Chris_B Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 1x Supermicro X7DWA-N 2x Intel Xeon E5320 Socket 771 1.86GHz FSB1066 2x Kingston 4gb Kit (2x2gb) Ddr2 667mhz/pc2-5400 Memory Ecc Fully Buffered Cl5 1.8v 1x Nvidia 8800GTX 768MB GDDR3 Dual DVI PCI-E Graphics Card OEM 3x WD Raptor WD360ADFD 36GB SATA 10KRPM 16MB Cache - OEM (2x for mirrored OS, 1x for swap) 3x Western Digital WD5000AAKS 500GB SATA II 7200RPM 16MB Cache - OEM (RAID 5) 1x Antec P190 Black Super Mid Tower Case - With Dual PSU total 1200W 1x Microsoft Windows Vista Business - Licence and media - 1 PC - OEM - DVD - 64-bit - English Now, I know they're not the fastest of CPUs, but with eight cores, does that really matter? They're reasonable performance for the power aren't they? I haven't put a DVD/BD drive in there yet. Most BD drives seem to be SATA, and the board only has 6 SATA ports, so I may have to rethink the onboard drives down to two 750GB drives and stripe them (they will be backed up externally) - good idea/bad idea?. Is Vista liable to choke if I try to install from a SATA BD drive? I also know that Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom are both 32-bit apps, so won't use all the RAM that's there, but if I run them both together (my normal practice - LR is my file browser for CS2), will they run in seperate WoW spaces and have access to 3G or so of RAM each? Any other thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted February 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 [ QUOTE ] Most BD drives seem to be SATA, and the board only has 6 SATA ports, so I may have to rethink the onboard drives down to two 750GB drives and stripe them (they will be backed up externally) - good idea/bad idea?. [/ QUOTE ] Alternatively, how about a PCI-E SATA RAID card? Adaptec 1430SA or even a 3Ware 9650SE? Of course, I could drop in a cheap SATA RAID 1 card for the OS, and run the swap, BD, and three-drive RAID 5 (Windows only software solution) off the Supermicro's onboard SATA. Any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylander Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Agree with you about the Xeons for their purpose. Will putting the swap on a dedicated raptor really make all that difference? Vista will see the BD drive fine as a DVD player at least so shouldn't be problem.... Apparently the ATi cards have better image quality so why not get the knew x2 3870 or whatever it is called? You'll be able to render colourful tiles and archways very nicely with that I must say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Looks good and can't comment on the spec to much but the proc isn't 8 cores its only 4. Its really two processors put on one chip to make 4 cores. Plus you need to ensure that what ever software is multi threaded enough to use them. I've just got a new Quad core and sometimes you see one of the proc's getting hammered admittedly it moves around but its not even load. Other apps use them all and get an advantage doing so. On the Raptors... I know this is a contentious one, but some of the latest disks are almost as fast as a raptor and far quicker due to better disk density. I personally went for two quieter drives but great throughput (faster than raptors) but slower seek and stripped them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted February 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 [ QUOTE ] You'll be able to render colourful tiles and archways very nicely with that I must say! [/ QUOTE ] I did wonder if that would be mentioned, you cheeky devil you! When I get chance, honest (still at work at the mo, watching Arcserve try to delete records from a corrupt and oversized SQL database). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted February 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 [ QUOTE ] Looks good and can't comment on the spec to much but the proc isn't 8 cores its only 4. [/ QUOTE ] "2x Intel Xeon E5320 Socket 771 1.86GHz FSB1066" Two quads makes for 8-core fun! As for the Raptors, well I have got some of the 72GB ones already, but they're not really that much faster than a modern high-density SATA drive as you point out. However, I've heard that the 36GB ones are faster, so I figured that as long as Vista and all my apps fit within 36GB, they might be the best option. I might swap those out for somethign bigger, and stick with a 36GB dedicated swap drive. Waylander, ont hat point, it's more the fact that it will have a dedicated swap drive that makes the difference - it should never have to wait for any other file operation to complete, not that I expect it to get hit much with 8GB of RAM... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Me bad didn't read that. Go for it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorburn Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 For Photoshop I'm not sure I'd go for 2 x quad cores. Personally I'd take a Core 2 Extreme QX9650, the 45nm Penryn derived core is far better for Photoshop than the old 65nm Merom based parts, and the 3GHz core clock speed means you aren't so reliant on parallelism. Combine this with lower latency DDR2-800, and the X38 chipset and you'll see decent power savings so can look at a smaller, cheaper chassis and PSU combination. The CPU itself may be more expensive, but the memory and motherboard should balance it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted February 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Heh, you know far more about this stuff than any single person has a right to know! Thanks for the input - back to the drawing board! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylander Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Fair point Cliff. IIRC there has been some debate on Tom's etc that the E8500 dual cores [only sl more expensive than Q6600 quad] make the Q6600 almost a has-been and much better for Photoshopping stuff - photos of Islamic art in particular! Also rather than a X38 why not jump for the X48 for more future proofing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanos3 Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 For photoshop, just buy a mac, so much easier to use it shortened my workflow a great deal! Sorry thats not helpfull at all is it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorburn Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Waylander, for some things certainly. The testing I've run is of Photoshop CS3 using some of the thread optimised filters (Smart Sharpen I believe)along with WMP10 playing music in the background, and these show a decent improvement moving from dual to quad-core (75 seconds on an E6850, 33 seconds on a QX6850). If an application isn't threaded then a dual-core makes more sense than a quad-core, but Photoshop CS3 certainly has some well (and some not so well) optimised routines and the budget for the system clearly isn't small. As for X38, well X48 isn't out yet would be the main reason. I'd imagine most boards for it will be DDR3 as well, where as there are some good DDR2 X38 boards already available such as the ASUS P5E. 8GB DDR2 is pretty cheap, while 8GB DDR3 will be hideously expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylander Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 [ QUOTE ] As for X38, well X48 isn't out yet would be the main reason [/ QUOTE ] minor detail, surely?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Dual cores are usually quicker than xeon quad cores unless you are doing something that uses all the cores all the time (such as serving). Photoshop doesnt - apart from the odd filter etc which you've tested above. For general high performance, you could use core 2 extremes, use a 1333+ bus, use 15K RPM disks, use XP SP2 pro (not media centre - or turn off those services), use 4GB ram, get a high quality SAS SCSI adaptor for raid0, turn off paging etc. Media player 11 on a fast system should use <1% CPU. For high end quad core+, would recommend SAS SCSI with big buffer and QX9650. I can't believe you're going to benefit from 8 cores with photoshop....with premiere or 3dsmax fair enough, not photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted February 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 [ QUOTE ] X48 isn't out yet would be the main reason. I'd imagine most boards for it will be DDR3 as well, where as there are some good DDR2 X38 boards already available such as the ASUS P5E. 8GB DDR2 is pretty cheap, while 8GB DDR3 will be hideously expensive. [/ QUOTE ] Struggling to find 2GB DIMMs (not many boards with more than 4 DIMM slots) at DDR3 anyway, not at anythign approaching a sensible price. Asus P5E or "Maximus Formula"? How about this as a quad-core alternative: 1x ASUS Maximus Formula Republic of Gamers iX38 Socket 775 8 channel audio ATX Motherboard 1x Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 Socket 775 3GHz 2x OCZ 4GB Kit (2x2GB) 800MHz/PC2-6400 Memory Platinum Performance CL5 (5-4-4-18) 1x ASUS NVIDIA GeForce 8800GTX 768MB GDDR3 DVI HDCP HDTV out PCI-E Graphics Card 1x WD Raptor WD360ADFD 36GB SATA 10KRPM 16MB Cache - OEM (swap) 2x WD Raptor WD740DFD 74GB SATA 10KRPM 16MB Cache - OEM (mirrored OS/apps) 3x Western Digital WD5000AAKS 500GB SATA II 7200RPM 16MB Cache - OEM (data - RAID 5) 1x Coolermaster Black CM690 Case With 850W Modular PSU *SPECIAL OFFER* £1534 ex-VAT, against about £1700 ex-VAT for the eight-core solution. Is this really going to be faster than an eight-core based on 65nm? Of course, I'll still either need another SATA card for a BD drive (six SATA ports on mobo), or a SATA RAID card to free up some mobo ports, unless I just go with two 750GB drives in a stripe set, and leave a SATA port free - how well will Intel Matrix cope with a RAID 1 mirror set, two single devices and a RAID 0 stripe set? Will it be a bottleneck? Oh, and I assume this will play a decent HL2 / TF2 as well, for when I've finished Photoshopping Islamic art? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 [ QUOTE ] On the Raptors... I know this is a contentious one, but some of the latest disks are almost as fast as a raptor and far quicker due to better disk density. I personally went for two quieter drives but great throughput (faster than raptors) but slower seek and stripped them. [/ QUOTE ] If you notice the above in your system, something isn't optimised. harddisks can only make a significant difference if there is no bottleneck....eg system bus speed, memory speed, I/O conflicts, O/S etc. RAID0 stripped disks are not faster than a single disk for accessing a file. If anything can be slower (both disks must have accessed the relevant sectors). Average seek time is everything for general O/S performance, and max transfer rate is everything for loading a big file - 99.9% of the time, max transfer rate is impossible to achieve - as the app loading the data is processing whilst loading also. e.g. loading a game level, loading a large video file, loading a photoshop image. e.g. if you can achieve 150MB/s, you'll be able to load a 10MP raw image in 0.2 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 [ QUOTE ] Is this really going to be faster than an eight-core based on 65nm? [/ QUOTE ] Yep. But you're speccing a good system, so spend the extra ££ and swap the SATA for SAS and move up to 15K RPM. And get some extra foam to help with the noise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted February 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 [ QUOTE ] For general high performance, you could use core 2 extremes, use a 1333+ bus, use 15K RPM disks, use XP SP2 pro (not media centre - or turn off those services), use 4GB ram, get a high quality SAS SCSI adaptor for raid0, turn off paging etc. Media player 11 on a fast system should use <1% CPU. For high end quad core+, would recommend SAS SCSI with big buffer and QX9650. [/ QUOTE ] Ta! I want to try to keep this down to about £1700 or less ex-VAT, so the premium for a good dual-socket board is significant. If I won't see the benefit of 8 cores (apart from bragging rights!), then four will let me keep to a single socket board. I'd rather go to 8GB RAM as I do run Lightroom and CS3 at the same time (LR is my file browser and pre-editor, with CS3 used to edit virtual copies in Prophoto colour space), so 64-bit is better. Interesting point WRT XP Pro SP2 though - I guess it will be faster than Vista, but then Vista has new shinyness like DX10 (I do like my games as well!) - does that swing it at the expense of sacrificing some speed? Either way, it's going to be a whole load faster than my current Athlon X2 4600+ with 2GB of XMS3200 (4x 1GB DIMMS won't boot on the Asus A8N-SLI Premium). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 p.s. the 150gb raptors should be a smidgen faster than the smaller ones! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted February 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 [ QUOTE ] But you're speccing a good system, so spend the extra ££ and swap the SATA for SAS and move up to 15K RPM. And get some extra foam to help with the noise! [/ QUOTE ] Does push the price up a fair bit though, mainly because SAS ports aren't common enough on motherboards, and a 6-port SAS cards aren't cheap. Then there's the drives - £340 for a single 300GB 14k drive! I'm building a decent rig, I don't wan't to break the bank! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted February 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 [ QUOTE ] p.s. the 150gb raptors should be a smidgen faster than the smaller ones! [/ QUOTE ] At £25 a drive difference, I might bump the OS/app mirror set up to 150GB then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chav Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 DX10 on XP linky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylander Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 [quote Oh, and I assume this will play a decent HL2 / TF2 as well, for when I've finished Photoshopping Islamic art? [/ QUOTE ] That spec is a beast Chris! I still say get the new ATi card though; cheaper than the 8800 as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorburn Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Chris_B, P5E over the Maximus, unless you are into some serious overclocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylander Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 [ QUOTE ] DX10 on XP linky [/ QUOTE ] he's using 8GB Ram; he has to have a 64bit OS [unless you meant XP64 in which case I'll get me coat....] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now