For reasons I won't go into, it is highly desirable to rebuild a system from an old image (TI 10). The original installation a few years ago was Win2K on a 975X mainboard with an E67000 CPU. I have enough spare parts, including a cheap CPU (T7200), with the exception of the mainboard. Which kind of chipset/board is available now that will work with the old installation? A super-fancy motherboard is not needed. The system will be used only a few times per month, mainly for printing and as a backup for the primary system. Thanks for your attention.
Restoring System
- Thread starter LunarMist
- Start date
ddrueding
Fixture
Yes. I want 4 RAM slots, PCIe video card slot, and at least 2 PCI and 1 PCIe 1x slots.
Parts to use:
Antec Santana II case (450W PSU)
4x1GB DDR2 PC5400
PCIe video card (some kind of X1600)
T7200 CPU
Sony NEC DVD writer (SATA)
SATA hard drives TBD (no more than 3)
FW PCI card
ATA PCI card (if no onboard ATA)
eSATA PCIe card (if no eSATA ports)
Parts to use:
Antec Santana II case (450W PSU)
4x1GB DDR2 PC5400
PCIe video card (some kind of X1600)
T7200 CPU
Sony NEC DVD writer (SATA)
SATA hard drives TBD (no more than 3)
FW PCI card
ATA PCI card (if no onboard ATA)
eSATA PCIe card (if no eSATA ports)
ddrueding
Fixture
ddrueding
Fixture
All the Intel boards I saw with eSATA onboard use DDR3.
ddrueding
Fixture
There may be some issues, but they will be recoverable without too much trouble. Newegg still has an Intel 975X motherboard as an open box item, but I would try to move forward with the technology. Mercutio has more experience with this than I do, but installing the new drivers in an existing installation is relatively painless.
ddrueding
Fixture
It was harder way back when, but it was also harder in W2K than XP. I haven't done a W2K hardware swap in at least 4 years. The most difficulty I envision is doing a sysprep before or a repair installation after. Neither is exceptionally difficult.
I ended up purchasing a Gigabot P35 board of some kind. Apparently I need a new version of TI because it does not see any of the drive ports. 
However I was able to restore the image to a 15K SCSI drive for temporary use.
I'm pretty impressed with the cheap E7200 CPU that was purchased just to get the 2nd system working. It seems to be stable at 3.7GHz, but core temperatures are too high for long term considerations. Even at 3.5 or 3.6 GHz it is faster than the main system, yet it will only be used a few times a month. :lol:
However I was able to restore the image to a 15K SCSI drive for temporary use. I'm pretty impressed with the cheap E7200 CPU that was purchased just to get the 2nd system working. It seems to be stable at 3.7GHz, but core temperatures are too high for long term considerations. Even at 3.5 or 3.6 GHz it is faster than the main system, yet it will only be used a few times a month. :lol:
Does the memory ratio make much difference? At the default of 3 it would be too fast, yet it is too slow at 2. Is 2.5 OK, or does a fractional ratio degrade performance compared to using the even number 2? Thanks.
ddrueding
Fixture
Too fast for what? Is it unstable?
I assume the image migration worked with the new board?
I assume the image migration worked with the new board?
Here are my choices for the memory multiplier and corresponding RAM speed (MHz).
2.0-760
2.5-900
3.0-1140 (this is also the speed when memory is set to Auto)
The SPD value for the 4x1GB DDR2 is 800MHz. The system runs fine with a 2.0 or 2.5 multiplier, but crashes in Auto, because the frequency is excessive. Unfortunately I don't know whether 2.0 or 2.5 is the best option or if it even makes much difference.
2.0-760
2.5-900
3.0-1140 (this is also the speed when memory is set to Auto)
The SPD value for the 4x1GB DDR2 is 800MHz. The system runs fine with a 2.0 or 2.5 multiplier, but crashes in Auto, because the frequency is excessive. Unfortunately I don't know whether 2.0 or 2.5 is the best option or if it even makes much difference.
ddrueding
Fixture
It depends on what you do, but it probably won't make much difference. I would set it to the higher speed and run a cursory memory check (eg. MemTest86+, included as a boot option on Ubuntu install disks) just to make sure nothing goes wonky. Most of the "800Mhz" memory I have plays nice up to about 1Ghz, so I don't think it will be an issue.
ddrueding
Fixture
As a system reseller, you can still get OEM copies (I think). But a friend has been doing it a cheaper way.
1. Get a pirated version from online.
2. Download and install all updates until WGA breaks it.
3. "Go legit" by paying the amount Microsoft want to make it legal (which is less than an OEM license).
I haven't tried it, but he's done it dozens of times.
1. Get a pirated version from online.
2. Download and install all updates until WGA breaks it.
3. "Go legit" by paying the amount Microsoft want to make it legal (which is less than an OEM license).
I haven't tried it, but he's done it dozens of times.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Packaged OEM copies of XP will be available until the next version of Windows is released. XP is no longer available to major OEMs. Major OEMs get around that by reselling Vista Business and exercising the downgrade rights for you, but they're only doing that for products in their business lineups, if at all.
And yes, I've heard of people doing the "go legit" trick as well.
And yes, I've heard of people doing the "go legit" trick as well.
ddrueding
Fixture
I'd recommend against upgrades anyway, they never are as clean or as fast, and tend to have more issues.
ddrueding
Fixture
The OS won't freak out (once you are using the multi-core kernel it is all the same), but it likely will deactivate. That is a 2 minute phone call, nothing to worry about.
I bought the quad-core CPU. It functions properly yet results are disappointing. Somehow I figured that would be the case, but I have to learn the hard way. Unlike David, et al. I have no good way to repurpose the CPU and RAM, and I'm not looking forward to taking the computer apart yet again. Now I have four LGA775 CPUs, three sets of RAM and two motherboards of the type.
Unlike David, et al. I have no good way to repurpose the CPU and RAM, and I'm not looking forward to taking the computer apart yet again. Now I have four LGA775 CPUs, three sets of RAM and two motherboards of the type.
ddrueding
Fixture
Why did you replace the CPU and what performance were you looking for?
...some personal problems for the most part. More later if the reboot is successful.
It is better now than yesterday. I replaced the heatsink/fan, updated the BIOS, and adjusted memory and CPU settings. (There are a multitude of settings in there, and a virus is not making the work easier.)
I was hoping that the 4-core CPU would be rather better than the 2-core CPU in multi-threaded uses. However, the four cores are not maxed out enough of the time to make up much more than the difference of the slower 4-core vs. 2-core CPU. In the parts of applications that are not multi-threaded, there is a net loss of course. Overall it is a wash, and the 4-core CPU generates more heat. Some apps or parts thereof utilize may four cores better, but not the multi-threaded ones I am using like PS, DPP, BB, etc. Perhaps some other OS is more efficient in that regard.
ddrueding
Fixture
I share your dissapointment with the major photo apps lack of multithreading capabilities. Fortunatly, every time I've increased the number of cores, I've also increased the clock speed of those cores. CS4 does do better in this regard; I've started using it over PTGui and Photomatix because it is willing to use all my hardware. If only it would allow stitching of .hdr files...
In CS4, File, Save As... is still only single threaded, as are other major parts of PS. Unfortunately the main plug-ins I use are also single-threaded. There may be newer versions available, but they are probably not worth the cost.
I've ramped the clock up to a higher level; it needs to run overnight to demonstrate stability.
I've ramped the clock up to a higher level; it needs to run overnight to demonstrate stability.
Stereodude
Not really a
FWIW, the Canon Raw converter seems to do a pretty job using all 4 of my Q6600's cores.
ddrueding
Fixture
Photomerge does a great job with my cores (8, counting hyperthreading) and happily eats up the 10GB of RAM I let it use.
DPP, or do you mean RIT? I was testing with DPP.
Stereodude
Not really a
DPP. When doing a batch convert the CPU usage on all 4 cores is pretty high.
Stereodude
Not really a
I guess I'll have to pay more attention next time I use it.
ddrueding
Fixture
Latest DPP (3.5.something) running on i7@3.91Ghz. Source images are on X25-E, destination is X25-M. As you can see, it never maxes any of the CPUs, which means the bottleneck is elsewhere. Something tells me the HDDs aren't the limitation either.
If I were looking to say a program is poorly multithreaded (or single-threaded), I would expect some of the cores to be pegged, and others to be idle. That isn't what I'm seeing in either of our images.
If I were looking to say a program is poorly multithreaded (or single-threaded), I would expect some of the cores to be pegged, and others to be idle. That isn't what I'm seeing in either of our images.
Even it was single or poorly threaded, I believe the windows scheduler would divide the time across the CPU's and you won't see one stuck at 100% with others idle...at least not for any great length of time. Maybe the context switching is too high or it simply can't scale for some other unknown reasons? I'm sad to see it doesn't max all four cores to make better use of them.
What if you process two sets at the same time? How impacted is the time and does it max out all the CPU's?
For example:
Working directory #1 (how much time when processed alone)
Working directory #2 (how much time when processed alone)
Working directory #1 & #2 (how much time when processed together)
I'm curious if there is an advantage doing it this way. If you only have one directory to process, what if you divided the number of files in half into two directories and then process them?
For example:
Working directory #1 (how much time when processed alone)
Working directory #2 (how much time when processed alone)
Working directory #1 & #2 (how much time when processed together)
I'm curious if there is an advantage doing it this way. If you only have one directory to process, what if you divided the number of files in half into two directories and then process them?
I found this neat little article explaining exactly what I just suggested. It seems there is some positive benefit to using the batch processing by deploying multiple workers in DPP to make maximum use of all the CPU time.
I have been there and done that. Throughput can be increased by about 1/3, but the two sets of files should be on different drives (or perhaps an SSD array ). Overall it is not worthwhile unless one is processing many hundreds of files, and then the sets must be recombined.
). Overall it is not worthwhile unless one is processing many hundreds of files, and then the sets must be recombined.