from the "bleeding edge", premium pricing/premium performance level.
That last 5% to 10% of performance just is not worth th extra 100% to 200% in cost - in most cases - to me. (It usually is in the design mode, like when you buy a car. You start out with a basic box at $200 and "inch up" to a $5,000 box. Then reality sets in when you have to balance the budget and still eat, buy a camera, pay studio rent ...)
Specifically, if you look at the retail price points on the i7 processors, the "base level" 920 is $250, the "mid level" 950 is $500, and the "higher end" 975 is $1,000 (roughly, as proxy numbers, ignoring deals, etc.)
So is the extra performance of he 970 "worth" 4x as much as the 920? For some people, yes. But if you look at the overall spectrum of "usable" processors - from dual core to the Xeon, etc. - the incremental increase is small compared to going from the dual core 4200, for example, to the i7.
Here are som,e benchmark numbers:
[blockquote]T4200 - 1,239
i7 920 - 5,442
i7 950 - 6,231
i7 975 - 7,202[/blockquote]
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html)
There is another thread where folks are discussing $4K laptops for medium format tethered, but the same basic argument/discussion that is raised more explicitly here.
Cheeers! Just back from one trip, 2 days home and I have to go again ... no time to actually buy or use things .... or do anything useful.
Best,
Michael