Which is best? Dual or Quad Processor

08/17/2007 12:07:08 PM · #26

And how many hours will it take you to build, test, install the OS, down load the updates and the most current drivers, etc?

And how much do you value your time? $10/hr, $50/hour?

Plus, no warrenty, no support, and usually no clue when something doesn't work.

I've built a few PCs in my time and for the life of me I can't understand the value in BYO systems these days. But then, I wouldn't buy a Dell in any case.

Originally posted by SamDoe1:

I would highly push for the build your own route.
Here's a small comparison of the parts/performance differences between the parts I've bought and the Dell XPS I priced out:

My PC:
Intel Core2Duo E6550 2.33GHz dual core w/1333MHz FSB - $50 cheaper than the 2.66GHz, not much difference in speed.
2GB OCZ Gold DDR2 800 RAM
Gigabyte Intel P35 motherboard
Coolermaster aluminum case
OCZ Stealth 600W power supply
500GB Western Digital SATA (3.0gbps) hard drive
NVidia 8800GTS 320mb graphics card (high performance vid card for games, if you don't need one of these you can save a ton)
Logitech G5 laser mouse
DVD-ROM drive
DVD-RW drive
Card Reader
Dell 20in Ultrasharp monitor
Total: ~$1300

Dell XPS 410:
Intel C2D E6600 2.4GHz dual core w/1066MHz FSB
375W Power supply
2GB DDR2 800 RAM
500GB hard drive SATA 3.0gbps
DVD-ROM
DVD-RW
Dell 20in ultrasharp monitor
Nvidia 8600GTS 256mb graphics card (not nearly as good as the 8800gts)
Logitech G5 laser mouse
Card reader
Total: $1688

The only real difference you'll see between these machines is in 3D gaming operations. With that said, if you back off the 8800GTS and get the 8600GTS you'd save about $200 on top of the initial savings on the build your own.

fotomann_forever

08/17/2007 12:07:11 PM · #27

ahhh, ok... :-)

literaryradical

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

08/17/2007 12:07:52 PM · #28

Be careful ordering the XPS, unless you're okay with waiting quite a while for one. Dell customers are experiencing major delays with their XPS M1330 orders, as well as some Inspirons.

Apparently they hadn't worked out the bugs in the painting process. The Inspiron I ordered on July 27th isn't going to be here until September. (Not that I'm bitter.)

Count me as another vote for build your own.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/17/2007 12:11:05 PM · #29

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Some people see it like building your own lightsabre I think - a sort of geek right of passage, particularly if your time isn't a precious commodity. Phrasing it in terms of what the value of your time is, is a bit odd though, if it is something you enjoy doing.

Its a good route if you do know what you are doing and know how to fix it when it goes wrong, but certainly is a bad idea for the majority of users.

Message edited by author 2007-08-17 12:13:10.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

08/17/2007 12:13:31 PM · #30

If you can build it, odds are you can troubleshoot it.

You can build a PC from parts to patched OS in less than two hours.

My time is worth $60 an hour. So $120 bucks to have in two hours what I would otherwise have to wait days/weeks for and end up reloading anyway to get it setup the way I want.

Works for me.

But if you think you need tech support, it's hard to beat Dell's pricing with the included support.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

08/17/2007 12:14:32 PM · #31

Originally posted by Gordon:

Some people see it like building your own lightsabre

You can build you own lightsabre???? Please link me!!! My son would go nuts!

;-)

alfresco

Nikon D700

08/17/2007 01:25:46 PM · #32

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Some people see it like building your own lightsabre

You can build you own lightsabre???? Please link me!!! My son would go nuts!

;-)

I can see it now:

zzzzhhhhhhhhtttttt
zzzzzzhhhhhtt zzzzzzzzzzzhhhhhhhhttttttttttt

thud

"errrrr ... sorry Dad"

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/17/2007 01:33:26 PM · #33

I agree with routerguy. You can go from parts to ready to run in about 2-3hrs. Even if I value my time at $60/hr like he does, I am still saving $200+ and getting the exact system I want. If you've got a couple hours free on a weekend, it's very easy to do. But like has been said, if you don't know much about computers and need the tech support, go with the Dell. My arguement for tech support is this, everyone has at least one friend who is either into computers or works in IT. Ask them, I'm sure they'd be more than willing to be your tech support. If I charged for my tech support time, I'd be rich.

08/17/2007 01:52:45 PM · #34

Originally posted by alfresco:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Some people see it like building your own lightsabre

You can build you own lightsabre???? Please link me!!! My son would go nuts!

;-)

I can see it now:

zzzzhhhhhhhhtttttt
zzzzzzhhhhhtt zzzzzzzzzzzhhhhhhhhttttttttttt

thud

"errrrr ... sorry Dad"

Well, I would make one for me too. Have to keep the balance of power in the house. ;-)

08/17/2007 01:56:34 PM · #35

Originally posted by SamDoe1:

I agree with routerguy. You can go from parts to ready to run in about 2-3hrs.

My experience is it takes 2-3 hours just to get all the Windows updates installed. First you have to get the critical updates (70+ on my last install) then get the critical updates to the critical updates. Usually takes 3 passes on the Windows Update to get evreything up to date on XP. I even had to install an update to the updater. And thats Not counting the .NET environment installs.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/17/2007 02:05:56 PM · #36

yeah, my last winXP reinstall took about 6 hours total for all the patches/ critical updates and critical updates to those updates.

Then another several hours to install the various other bits and pieces that are required like anti-virus and office etc.

That ignores finding and installing the usually required BIOS and driver updates for a new motherboard. Luckily I don't charge myself my hourly rate or a home build would cost more than a mac.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

08/17/2007 03:08:54 PM · #37

You guys must have slow connections. At 6Mb/s cable download, it's pretty darn quick to patch up.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

08/17/2007 03:12:06 PM · #38

Originally posted by routerguy666:

You guys must have slow connections. At 6Mb/s cable download, it's pretty darn quick to patch up.

I'm on a similar speed connection. There's just a lot of crap you need to patch to get all the drivers up to date, particularly if you actually install any applications. I probably shouldn't install 3 OSes each time though.

Message edited by author 2007-08-17 15:13:22.

swankFoto

Fujifilm X-E1

08/17/2007 03:13:42 PM · #39

So what's the final take on Quad Core CS3 vs. Core Duo CS3?
Photoshop is multithreaded for sure but does it take advantage of 4 cores?
If so, the modest clock speed on a Duo should be put to shame by a slightly slower clock on a Quad.
That's assuming that PS can utilize all four cores for say USM.
I think I read that PS only uses one core for filters?
Anyone know this?

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/17/2007 03:17:37 PM · #40

AnandTech shows the QuadCore as about 1/3rd faster at equivalent speeds to the DualCores.

From what I've read from Photoshop developers, CS3 doesn't ever currently use more than 2 cores, even in batch mode.

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

08/17/2007 03:27:53 PM · #41

Originally posted by rswank:

PS uses multiple cores for running filters. I'm not sure if it uses multiple cores for everything else though. I don't think it can use 4 cores to run anything.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/17/2007 03:32:11 PM · #42

Originally posted by SamDoe1:

PS uses multiple cores for running filters. I'm not sure if it uses multiple cores for everything else though. I don't think it can use 4 cores to run anything.

It will depend a lot on the filter, what its doing and who wrote it though. Not every filter operation can be usefully broken down across multiple cores.

It looks like there's a small, probably worthwhile if you can afford it, advantage to having a quad core, but it isn't that significant if you can't. With a quad-core you are more likely to run up against obscure bugs than with a dual core.

Message edited by author 2007-08-17 15:34:25.

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

08/17/2007 03:36:05 PM · #43

Originally posted by Gordon:

With this said, I'd get the faster dual core as opposed to the slower quad. *Most* (correct me if I'm wrong here) applications don't even use multiple cores to begin with. So I would go with the faster dual core which has a faster speed per core. Unless you plan on multitasking like crazy.

Message edited by author 2007-08-17 15:36:29.

Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 Di III VXD

08/17/2007 03:41:00 PM · #44

Originally posted by SamDoe1:

Pretty much. Once you get a spare core to run your AV & firewall software, you don't need much more ;) These dual cores probably (not paid much attention to Intel recently) are hyperthreaded anyway, so you'll get an appearance of 4 virtual cores on a dual core, least my current desktop does. That doesn't give you the same performance, but it helps. You quite quickly get in to diminishing returns for multiple processors, unless the applications are carefully designed for them.

Message edited by author 2007-08-17 15:41:34.

MadMan2k

Sony Alpha a6400

08/17/2007 03:59:35 PM · #45

At one time I recommended people buy the parts and build their own computers up, but I realized it's really a LOT more trouble than its worth for the average person. If they're mechanically inclined and willing to learn, fine, but not everyone finds fighting with parts and tracking down problems fun. I would most likely build my own system again if I wanted a new desktop, but I have most of a degree in IT and a couple years of experience as a technician at a computer store.

There's no way building up a computer from scratch would have been a fun experience when I was just into surfing and playing games. It's better to start small, you know, upgrade the RAM, take everything apart, put it back together, try Linux, try an older OS and track down drivers for your stuff, etc.

I don't plan on building another desktop in the next 10-15 years, and after that I think desktops will be pretty much phased out, so my first could be my last. Laptops are already at the point where I wouldn't need more if I got a decent one, and I hope to spend most of my time shooting rather than using the computer.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/17/2007 03:59:44 PM · #46

Originally posted by GeneralE:

When I started using Photoshop (v 2.0), running the UnSharp Mask filter on a medium-sized image for print (e.g. 5x7" @ 300 dpi) also allowed one to run next door to the local cafe (no StarbucksÂ®) for a latte to go before proceeding to the next step.

No StarbucksÂ®!!! I thought StarbucksÂ® invented the latte...

The tall is the small.

08/17/2007 04:04:54 PM · #47

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

When I started using Photoshop (v 2.0), running the UnSharp Mask filter on a medium-sized image for print (e.g. 5x7" @ 300 dpi) also allowed one to run next door to the local cafe (no StarbucksÂ®) for a latte to go before proceeding to the next step.

No StarbucksÂ®!!! I thought StarbucksÂ® invented the latte...

The tall is the small.

I vaguely remember using v 2.5 in some image processing classes. painful.