| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/24/2008 06:25:40 AM · #1 |
Hey Folks - one too many crashes on my 3+ year old Vaio desktop and several beers has caused me to say screw it and order a new system. Here is what I will be looking forward to:
- Dell Precision Workstation T7400 - 32bit Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5420 (2.50GHz,2X6M L2,1333)
...(Single processor, but considering purchasing a second separately)
- Memory 2GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 667MHz, ECC (2 DIMMS)
- Additional 2GB of RAM (purchased separately)
- Graphic Cards 512MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX1700, Dual Monitor DVI Capable
- Boot Hard Drive 250GB SATA 3.0Gb/s,7200 RPM Hard Drive with 8MB DataBurst Cacheâ„¢
- Second Hard Drive: 1TB Seagate SATA 7200RPM (purchased separately)
- Operating System Genuine Windows® XP Professional, SP2 with Media
- DVD, and Read-Write Devices 16X DVD+/-RW
- Sound Card Sound Blaster® X-Fiâ„¢ XtremeMusic(D),Dolby® Digital 5.1,WXP
- Will be running Dual monitors: 27" Large Display 1900x1200 (ooooh, yeah!) and my existing 21" Gateway 1680x1050
- Will be running Windows XP Pro (I HATE Vista!)
What will I be doing on it? Well I do web development, database programming, graphics design and of course - Photoshopping! I will also be doing some video editing and producing some multimedia training packages for my clients.
SO -- here are my questions:
- I know the OS will only use 3.5GB of the 4GB of RAM - should I have gotten the 64bit Windows version? Are there any PS CS3 compatability issues on WinXP64?
- If I didn't run the 64bit OS, could I get more RAM anyway and use it as a scratch disk for PS or something? I am looking for any and every performance edge I can without getting tooooo deep into configuring and worrying about sw compatability issues.
- How much would a second CPU help - particularly with photoshop?
- Is my Graphics card (512MB) sufficient?
- For photo editing, what is the best way to take advantage of the dual displays?
Any and all advice is greatly appreciated!
ps: I saved like $500+ by not adding the Ram and second hard drive from Dell and just ordering them separately and a second CPU was $200+ more than getting it from somewhere else. |
|
|
|
02/24/2008 07:18:37 AM · #2 |
Since you say that you are tired of crashes...
I'd definitely add RAIDed harddrives to secure all those photos and stuff from hard disk failures. Drives are incredibly cheap today, so you can just as well buy them in pairs. If there is a risk of fires, hurricanes, floods, thieves etc and you cannot afford to loose it all, you should also think about off-site or online backup.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2008 07:31:14 AM · #3 |
Just a couple points:
1. I'm not sure that the processor can access more than 3.5G of ram -- therefore, I don't think that you could add extra to be used for Photoshop scratch.
2. I'd be very sure that Dell allows for adding a second processor. Most of the motherboards used in pre-built systems don't allow much expandability.
3. GOOD CHOICE ON WIN XP! |
|
|
|
02/24/2008 08:25:47 AM · #4 |
My Dell XPS M1710 laptop has 4GB RAM, yet in My Computer it only shows as 3.25 on the Win XP OS. Microsoft says in a KB article that Win XP uses up to 4GB RAM. Somebody is wrong. :-/ There's always the chance I'll be dual booting to something that can use all of the RAM though.
I have no advice for you, though, except not to spill a coffee on your new PC and enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2008 09:34:59 AM · #5 |
The reason why windows doesn't report all 4gb of memory is that some of the hardware (most notably the graphics card) in your machine has reserved some memory for it self.
I run CS3 on XP64 with no problems at all. I have 6gb ram, and access to every last bit of it. If you go for 64 bit XP, be prepared to spend some extra time for research when buying new hardware to make sure they have 64bit drivers.
Edit to add: As long as CS3 is a 32 bit program, it can't allocate more than 2gb for itself (4gb on a 64 bit system). If you're editing huge pictures, the scratch disk will be used even if you have 4gb ram free. I hope Adobe releases a 64 bit version soon: //blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/2006/12/64_bitswhen.html
Message edited by author 2008-02-24 09:44:37. |
|
|
|
02/24/2008 11:28:58 AM · #6 |
Personally I would stick with 32 bit windows .... Don't know about CS3 but I ran 64 bit windows and found so many other programs would not run properly ... I recently trashed the OS and put 32 bit XP on and am much happier!
Yeah, Vista sucks!
A second CPU will not really help specifically with photoshop, it just means you will be able to run 2 processes at 100% at once rather than just 1. That does mean that if photoshop is doing something for say 3 minutes you will still be able to do other stuff on the pc using the second processor. Having said that the single processor you have will do this as it is a quad core so effectively 4 processors, having another processor IMHO is not worth anything unless the box is a server, it will just never get used! |
|
|
|
02/24/2008 12:30:36 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
- I know the OS will only use 3.5GB of the 4GB of RAM - should I have gotten the 64bit Windows version? Are there any PS CS3 compatability issues on WinXP64?
- If I didn't run the 64bit OS, could I get more RAM anyway and use it as a scratch disk for PS or something? I am looking for any and every performance edge I can without getting tooooo deep into configuring and worrying about sw compatability issues.
- How much would a second CPU help - particularly with photoshop?
- Is my Graphics card (512MB) sufficient?
- For photo editing, what is the best way to take advantage of the dual displays? |
Avoid 64Bit XP, because there are numerous known compatibility issues with software. You can't run 64bit XP on that processor anyway (you've written that the architecture is specifically 32-bit). Also, beware of driver compatibility issues: 64-bit windows requires all system drivers be rewritten as 64-bit drivers. 32-bit drivers will not work.
If the OS can't access the extra RAM in your computer, you won't be able to use it as a scratch disk.
You've got a freakinj' quad core CPU. That's a server CPU, not usually a desktop CPU. You don't need a 2nd CPU. :-) I run a silky smooth computer that has a Core2 Duo 2.4GHz with 3GB of RAM and the experience is awesome. You'll be fine with the horsepower you have.
That graphics card is fine for photoshop. Unless you're doing a lot of gaming or 3d modelling or some SERIOUS video editing, you don't need an awesome graphics card. I've got a cheap-ass nVidea GeForce 8500GT with 256MB of RAM, and I do video editing using Premiere and After Effects CS3, and I don't have any problems. You'll only need the video horsepower for 3d applications like games.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2008 12:38:29 PM · #8 |
| Also, I really don't think you want an nvida Quadro unless you'll be doing a lot of 3d modelling and CAD. As Louis said, you either want a cheap consumer Geforce if you're not playing games or an expensive one (Geforce 8800) if games are a concern. The Quadro shouldn't really come into it at all: it's designed for max stability for workstations and won't even be optimised for most of the programs you use it with. |
|
|
|
02/24/2008 12:54:13 PM · #9 |
It seems to me that PC retailers like Dell will sell to you with the philosophy, "If it's got more stuff in it, it has to be good." But as zarniwoop points out, that's just not true, and sometimes it's counter-productive. If you'll only be using Photoshop and other 2D applications, that card is overkill, and you're essentially wasting money on it if you're not putting it good use.
Edit to add: That video card has a pretty healthy fan on it. I used to use an ATI X190XT, which has a bloody turbine on top of it. Very, very loud, actually kind of ear-piercing. After I smartened up, I looked for the cheapest video card I could find to get the job done that has a heat sink, not a fan. My current card comes in both flavours, so I opted for the silence of the heat sink. I guarantee you won't be getting the Silence of the Fans with higher-end cards. :-)
Message edited by author 2008-02-24 13:01:50. |
|
|
|
02/24/2008 01:15:46 PM · #10 |
get something other than a dell.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2008 04:35:00 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by soup:
get something other than a dell. |
!!! Agree !!!
PM me and we can chat live about my 4 month journey to make a Dell workstation actually work ... not there yet. |
|
|
|
02/24/2008 05:04:52 PM · #12 |
Art -
A few things spring to mind that others haven't mentioned yet:
"I know the OS will only use 3.5GB of the 4GB of RAM" - what makes you say that? I really didn't think that XP was that much of a hog, unless you're doing something specific. For example, I have 3gb in this box and XP Pro - and with a couple of browsers open and the usual array of taskbar crap I have 2.3gb available. Also bear in mind that there is a school of thought that says XP can only handle 3gb of RAM (some say 4).
Personally I wouldn't bother with 64 bit - too much hassle for not that much benefit, unless you have a specific application for it.
As for CPUs, as others have said, you're already running quad core. More processors doesn't necessarily mean more speed as there are other bottlenecks to clear first. If this rig is just for photoshop, don't bother.
A 512 gfx card is fine - most photoshop is 2D, so a 3D accelerator won't do very much performance wise.
For dual displays just make sure that the gfx card has two outputs (most do) - that's what I do. Then just setup the dual in the display dialog in XP and you're off.
If you want speed, I'd change the boot drive to a faster 10,000 rpm drive - I recommend the 37gb WD Raptor. It's small and very fast and makes an ideal boot/system drive. You'll keep everything else on that 1TB monster, so a small boot drive isn't a problem. If you want to go mental start striping sets of raptors and you'll see more speed performance all round, not just in photoshop. Or add a second raptor just as a photoshop scratch disk, or as a secondary scratch disk.....drive speed is often well overlooked and provides noticeable systemwide performance increases.
And yes, some say don't do Dell. I'm on one now and when I got it I had spectacular grief:
- the Dell BIOS only allows booting from SATA0 not SATA1, so if you do install a raptor, make sure it's in SATA0 because you can't select it in BIOS (which is f**king stupid).
- it bluescreened on first virginal boot because there was so much adware and crap loading. Get the Dell DeCrapifier (google it) if you don't want to wipe it.
- However, you SHOULD wipe it - because it's quicker and easier than cleaning up all the shite that Dell preload on there. BUT - you have to ask Dell for the CDs because they don't supply them as standard. It's free so get them to send you a set (this is your XP disc and drivers) and then wipe the box and start again.
N
|
|
|
|
02/24/2008 05:49:27 PM · #13 |
I'll throw in my 2 cents on this:
1.) Ditch the Dell and build your own. When it comes to higher end systems like you're wanting, it'll be a little cheaper and you'll get exactly what you want. And you have the wonderful tech support known as DPC.
2.) The Quadro is probably overkill (as has been said) for what you're wanting to do. A cheaper Nvidia 8 series or equivalent ATi card will do just fine unless you're going into games.
3.) Don't bother with the 4gb of RAM unless you're going to Vista. It will save you money and a lot of a headaches to stay with 3gb. Also, get DDR2-800 instead of 667, you'll get more performance.
4.) If you can get a 64bit CPU, it will help future proof you should you decide to go Vista if/when it actually gets better. The Intel Core2Quads are nice for this and will give you a similar performance as the Xeons. Having dual quad core CPUs is definitely overkill unless you plan on serving data.
5.) 250gb 7200rpm boot drive will be much better if you get a 10k rpm smaller drive. If you manage to install 250gb worth of software...then kudos to you because that's a LOT of stuff.
Good luck! I hope all this helps.
Message edited by author 2008-02-24 17:53:15.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2008 07:45:25 PM · #14 |
You guys are awesome. Now I know why it's called DPC. Alrighty then - after reading the feedback here, I think I jumped the gun and I have a tendency to go for the overkill, bleeding edge and needless expense - so I canceled the Dell order - although the 27" monitor was already shipped, but I want that anyway.
SO - I am now more carefully considering my options. After reading the advice here, Here is where I am at:
- NOT a Dell.
- CPU - single is fine, dual is a waste. Hmmm... duo core or quad core? I tend to want the best and fastest, but I always see a HUGE price jump from second fastest to the fastest - no justifiable cost benefit there. I will say that if we are talking about a noticable difference in performance (PS editing - some filters like Neat Image take too long on my current PC), a couple hundred bucks more is ok with me. So can anyone tell me if a quad core is justified? How about AMD vs. Intel?
- Must be 32 Bit OS (I didn't mention it but older software compatability is a must. I still run Office2000 and some utils from the mid '90s).
- NOT Vista (Did I mention I HATE Vista?)
- Get 4GB memory max (even though might not be fully utilized)
- Get the fastest boot drive, but not necessarily the biggest (I am leaning toward a 160GB 10K RPM SATA).
- A larger capacity secondary drive. Maybe RAID. If I remember from my IT days, RAID 0 is mirroring? I don't know if that is necessary since I will be running some sort of instant copy or backup that will dupe my important files onto a network storage disk, but I do see the benefits of hardware based mirroring.
- Still not sure what the best video card would be. I don't do games, but if I found one compelling enough to play on that 27" monitor, I don't want to NOT be able to or be made to feel inadequate in doing so, if you know what I mean. But my biggest concern is simply driving those 2 high resolution monitors. I DON'T want to watch the screen redraw. Ever. :)
- Build Your Own? Hmmm... I have built MANY PCs in my adult life and have grown less and less fond of doing it and haven't built one for a couple years and last time I did, it seemed like the cost benefit was not nearly what it was in the early days. I've priced things out a few times since then, and again - hardly seems worth it and in some cases more expensive to build myself. But if someone ( SamDoe1?) has a list of components, prices and sources that makes a compelling case, I might consider it.
SO, if not Dell, who? Any recommendations or answers or comments on my notes above? MUCH appreciated for helping me avoid having to kick myself in the ass yet again. :)
|
|
|
|
02/24/2008 08:03:26 PM · #15 |
Specifically on the Graphics card
If you're willing to spend the money for peace of mind, get a Geforce 8800gt. Middle of the high end. I haven't looked into things for a while, and I'm working on UK prices, so perhaps someone else could give you specifics? The thing about the Quadro is that it's not just overkill, it's a spanner/screwdriver thing. Like buying a large format camera to shoot basketball.
And again, unless it's 3d you will NEVER have problems with a screen redraw using any graphics card sold today. Even the 40 buck ones. |
|
|
|
02/24/2008 08:29:09 PM · #16 |
Strange you should bring this one up, Art. I was having exactly the same issue - a dependable Dell workstation that went down last week and the need to buy something to do Photoshop work. I have bought Dell for too long and am not happy with the quality. Therefore, I decided to build my own (for the first time). At the following link, you can find the components I selected. Comments anyone?
Newegg wishlist
(Note, I am not a game player ;-) )
Message edited by author 2008-02-24 20:29:43. |
|
|
|
02/24/2008 08:40:07 PM · #17 |
Thanks - I am checking out Newegg now. I'd heard of them awhile back.
I used to buy Gateway desktops for my company and had my ups & downs with them but overall I liked doing business with them and like their machines - I just bought a GW laptop a year or two ago. I just looked at their website though and you can no longer customize the desktop systems like you could in the past. That sucks. I would really lean toward a well known brand that allows you to fully configure the machine. Seems like Dell is the only major player left that does that, but if their quality sucks, it's a moot point. |
|
|
|
02/24/2008 08:41:17 PM · #18 |
| I just had a pretty good experience purchasing through NewEgg; it wasn't a computer but I did like the service I got from them. |
|
|
|
02/24/2008 08:50:01 PM · #19 |
Whatever brand you buy, there will be somebody who pops up on the forums telling of they're bad experiences with it. Dell, bad as it is, has one of the better reliability records overall. That said, you can get more bang for your buck with the current crop of HP's, although I'd still get the Dell monitor. They're hard to beat for the price.
If the most intense thing you do is PS work, a 32 bit, dual core, with 4 GB of RAM is good enough. But if you're doing lots of video editing, you may want the quad core, or even the 64 bit with more RAM. Video encoding is a processor and RAM intensive beast.
I agree with L2. Newegg is excellent in every way, especially if you live on the west coast. Order tonight. Get it tomorrow. Cheap!
|
|
|
|
02/24/2008 09:35:05 PM · #20 |
| Here's some information from Microsoft about how XP/Vista addresses 4GB of memory. |
|
|
|
02/24/2008 10:22:36 PM · #21 |
Thanks! Here's an excerpt that made my head explode...
Originally posted by MS KB Article:
To reduce driver compatibility issues, Windows Vista and Windows XP Service Pack 2 include hardware abstraction layer (HAL) changes that mimic the 32-bit HAL DMA behavior. The modified HAL grants unlimited map registers when the computer is running in PAE mode. Additionally, the kernel memory manager ignores any physical address that is more than 4 GB. Any system RAM that is more than the 4 GB barrier would be made unaddressable by Windows and be unusable in the system. By limiting the address space to 4 GB, devices with 32-bit DMA bus master capability will not see a transaction with an address that is more than the 4 GB barrier. Because these changes remove the need to double-buffer the transactions, they avoid a class of bugs in some drivers that is related to the correct implementation of double buffering support. |
Wasn't "HAL" the villain in 2001 A Space Odyssey? Coincidence? Hmmmmm... |
|
|
|
02/24/2008 10:38:51 PM · #22 |
Not that....this
EDIT: Specifically "The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB." - however in useable terms this is more like 3gb...there's plenty of discussion if you google for it.
N
Message edited by author 2008-02-24 22:40:48.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2008 10:49:45 PM · #23 |
Art -
Building your own for the first time can be a major PITA. The easy and nice shortcut is to buy barebones systems, which are essentially the core bits of the rig, which should all usually be fitted and importantly tested. Then all you need to choose is the CPU and memory (often the place you buy from will fit them, otherwise it's dead easy to do), and fit some drives and cards (also dead easy). It's a bit like building your own with the motherboard and power stuff done already. It's also nice if you want to salvage old bits from your old rig into the new one (generally not CPU or memory because they're the reason for the upgrade in the first place).
At the end of the day it's all much of a muchness if you ask me - once you've wiped all the preinstalled crapola that comes on so many of the pre-built stuff it's just a box of components. The main difference is that they've been tested and work well together - something you don't want the hassle of. The other difference is support and that really depends on how much you need or want. You can't go wrong with one of the big names...HP or Dell in particular...but you'll often get better value at some of the more local places (not two man operations but not Gateway either). Also, if you have XP already make sure you don't pay for an OS...saves money...also remove service contracts if you want...saves more...
N
|
|
|
|
02/25/2008 02:34:26 AM · #24 |
Ok components and prices you say... Here we go:
Case: I frankly don't care what my computer looks like so I picked whatever was cheapest with the best airflow -
COOLER MASTER Centurion 5 CAC-T05-UW Black Aluminum Bezel , SECC Chassis ATX Mid Tower Computer Case - Retail ($50)
Motherboard: I like the Intel chipsets and boards personally, I know others like other brands. I'm not so much a fan of the Nvidia Nforce chipsets -
Intel BLKDP35DPM LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Intel Motherboard - OEM ($105)
Graphics Card: I'm a big Nvidia fan. Getting ATi would be fine if that's what your cup of tea is. The 8 series and above are directx 10 compatible so try to go for that (even though WinXP isn't DX10 compatibile) - XFX PVT84JUDD3 GeForce 8600GT XXX 256MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 SLI Supported Video Card - Retail ($105)
Power Supply: Something with around 500w of power should do fine unless you want the massive vid cards...the one above is not - Thermaltake Purepower W0100RU ATX 12V 2.0 500W Power Supply - Retail ($60)
CPU: Intels are currently better and faster than the AMDs in benchmark tests. The Core2Extremes are the latest and greatest, and the had better be for $1000+...not worth it. I'd still recommend a dual core such as the C2D E6750 ($190) but if you want a quad core the C2Q Q6600 ($250) is the way to go. Try to go one lower than the best, you'll save s LOT without sacrificing much performance.
Card Reader: For $12, why the hell not? Rosewill RCR-102 52-in-1 USB 2.0 Black Card Reader - Retail ($12) PS: Are there even 52 different types of cards????
RAM: Like I said before, DDR2-800 is the best one to go for because of it's higher clock speed (800mhz vs 667mhz) - G.SKILL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model F2-6400CL5D-4GBPQ - Retail ($90)
Hard Drive(s): Having several different drives is, in my opinion, the way to go for performance and with the cost of a 1Tb drive being more than having 2x500gb drives the choice is obvious. Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD5000AAKS 500GB 7200 RPM SATA-300 Hard Drive - OEM ($105x2 vs $250 for a 1Tb). For your boot drive, the 10k rpm drives are blazing fast and I'd recommend the WD Raptor drives - Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB 10,000 RPM SATA-150 Hard Drive - OEM ($170)
Sound Card: Use the on board. The motherboard above has a built in optical audio port too.
Optical Drives: Doesn't matter...I use a Lite-On DVD+/-RW drive. ($30ish)
Misc: Cost of whatever cables and accesories you'd need and cost of the OS. I don't know if you have a mouse/keyboard you want to re-use.
Total: $932 for the C2D and $992 for the C2Q. All prices from Newegg.com.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2008 05:03:50 AM · #25 |
Hay thanks Sam. I actually spent nearly all day researching CPUs and desktops at HP, GW, and even several other systems at Dell (just can't help being attracted to the convenience).
I decided that I do want a quad core. I am convinced it would provide noticable improved performance and the cost is worth it. I will however, concede to a max of 2.4GHz because the price jump after that is too much.
So I was able to configure a Dell XPS720 for right around $2k and a Dell Precision T3400 for about the same. For some reason HP's website didn't hold my attention long enough to configure a system (if that is possible). Gateway is out because I can't customize much either.
Then I went to Newegg and spent probably 6 hours or more trying to piece a system together. I managed to put one together comparable to the Dell XPS, but with some pluses and some minuses - more pluses actually and all for about $500 less than Dell (excluding shipping and taxes). The Newegg option is also $2k LESS than the Dell order I canceled thanks to this thread! :D
So I am down to build it myself and save $500 or just order the damn thing and save maybe 4 hours of build time That's assuming everything goes well. If I run into problems building the thing, I might just snap. I don't have even half the patience I did when I was building PCs fairly regularly.
I'll think about it some more, but if Sam or Quasimojo want to check out my Newgg config and let me know if you see any red flags, I'd be very happy. :D
edit to add: Well it looks like shipping from Newegg would cost ~$18 for all that stuff as compared to Dell's $150 or so. Also, no State sales tax from Neweg, but Dell charges around $175, so that brings the incentive to build my own to $500+$150+$175 = $825!! That would almost pay for the 27" monitor.
Message edited by author 2008-02-25 05:20:00. |
|
