Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

pc workstation

The test made for PC builder freak!

PC System Builder Marathon: High-End System

high-end_200709_assembled.jpg


LINK >>
 
laboprod said:
I heard of Bootcamp, works fine.

Windows XP 32 bit (with 3GB switch) as I think you don't have more than 3GB of ram on your macbook pro, isn't it?
Click to expand...

/3GB won't help at all. It's only useful if you have at least 4 GB of memory, which XP / Vista 32-bit under Bootcamp will not currently see (not a Windows limitation). It will currently only see 1.98 GB of memory, rendering the /3GB switch moot.

If you install 64-bit XP or Vista you won't have this problem, then there's no /3GB switch anyway. But then you don't have all the drivers....

So if you want to see more than 2 GB of ram then I wouldn't advice bootcamp. I've also had a crash happening once when something low-level was accessed on the Intel processors (debugging stuff) and during shutdown my 30" Apple Cinema Display doesn't always power down properly (when shutting down under XP).

Just so everyone knows....
 
BTW Windows XP 32 bit will only see 3 gig of RAM on a native computer, and I personally thing the 3 gig switch is just PR (in other words BS) Everytime I've tried to enable it the computer mysteriously becomes unstable. If you like the BSOD, then the 3 gig switch is for you. XP 64 or Vista are your only options above 3 Gig. XP 64 isn't compatible with a lot of apps and Vista, well do we really need to go there!?

Chris
 
agwah said:
just got myself an intel macbook pro,

now i am investigating running windows on it, there is paralells, vmware, and bootcamp, then there is XP and Vista in all its different versions,

what would be the best combination and easy start for experimenting with the PC side and test out trials of some of those compositing, 3D and video apps
Click to expand...

The best combination in my experience is WinXP32 on Bootcamp. We have a MacPro with that config. WinXP32 is the most compatible with apps you will want to try, better performance than Vista, and Bootcamp should give you the best performance, but will make it slightly more difficult to get data from the Mac side to the PC side, can't boot both at once.

Back onto the topic of the thread, I have built and used a lot of PC workstations. Every since the Pentium4 was developed, the Xeon line of CPUs have been the only ones to support dual socket configurations. This is less of an issue now that we have dual and quad core CPUs in a single socket, but more sockets still means more total cores. Both on paper and from personal experience, currently Intel Xeons blow AMD Opterons away in about 90% of tests or applications. AMD has the memory controller advantage, but Intel overcomes that with higher clock speed, more cores, and recently, cheaper prices. For intense After Effects use, I personally would recomment dual 5100 or 5300 series Xeon processors. Most of my AE7 work rarely used more than 25% or 1 CPU when rendering. I have not had a chance to test the new multithreaded renderer in AE CS3, but I have used GridIrons Nucleo, so I know that it is possible to get it working right. Assuming Adobe implemented it well, the extra cores in the 5300 series CPUs will help you, especially when rendering to frame based files. If you investigate and find people complaining that it doesn't really help, then 5100 CPUs can be had at high clock speeds for the same price, and will actually run faster for most tasks. After Effects implementation of multithreading requires tons of RAM, so 4GB will be minimum. If everything else you need on the system supports WindowsXP 64bit, you can use that OS access 8GB. AE is still a 32bit program, but using XP64 can double the RAM available to AE. In XP32, apps are limited to 2GB of RAM total, (unless you use the /3G switch, which I have used successfully on my Xeon and Opteron systems) With XP64, 32bit applications are provided up to 4GB of RAM each. Unfortunately, every piece of hardware you intend to use must support XP64. (Matrox doesn't, BM does, AJA doesn't seem to) That brings us to the next question, do you need an AJA card for I/O or possibly an NVidia SDI card for output?
I hope that is helpful. I will try to provide my take on graphics cards and I/O cards tomorrow. It would be helpful to know if your workflow requires you to input or output via SDI.
 
McCarthyTech said:
That brings us to the next question, do you need an AJA card for I/O or possibly an NVidia SDI card for output?
I hope that is helpful. I will try to provide my take on graphics cards and I/O cards tomorrow. It would be helpful to know if your workflow requires you to input or output via SDI.
Click to expand...

At the moment I have no need of either. I work with image stacks on the input side and output to Quicktime.

With The Red I think I will be working in exactly the same way.

Thanks for the info on the Xeon's etc - would love to hear your take on whether its worth going for the Quadro over the Geforce.

If the Geforce 8800 GTX will the do the job just as well for me, its cheaper and enables me to play the occasional game as well.

Most modern games do not work with the Quadro's I have at the moment and I guess the same is true for the more recent ones.

This is of course only a side consideration as the purpose of the machine is not to play games..

Thanks

Geoff
 
angeleye said:
BTW Windows XP 32 bit will only see 3 gig of RAM on a native computer, and I personally thing the 3 gig switch is just PR (in other words BS) Everytime I've tried to enable it the computer mysteriously becomes unstable. If you like the BSOD, then the 3 gig switch is for you. XP 64 or Vista are your only options above 3 Gig. XP 64 isn't compatible with a lot of apps and Vista, well do we really need to go there!?
Click to expand...

This is not true. XP 32-bit will see 4 GB of RAM, see: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/isv/bb190528.aspx

However, per default the *virtual* memory space is divided into two 2 GB chunks. One for the application, one for the operating system. With the /3GB boot.ini switch (see http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/information/bootini.mspx) you can move this to 3 GB of virtual memory for applications and 1 GB for the OS. But only IF YOUR APPLICATIONS SUPPORT this!!!

This dividing of memory is in the *virtual* memory space, not in the physical.

Apparently Vista 32-bit still has a max of 4 GB of memory, even though Microsoft has technology to somewhat extend that (PAE, AWE) that is not really enabled for the desktop 32-bit products.

So the only option would be to switch to a 64-bit OS with 64-bit applications or go with a 32-bit Windows 2003 Server which will allow you to run multiple memory hungry applications at the same time.
 
McCarthyTech said:
The best combination in my experience is WinXP32 on Bootcamp.
Click to expand...

If you already have a mac then I would probably get both bootcamp AND parallels. This allows you to run the bootcamp Windows also inside your Parallels when you're booted into OS X (get at least 2 GB of mem in your mac though).

I also bought macdrive which allows you to read & write Mac volumes inside your Windows XP (there's also a version for Vista I think). OS X will give you read (but not write!) access to your NTFS volumes.

A drive with a FAT(32) ("MS DOS") partition will be read & writable by both OS'es without any additional help.
 
Quadro vs GeForce

Quadro vs GeForce

geoff tompkinson said:
At the moment I have no need of either. I work with image stacks on the input side and output to Quicktime.

With The Red I think I will be working in exactly the same way.

Thanks for the info on the Xeon's etc - would love to hear your take on whether its worth going for the Quadro over the Geforce.

If the Geforce 8800 GTX will the do the job just as well for me, its cheaper and enables me to play the occasional game as well.

Most modern games do not work with the Quadro's I have at the moment and I guess the same is true for the more recent ones.

This is of course only a side consideration as the purpose of the machine is not to play games..

Thanks

Geoff
Click to expand...

Using file transfers for I/O definitely opens up your options. The only other use of SDI Out is for 10bit color monitoring, since basically all other video card outputs are limited to 8 bits per color channel. I will assume you have no SDI hardware monitoring solution based on your budget. If so, the Nvidia SDI output card can provide that, but will double the price of the system.
With no AJA card required, that could allow you to use WinXP64 as an OS, so you should definitely consider that.
Luckily the graphics card choise is almost totally independent of the OS. I strongly recommend NVidia as they currently hold the performance crown, plus they are the only ones to offer an SDI option.
The big question is, is it worth it to pay the extra money to upgrade from a GeForce to a similar QuadroFX card. The difference is entirely in the software and in the support, the processing hardware is 95% identical.
Games are a non issue, and should work equally well with both. I have played BF2 on a QuadroFX5500 and it works fine. (Fine is an understatement)
You also stated you were interested in a 30" LCD, which requires Dual link DVI. Most mid to high end cards have that, but I reccommend you get one that supports it on both ports. I have the Dell FPW3007-HC connected to a Quadro card, and it is awesome.

This leaves us with the Quadro vs Geforce question. Since you seem to do a lot of AE work, the time savings will justify a high end card, so that should narrow it down to the GeForce 8800GTX varients and the Quadro 4600 or 5600. If your compositions are primarily 2D, then the GPU will be providing less benefit, and the GeForce should be fine. If you do a lot of 3D compositing, you will gain more from OpenGL rendering. It is difficult for me to say for sure what performance advantages Quadro drivers offer, but NVidia claims that they are better optimized for OpenGL. The most concrete advantage will be support from them when you have problems, if you pay up for their expensive cards. Workstation class systems usually only include QuadroFX cards (besides ATI). If you are buying a Dell or HP type system, I recommend paying the extra for the QuadroFX 4600, for better support and warranty type stuff. Geforce8 will only really be a reasonable option if you are putting together a custom system. If so, try one, and if you don't get the desired performance, you can always upgrade to the QuadroFX 4600. As far as the Quadro 5600 goes, the performance increase will probably be marginal, and since you are budget conscious, it will probably not be worth it.
 
Rob Lohman said:
If you already have a mac then I would probably get both bootcamp AND parallels. This allows you to run the bootcamp Windows also inside your Parallels when you're booted into OS X (get at least 2 GB of mem in your mac though).

I also bought macdrive which allows you to read & write Mac volumes inside your Windows XP (there's also a version for Vista I think). OS X will give you read (but not write!) access to your NTFS volumes.

A drive with a FAT(32) ("MS DOS") partition will be read & writable by both OS'es without any additional help.
Click to expand...

Great info Rob and everyone else that kept adding to the pcmac puzzle
 
Rob Lohman said:
/3GB won't help at all. It's only useful if you have at least 4 GB of memory,
Just so everyone knows....
Click to expand...
No,


The /3GB switch allocates 3 GB of virtual address space to an application that uses IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE in the process header. This switch allows applications to address 1 GB of additional virtual address space above 2 GB.

The virtual address space of processes and applications is still limited to 2 GB, unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file.
 
Andrew said:
Anybody can comment on the DELL XPS M1730 running Vista?
http://www.dell.com/content/product...x/xpsnb_m1730?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd&~lt=popup
Any advantage in terms of running REDCINE on it?

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/64bit.mspx

http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2007q3/cpu2006-20070820-01841.html

Andrew
Click to expand...

Seems to be a good highend laptop.

First what kind of use of REDCINE you want to do on this laptop? On set stuff?

For using with REDCINE, I am not sure of the help of SLI nvidia card. RED should comment on this, but someone from Assimilate told me that there was not adventage to use two quadro fx with scratch, and REDCINE has been developed by Assimilate.

What exact connection it has? would be nice to have a lot (for that price), like FireWire 400/800, eSATA, flashcard reader (even if it seems that the sandisk external flash card reader are the fastest).
The raid possibility is nice, raid 1 for security of the footage. Blue ray Burner if you need some.

4 gig of RAM is good, but I wouldn't install vista on it, xp has still my favour, and to use 4 gig you need xp 64 bit which is currently not supported by RED, but I read that flameop tested it with success, even if it needs more testing it is encouraging. I will personnaly test xp 64 and REDCINE later today.

While I would say that the best configuration of this laptop looks very powerful, I am asking myself if a laptop is realy the way to go for the "on set computer", I am thinking to a micro ATX based computer, that might be more powerful for the same price, and not taking such more space. As for batteries, well the laptop will have to be pluged into AC for normal shoot day anyway.

Also if you are planning to copy the RED mag to hard drives on set (opposed to solution like LTO tapes, blue ray, etc...or buy enough RED drives or flash card) I would prefer a box solution where I can take out the hard drives easly and quickly for the transport, this way (for example with a two hard drives raid 1 configuration) two people will carry each hard drive sepparetly.

antoine.
 
I too question the concept of using a lap top for an on set tool. Here is a solution that I am considering.

http://us.shuttle.com/P2_3500W_4.aspx

Shuttle cases are small and very efficient. One of the features that I really like on this one is the pair of SATA connectors. This is perfect for on set backups and preparation for delivery to editorial.

Configured with a quad core Xeon 2.66 GHz, 2x 750GB in Raid 1, an Nvidia Quadro FX1500, 4 GB DDR2 and a carrying case it comes out to under $3500.

Add a monitor and some external drives and you have a high performance and compact on set solution.
 
Thank you for comments!
Yes it is for on set use. Vista has 64 bit media writer so I hope it will write Blue Ray discs fast. I will pick RAID 0 since we will have copy on the RED mag and on the laptop so no third copy needed. RAID 0 has the same performance writing and reading where RAID 1 has to write twice and reading is the same as RAID 0.

This way we can off load to Blue Ray disks right away and have copy on the RED mag, the laptop hard disk will be used as a scratch pad.
We will use as many RED mags (drives) as wee need during the day.
At the end of the day we load all Blue Rays disks to the main hard disks farm and backup copies will be kept on the Blue Ray disks. Hard disk farm has its own backup system but it takes long time to get anything out from there.

Blue Ray will be treated as a shelf catalog storage type.
If any of the Blue Ray disks will develop problems then we can always get the originals from the main backup tapes if it happens few months later or from the disk farm if we need it within three months or so.

The question is, will REDCINE take advantage of 64 bit XP or Vista OS soon.
Overcoming 4GB limitation on the memory would be the nice benefit just to start with.
 
About xp 64, i've tested REDCINE with it, and i didn't notice any problem (i mean more than under xp 32).
Personnaly I'm planning to run REDCINE under xp 64, and hope no bug will change my mind.

As for on set, I am thinking to this:
http://www.chenbro.com/corporatesite/products_cat.php?pos=16
I like the rackmount case.

antoine.
 
khmuse said:
I too question the concept of using a lap top for an on set tool.
Click to expand...

Totally agree there. IMO a laptop is only useful for shooters who will work on their own in the field or for very small shoots where portablity and set-up speed is an important factor.

The other issue is that laptop screens are variable in quality so I don't (never) much rate there use as a viewing monitor, outside of judging framing.

But the big point is that most electronic/digital shoots now have a digital village parked out back with large screens and lots of other gear. What's the point of then relying on a laptop that compromises performance when a full sized computer would be faster,(sometimes) cheaper and often smaller in size than some of the gear parked in the digital village (esp when one factors in the size of cases). Plus it's much easier install a LTO/AIT tape archiving system on a full sized computer giving a real sense of assurance that ones material is safely backed-up.

JohnF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top