Curse

Wrath Of Dragons · Oct 10, 2006, 05:24 AM // 05:24

Hia people. My school is setting up a new computer lab, for high-end graphics stuff, 3d modeling, and programming. They originally had intended Alienware, a system at around $2200, but they have been convinced that we can build a system far above anything they can provide, at least for a similar price. In the future, we may have use for SLI and Physics cards, so although they arent there now, i wanted compatability. So, this is what i have put together:

SONY 16X DVD±R DVD Burner Black IDE Model DWQ120AB2 - OEM

Sunbeam Transformer IC-TR-BA Black Steel ATX Full Tower Computer Case - Retail

Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM

ASUS M2N-SLI Deluxe Socket AM2 NVIDIA nForce 570 SLI MCP ATX AMD Motherboard - Retail

eVGA 512-P2-N572-AR Geforce 7900GTX 512MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail

FSP Group (Fortron Source) FX600-GLN ATX12V/ EPS12V 600W Quad. SLi Power Supply - Retail

Atech Flash XM-28U BLACK 28-in-1 USB 2.0 Internal Card Reader - Retail

CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Windsor 2.2GHz Socket AM2 Dual Core Processor Model ADA4200CUBOX - Retail

Microsoft Windows XP Professional X64 Edition with SP2B 1 Pack - OEM

the XP professional is just something that was on the list, I threw it on there but its really not too significant to the computer itself...unless the x64 edition wont work.

suggestions?
if you guys see any conflicts, please point them out
suggestions please

Edit: would adding another 2gig of ram be good? its at 2 right now

dronex · Oct 10, 2006, 05:58 AM // 05:58

hehe for 3d modeling you should go quadro/firegl muhaha =)

Wrath Of Dragons · Oct 10, 2006, 06:36 AM // 06:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by dronex

hehe for 3d modeling you should go quadro/firegl muhaha =)

assuming: those fit within the budget, will work on a standard machiene, and are widely compatable with different programs, What exactly are those?

TheBaron82 · Oct 10, 2006, 06:42 AM // 06:42

Why not build an intel core 2 system instead?

Wrath Of Dragons · Oct 10, 2006, 06:45 AM // 06:45

I am not completely sure. i was told to make it dual core and 64, and that they wanted an AMD, so thats what I went with. Is the difference outstanding between the 2, or is it not too huge?

OOPs, just realized i was carrying on a conversation. As this isnt the OT forum, I shall stop

I will put my questions/answers back on the top as an edit.

EF2NYD · Oct 10, 2006, 07:42 AM // 07:42

The difference between C2D and A64's is huge.

Also you don't need DDR2 800 for Athlon's, lower speeds but tighter timings will help more.

XP64 should really be used if you plan on using tons of memory.

Quatro/FireGL are the same as their desktop counterparts but are supposedly optimised for workstation applications. They work well with graphics but are terrible in running actual games. It's the other way around for desktop chips.

Tachyon · Oct 10, 2006, 11:57 AM // 11:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by dronex

hehe for 3d modeling you should go quadro/firegl muhaha =)

Personally, I'd just go for the Quadro Plex model III myself. But at $24,500 a pop it's slightly out of both his and my budgets.

http://www.nvidia.com/page/quadroplex.html

Seriously though, If you are thinking of using it for high end graphics and serious 3D work, Lightwave and 3DSMax, then I'd stick a 7950GX2 in there. On top of the extra 2GB of Ram. For rendering in most modern 3D programs the more RAM you have the better.

sumrtym · Oct 10, 2006, 03:18 PM // 15:18

I'd stick Intel over AMD. In terms of multimedia, rendering, etc., Intel has ALWAYS been ahead of AMD, and that's especially true with their new Core 2 Duo.

Mushroom · Oct 10, 2006, 03:43 PM // 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by EF2NYD

The difference between C2D and A64's is huge.

Also you don't need DDR2 800 for Athlon's, lower speeds but tighter timings will help more.

XP64 should really be used if you plan on using tons of memory.

YOu are working with some outdated information here.

The AM2 has to use DDR2. Unlike Intel, the AMD 64 bit systems plaqce the memory controller on the CPU. This is one of the reasons they process RAM more efficiently. And the AM2 uses only DDR2.

And if the program is 64-bit aware (and most higher ended video and graphical programs are), they get a huge performance boost with a 64 bit processor. Run AutoCAD on a 3GHz P4 and on a 3 GHz Socket 754/939 Athlon 64, and you will see what I mean.

So I would agree with the XP 64 bit. Any programs that are 64-bit aware will get a huge performance boost over running in 32-bit mode.

The same goes for dual core. Programs that are "Dual Core Aware" perform much better then single-core aware programs on a dual core (or dual CPU) system. Considering this is for professional level graphics, I would bet that the programs are dual core aware.

And the new Intel may be getting raves, but the Intel 64 bit code is still not as efficient as that in the AMD. This is largely due to design philosophy. Intel prefers to "brute force" 64 bit. The chip is still largely 32 bit, but forces 64 bit through a faster system. This may be great in many ways, but it acts more like the early 64 bit Opteron processors. In the last 3 years, AMD has continued to streamline their processors. We are looking at the 4th/5th generation AMD 64, while the new Intel is really only their second generation (the I64 is a totally different beast).

With the new "single-card SLI" cards, you might want to consider dumping the SLI, and going to either one of those, or something like the ATI X1950. SLI may be great for games, but most that I talk to in the video and graphics industry do not think much of "dual-card SLI". A lot of professional level programs simply do not like them, and often have performance issues.

Mushroom · Oct 10, 2006, 04:03 PM // 16:03

One side note:

I noticed that you had a lot of OEM parts listed. You want to check, and make sure what the warranty is going to be on them. Sometimes, the warranty for OEM is much different from the "Retail Box" version.

For example, CPUs have a 3 year warranty when you buy them "boxed" (and have an approved CPU cooler). OEM CPUs on the other hand normally only have 90 day warranties, and come without a CPU fan.

I am not saying not to buy OEM, just to be sure that the warranty is what you expect it to be. Many times, the warranty is the same, but sometimes it is not.

EF2NYD · Oct 10, 2006, 04:40 PM // 16:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mushroom

YOu are working with some outdated information here.

The AM2 has to use DDR2. Unlike Intel, the AMD 64 bit systems plaqce the memory controller on the CPU. This is one of the reasons they process RAM more efficiently. And the AM2 uses only DDR2.

And AMD CPUs still can't effectively use all the bandwidth available from DDR2.

Quote:

And if the program is 64-bit aware (and most higher ended video and graphical programs are), they get a huge performance boost with a 64 bit processor. Run AutoCAD on a 3GHz P4 and on a 3 GHz Socket 754/939 Athlon 64, and you will see what I mean.

Good luck sorting through the compatiblity issues.

And Western Digital OEM warranties are almost always 3 years compared to retail 1 year.

Mushroom · Oct 10, 2006, 04:54 PM // 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by EF2NYD

And AMD CPUs still can't effectively use all the bandwidth available from DDR2.

Good luck sorting through the compatiblity issues.

And Western Digital OEM warranties are almost always 3 years compared to retail 1 year.

I have never heard the claim that AM2 is not as efficient as Intel with RAM. Of course, the Intel processor really does not handle RAM at all. That is done in the chipset. AMD uses a different design, and puts the memory controller right on the CPU. This makes for a shorter memory pathway, and a simpler chipset.

And for compatibility, I have never run into that. And I have been building systems for over 15 years. I have yet to run into any incompatibility, ever. On the rare instances I do, it is normally more an issue of chipset then CPU incompatibility.

And if there was such a claim, in this case it would much more likely it is with Intel then AMD. That is because when Microsoft made the choice on 64 bit processors, they went with the AMD standard. The Intel 64 bit is just a reverse-engineer of the AMD 64-bit system. If there was anything on-compatible, it would be either with a programmer doing "unofficial" processor calls, or a chipset doing the same thing. I would find it hard to believe that Intel or AMD would be the actual cause.

Most "incompatabilities" I run across tend to be with poor drivers, BIOS, or sloppy programs. About 4 years ago, Asus had a notorious problem with ATI cards. The culpret turned out to be a poorly written BIOS. Later changes fixed that. And Creative has long been known for writing "sloppy drivers". This is one of the reasons most of us that are testing Vista have pulled out our Creative cards. But no matter who is to blame, everybody likes to sit back and accuse Microsoft/Intel/AMD for the issue.

EF2NYD · Oct 10, 2006, 05:04 PM // 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mushroom

I have never heard the claim that AM2 is not as efficient as Intel with RAM. Of course, the Intel processor really does not handle RAM at all. That is done in the chipset. AMD uses a different design, and puts the memory controller right on the CPU. This makes for a shorter memory pathway, and a simpler chipset.

It's common knowledge that AMD doesn't use the bandwidth. Intel even made a big deal about it when they released the C2D architecture.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2738&p=6

Quote:

And for compatibility, I have never run into that. And I have been building systems for over 15 years. I have yet to run into any incompatibility, ever. On the rare instances I do, it is normally more an issue of chipset then CPU incompatibility.

So you've been building 64-bit AMD systems for 15 years I see.

Quote:

And if there was such a claim, in this case it would much more likely it is with Intel then AMD....blah blah blah

64 bit vs 32 bit incompatiblity on different OS's.

Mushroom · Oct 10, 2006, 07:02 PM // 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by EF2NYD

So you've been building 64-bit AMD systems for 15 years I see.

64 bit vs 32 bit incompatiblity on different OS's.

I said systems, not 64 bit systems. I actually built my first AMD system in 1993, and my first AMD 64 in 2004.

And if you mean 32 bit programs not running on 64 bit Windows, that is once again because of sloppy programming. Microsoft lists program calls that should be used, and frequently "reserves" a lot of them for either their own use, or for future use. And frequently programmers will use them for one reason or another.

When one of those calls is later implemented in a future version of Windows, you then get problems. We saw this with 3.1, 95, NT, 2000, and every version of Windows. Quite often an older program will not work on the newer Windows. This is not because of Windows, but because of programmers going outside of the listed specifications.

For a good example, we saw that 2 years ago with XP Pro 64 bit. A lot of programs were still useing 16 bit installation programs. And I am talking about common programs, like WinAmp, WinZIP, and scores of others. They had updated the program to 32 bit code, but were still useing the old 16 bit installation program. Since Win64 requires a minimum of 32 bit programming to work, the 32 bit programs could not be installed.

The solution was quickly found, and almost every program has now dumped their old 16 bit installation programs. I use XP Pro 64 bit on a daily basis. In fact, I am typing this on it. Out of all the programs I have tried to run on it, the only ones that have not worked are in excess of 3 years old. And even the older version of Adobe Premiere and even Cool Edit Pro (before Adobe bought it and named it Audition) works just fine.

Most professional programs have no problem with Win-64. The biggest problems tend to be with games. This is because the makers of games are much more likely to program "outside the box", in order to get as much performance as possible. And I am sure that not many will put together systems like that with Win-64 for games.

However, if he said his sueage was for generic home use or for games, I would suggest either a dual-boot with both 32 and 64 bit versions, or XP Professional. Since the use was listed as professional graphics, I suggested Win-64.

Laughing Man · Oct 11, 2006, 04:04 PM // 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by sumrtym

I'd stick Intel over AMD. In terms of multimedia, rendering, etc., Intel has ALWAYS been ahead of AMD, and that's especially true with their new Core 2 Duo.

Eh, I think for a while AMD was ahead with the release of 64 bit (granted it was quite useless considering most programs are/were 32 bit) and dual core proccessors.

Not mentioning doing more work at lower clock cycles.

But now that advantage is gone with Intel's Core 2 Duo.

Mushroom · Oct 11, 2006, 04:33 PM // 16:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Eh, I think for a while AMD was ahead with the release of 64 bit (granted it was quite useless considering most programs are/were 32 bit) and dual core proccessors.

They were also first with a processor that went above 33 MHz, 500 MHz, and 1 GHz, 2 GHz, 3 GHz. And they jumped on the RISC bandwagon years before Intel did.

In fact, this is really the first time that Intel has jumped ahead of AMD in years. But I simply can't justify the cost of the new Core Duo systems. The lowest (E6300) Core 2 starts at $185 wholesale. At that price, I can buy an Athlon X2 4200+. And most reviews I find tend to compare the E6300 performance to an Athlon 3800 (which sells wholesale for only $110).

Intel may be top dog, but how many of us buy $300+ processors? And the higher you go, the more skewed the prices become. You want the E6800? Better be prepared to shell out around $1,000. At that price, I can drop in 2 dual core Opteron chips (and be working with 4 processors), and still have some money left over.

Intel may brag about their high-end chips, but everybody knows that the bulk of their sales is in the much lower priced and performing Celeron brand chips. And a 3.4 GHz Celeron-D (356) is the same cost as an Athlon 3400. However, they do not perform anywhere near as good, having a lower cache, and dual core (which the majority of programs made do not work well with).

TreeDude · Oct 11, 2006, 04:54 PM // 16:54

DDR2 800 is fine. Thats what matches the processor. Timings on DDR2 don't matter half as much as they did with with DDR, so I don't know what your talking about.

I'd go C2D mayself. I love AMD but right now they need to make a drastic change to their line up. Here's hoping their quadcores are fantastic.

Also you can softmod a Geforce into a Quatro using Rivatuner. Might void the warrenty though. It's not the same performance as a true Quatro, but I hear it will provide enough of a boost to making rendering much smoother.

You may want to go up to 4gigs for rendering. You will need XP 64bit though to effectively use those 4gigs.

I've never seen a school shell out money for a machine like that. While you can build it like your doing. You may want to go with Dell or even Aleinware. Their warrenty services will be far better for the school if something fails. Most businesses I've worked at have Dell machines simply for the warrenty. Building is cheap in the short term, but when you have hundreds of machines and some begin to fail it's a big deal. Dell will overnight parts to you for nothing if your under warrenty. Just something to think about.

EternalTempest · Oct 11, 2006, 06:05 PM // 18:05

I'm and AMD fan but do admit the Intel Duo Core 2 is better then AMD has at the moment. It did take Intel over 3 years to finally get back the speed crown

I've have zero compatibility issues with Amd and software. Also been using AMD for years now myself. To be honest, look at hardware reviews and go for the best price/performance ratio for your budget no matter if it's Intel or AMD.

All modern cpu's are 64bit but run 32 bit operating systems software pefectly fine.

To fully use 64 bit. You need a 64bit OS (Windows XP 64 bit or Vista 64bit) then the software has to be written for 64 bit (other wise it running in 32 bit emulation). There are still lack of support of 64bit hardware & software. Going to 64bit computing right now on a home computer will be a bit bummpy.

If you go 64 bit, make sure all your software will support 64bit (or run correctly with 32bit emulation).

Mushroom · Oct 11, 2006, 06:41 PM // 18:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by TreeDude

You may want to go up to 4gigs for rendering. You will need XP 64bit though to effectively use those 4gigs.

I've never seen a school shell out money for a machine like that. While you can build it like your doing. You may want to go with Dell or even Aleinware. Their warrenty services will be far better for the school if something fails. Most businesses I've worked at have Dell machines simply for the warrenty.

Actually, XP Pro does 4 gig just fine as well. XP 64 bit allows up to 8 GB max RAM, so they might want to look at that. Especially if they are going to be doing any large and complex rendering.

And actually, I have seen schools shell out that much and more for specialty computers. I built one for LA Unified School District that cost over $6k. It was for a student film lab, and came with the complete Avid and Adobe Premiere suite.

And most businesses tend to lease their computers. And when you are talking about big corporations, uniformity is a big issue. When I worked for Hughes Aerospace, one location had over 30,000 desktop computers. When you are talking about that large a number, uniformity is a key consideration. It makes stocking replacement parts much easier. And most of these are leased, because they are rotated every 3-5 years with newer units.

Even in an organization with that many machines, there are still often custom-built units doing specialty tasks. The Print Media, AV, and high-tech units all tended to use custom built units, that were replaced annually. The same with group servers and other special functions.

If budget is a consideration, then they can always try to pick up a unit through the K-12 program. This is a Government program that lets schools and certain non-profit organizations pick up "surplus" computers for free or low cost (normally the only cost is shipping).

Not many schools take advantage of this program. And it is a shame, because a lot of great systems come through there. We buy a lot of "surplus" Government computers, mostly from the Military. We buy them wholesale, which is several steps below the K-12 system. Last year we picked up 2 P-4 3 GHz custom built systems. These all had Antec cases and power supplies, Asus motherboards, 1 GB RAM, and 160 GB SATA drives. Not bad for "Military Surplus". Currently we are picking up a lot of Dell OptiPlex 3.2 GHz systems.

And amazingly, a lot of these units (both desktop and laptop) still have 9-12+ months of the original Dell warranty left on them! Our latest shipment of laptops all had 18 months left on the warranty. And transfering that is as simple as going to Dell and transferring it (for free). A sweet deal for a school.

And that source deals with more then just Dell. While Dell is the major Government supplier, you can also get Microns, Apple, Compaq Evo, HP Vectra, and other Corporate models, as well as HP and Dell servers, HP professional quality laser printers, and a lot more.

Relambrien · Oct 11, 2006, 10:19 PM // 22:19

Okay, here are my unbiased opinions, as I am not a fanboy of either AMD or Intel :P

Intel's Core 2 Duo line was reviewed to be ridiculously better than AMD's latest chip. AMD had to slash prices drastically to remain competitive.

Thus, it is generally accepted that the Core 2 Duo processors are the best in the world right now for what they're used for.

AMD, however, with its next release, is expected to take the lead in the market once again.

I don't want to say anything more on the subject as I am by no means a graphics guru, but with processors, Intel is currently in the lead. I would suggest more RAM, however, as anything you can get helps.