ddrueding
Fixture
Good find. Too bad there is no X18-E for my netbook 
SSDs - State of the Product?
- Thread starter ddrueding
- Start date
Stereodude
Not really a
I am hoping the Intel price cuts will push down the price of the Indilinx powered drives. This G.skill one is tempting since it's cheaper than it's two cousins and is basically the same price as the now cheaper Intel 80GB SSD.
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
Greg, the i7 platform gets you a couple of percent improvement over the fastest AMD has to offer. However you are paying a very significant premium for those percent. Bleeding edge and all that.
The value for money at this time is:
AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition - $245. That's quad core @ 3.2 GHz. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103674&Tpk=amd 955
Something like this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130223 - $179, has four PCI-E slots for graphics.
Three sticks of DDR3 (even though DDR2 can keep the Phenom fed).
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3551
That will get you something very close to the high end i7 config, for hundreds less. There are even more savings to be made if you move a couple of steps down from the 955 cpu.
Santilli
Hairy Aussie
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,078
Pradeep: Here is the conclusion to that article:
"Where the situation gets tougher is when you look at the $245 Phenom II 955 vs. Intel's $284 Core i7-920. The i7 route costs you another ~$40 on the CPU and another $10 - $70 on the motherboard depending on what AM3 board you get for the 955. For around $100 extra you can go with an i7-920, which is anywhere from 0 - 40% faster than the Phenom II X4 955 depending on what application you're looking at. Now if you're budget constrained then the i7 isn't really an option, but as applications and workloads become more threaded the i7 could be a wiser long-term purchase.
The cheaper Phenom II parts, especially once you get down to the X3 720, don't really even touch the i7's price points so the comparison isn't really valid there. But the 955 is getting dangerously close to the cost of an entry level i7 platform, and if you don't already have an AM2+ motherboard the i7 may be worth considering. Especially now that DDR2 and DDR3 are much closer in price."
I am budget constrained, or at least cheap, and,don't have an AM2 motherboard.
It does look like the bleeding edge might be a bit expensive right now.
I wonder what operating system I'd be able to run? 2003 Server? XP PRO? 7?
NOT Vista...
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
I have the same problem, a socket 939 mobo with a 3200 single core in it. Hell it's still got AGP. Doesn't seem worth hunting down a faster 939 processor, hard to find them.
Santilli
Hairy Aussie
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,078
Pradeep: Here is the conclusion to that article:
"Where the situation gets tougher is when you look at the $245 Phenom II 955 vs. Intel's $284 Core i7-920. The i7 route costs you another ~$40 on the CPU and another $10 - $70 on the motherboard depending on what AM3 board you get for the 955. For around $100 extra you can go with an i7-920, which is anywhere from 0 - 40% faster than the Phenom II X4 955 depending on what application you're looking at. Now if you're budget constrained then the i7 isn't really an option, but as applications and workloads become more threaded the i7 could be a wiser long-term purchase.
The cheaper Phenom II parts, especially once you get down to the X3 720, don't really even touch the i7's price points so the comparison isn't really valid there. But the 955 is getting dangerously close to the cost of an entry level i7 platform, and if you don't already have an AM2+ motherboard the i7 may be worth considering. Especially now that DDR2 and DDR3 are much closer in price."
I am budget constrained, or at least cheap, and,don't have an AM2 motherboard.
It does look like the bleeding edge might be a bit expensive right now.
I wonder what operating system I'd be able to run? 2003 Server? XP PRO? 7?
NOT Vista...
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
Yes, for a value minded consumer I wouldn't recommend the 955 or the i7 platform. The X3 and the "slower" X4s are much more bang for buck.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
I've got an X2/4800 I'd like to retire soon... I'm tying on it right now, in fact.
But at this point I'd like to say a couple things. One is that I've been saying for a while now that there's a huge value in AMD as a platform because the onboard graphics and sound are so nice.
The other is that, nice as I feel those graphics are, I've really been happier with Intel-based motherboards in general. Gigabyte's boards have always been good to me, but going from Intel to Intel to Intel with my prepped images is way, way, way less work than AMD is, and that's worth the price premium to me.
Anyway, my i7 is a Windows Server 2003 machine. It's sitting at 3.8GHz and I bet I could get it to 4.something GHz if I had purchased nicer RAM. If you're not interested in overclocking I think you're going to be fine with whatever you get. Even the 5000-series Core2 Duos are super-fast for all practical purposes.
But at this point I'd like to say a couple things. One is that I've been saying for a while now that there's a huge value in AMD as a platform because the onboard graphics and sound are so nice.
The other is that, nice as I feel those graphics are, I've really been happier with Intel-based motherboards in general. Gigabyte's boards have always been good to me, but going from Intel to Intel to Intel with my prepped images is way, way, way less work than AMD is, and that's worth the price premium to me.
Anyway, my i7 is a Windows Server 2003 machine. It's sitting at 3.8GHz and I bet I could get it to 4.something GHz if I had purchased nicer RAM. If you're not interested in overclocking I think you're going to be fine with whatever you get. Even the 5000-series Core2 Duos are super-fast for all practical purposes.
Stereodude
Not really a
Stereodude
Not really a
So Newegg has the 80GB Intel for $315 with free shipping today with the coupon code in their e-mail. Do I buy one? I'm pretty sure the answer is yes.
ddrueding
Fixture
Intel i7, Intel X58, and Intel SSD is a very happy place to be.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
I concur.
Santilli
Hairy Aussie
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,078
I've just been looking at the Quad coreXeon 3300 series of processors.
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?p=XEON3360BX&c=pw
What's wrong with them, and, how do they compare to the i7?
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?p=XEON3360BX&c=pw
What's wrong with them, and, how do they compare to the i7?
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
They need very expensive motherboards that go in systems that tend to not be whisper quiet. In fact, Xeon systems pretty much always wind up sounding like jet engines because of the size of motherboards and types of cases that are used with them.
The only real reason to look at 3300-series Xeons is if you want an 8 CPU configuration, which is difficult to justify for a personal system. You lose a lot of consumer features on your server-type motherboards and you gain exotic I/O, which frankly is not something you need unless you're wanting a cheap 16-port SATA card.
You're better off looking at Core2 Quad, higher-end PhenomII or i7. They're just going to be closer to what you as a home user need.
The only real reason to look at 3300-series Xeons is if you want an 8 CPU configuration, which is difficult to justify for a personal system. You lose a lot of consumer features on your server-type motherboards and you gain exotic I/O, which frankly is not something you need unless you're wanting a cheap 16-port SATA card.
You're better off looking at Core2 Quad, higher-end PhenomII or i7. They're just going to be closer to what you as a home user need.
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
Going to disagree with you there Merc, *many* a pro works from home on Xeon based Mac Pro's which are no that noisy. Many a 'consumer'/Pro work from home or on the road with a MBP 17in (sure you can get a Dell with a more accurate screen....if you want to spend more $$$, yeah that's right *more* $$$, and get a clunky looking system that doesn't come with the thinest 17in on the market w/*extended* runtime battery).
Guess the "you" you were referring to only applies to certain "yous"/yews/yacks
My hero Rush Limbaugh has a suite of MP's, he loves Mac OSX (j/k bout the hero part)
Last edited:
ddrueding
Fixture
At medium spec, 8-core Mac Pros cost $7k. So I would call them idiots, not pros, Uda.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
I could build 9+ quad core systems for that price. Idiots is putting it lightly.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Someone who does content creation for a living with professional tools MIGHT have need of an 8 CPU system.
And to be fair, a middle of the road Dell Precision is also north of $5k.
I could build that machine for $2500, though.
And to be fair, a middle of the road Dell Precision is also north of $5k.
I could build that machine for $2500, though.
Santilli
Hairy Aussie
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,078
You have to remember, I went through this. Yes, fans on server stuff ARE incredibly loud. I had to replace the fan in the SCSI supermirco box, and, put Swiftech sinks, with Vantec Stealth fans to get it to be liveable.
Still, I have been delighted with the Supermicro dual X5DA8, and the dual Xeons I have. There are very few tasks I do that will use 100% of the two cpus I currently have. I suspect 8 cores would keep me going for a LONG time.
Still, I have been delighted with the Supermicro dual X5DA8, and the dual Xeons I have. There are very few tasks I do that will use 100% of the two cpus I currently have. I suspect 8 cores would keep me going for a LONG time.
ddrueding
Fixture
The problem is not getting a demand high enough that it will saturate all your cores. The problem is getting that demand to use all your cores. The more cores you have, the less likely it is that whatever load you have will use it. You probably see that already; one core sitting at 100% while others are only 15-25% loaded.
Stereodude
Not really a
There's only one solution. Faster Cores!
ddrueding
Fixture
Indeed, but that will only get you so far as well. IIRC, the best anyone has done with Liquid He is 7Ghz.
Santilli
Hairy Aussie
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,078
for got to mention that to build the current machine was not even possible with mac stuff at the time. Cost wise, even if it was capable, it was about 4x more for the stuff you could get for the mac.
Supermicro or Apple? Now that's a real hard one...
Supermicro or Apple? Now that's a real hard one...
ddrueding
Fixture
Only if the question is who can bend you over further.
Stereodude
Not really a
Surely this is a joke.
How much better is the i7 than the quad-core Yorkenfield in single-threaded use?
ddrueding
Fixture
I'll have to find my Q9550. What tests would you like to see run?
I have been using a Q9650 @4.05 for a while now, and wonder if the i7 is better in PS for the slow, single-threaded operations such as saving large files. Everything else is fast enough or not significantly CPU limited.
I have been using a Q9650 @4.05 for a while now, and wonder if the i7 is better in PS for the slow, single-threaded operations such as saving large files. Everything else is fast enough or not significantly CPU limited.
ddrueding
Fixture
I can put together some large files and test them? Most of my biggest are .psb (13GB) and .tif (2.2GB).
Stereodude
Not really a
You guys must be really impatient.
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
You guys must be really impatient.
Yer crusin fer a brusin there SD. About to get a 3-finger 'twitteriffic' salute for your tweet post.
Btw, are you twittering from your iPod using Cooliris app???
http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/05/01/cooliris.update.for.iphone/
Cooliris 1.4 is compatible with the iPhone and iPod touchand is available as a free download from the App Store.
Santilli
Hairy Aussie
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,078
I agree. It's also not worth buying another 2 gigs of ram, at least in my opinion. The ram for this machine, that would match, is 70 dollars, plus shipping. Don't think 2 gigs to 4 is worth it, and, awhile back I passed on a new processor, since the Opteron 185 was, IIRC, the fastest I might put into this motherboard. But, 225 dollars??? and more heat????
So far, it seems to make a fine HTPC, though processor use is fairly high, around 40-70 % when playing DVD's.
Passable game machine, and, with a 10k boot drive, pretty decent, speed wise. An SSD, when they are near the same cost as a regular drive, will be a huge speed boost, and will add to the longevity.
Frankly, my agp dual machine is still very fast, and, with all the spare storage, and a SSD raid 0 boot setup, will be blindingly fast still.
Eventually MSFT will force me to give them up, or add another machine, but, for now, I just don't see it.
That may change when either the prices come down more for LCD TV's, or, computer monitors come down more.
By the way, it appears Costco still gives you the lifetime warranty on computer monitors, but, only 90 days on TV screens...
Stereodude
Not really a
Your CPU usage should be about 5-10% when playing a DVD if it's using the hardware acceleration of your video card.
Stereodude
Not really a
Considering most of the people here have you on ignore it's probably best not to agitate one of the few who doesn't unless you're hoping for no one to read your posts.
Just because my post was short and to the point doesn't meant I didn't spend any time on it. Philosopher Blaise Pascal once wrote, "I would have written a shorter letter, but I didn’t have the time."
Typical files are in the 24-50 MP range with 5-6 image layers (16-bit mode). Save times can be much longer than desirable.
During much of the process, the CPU is at 25% (one core maxed out). RAM and HD are not the limiting factors then. Larger files are progressively more difficult to work with and it is practically necessary to limit the image layers.
ddrueding
Fixture
Well, I'm about to make a fairly big file...I'll leave in all the adjustment layers and do some saving.