High-End personal Workstation Guidance

Page 24 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


I'm clueless as well jfklimek as I explained before, my q6600 was getting a little long in the tooth. This thread and forum was
one of many I consulted before going off on the 'corporate' 'overkill' 'stuck with it for years' build I described. I've never needed to bench things before and don't now but I found this site to be inhabited by interesting people and want to join the community.

To be a joiner you have to bring something to the table. Despite being the antithesis of the "Alvin 'dang you don't even go off road in that tank of a truck' Philosophy", I think I bring one of the edge cases into the light as a comparison and contrast data point and at a certain price point as well as roadmap of the future of the actual box.

You'll all have to excuse me if I think that there is some back-channel blackball happening but they can still be out to get you even if you are paranoid. I cannot think of any reason why you couldn't have run those benchmarks in this amount of time as I searched, cogitated, downloaded and ran those in the space of an hour sans any good advice about what I should be looking at.
Those were the most general benchmarks, that were free to use or free to try and I presented them so everyone could benefit from my basic research.

What I've been met with is complete silence.

fport slips his marshall's badge out of his inside coat pocket and pins it on his riding coat. The law has come to town.

A lower pricepoint and the same performance or an equivalent cost and better performance...

Here's another quick bench, this time from http://unigine.com/products/heaven/

Powered by "http://unigine.com/products/unigine/">Unigine Engine
Heaven Benchmark v2.5 Basic

FPS: 28.7
Scores: 723
Min FPS: 19.6
Max FPS: 66.6

Hardware

Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011
Operating system: Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit

CPU model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5620 @ 2.40GHz
CPU flags: 2400MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 8.17.12.7533 2048Mb

Settings

Render: direct 3D 11
Mode: 1920x1080 fullscreen
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: 4x
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Volumetric: enabled
Tessellation:normal

Unigine Corp. © 2005-2011





 
patience my dear fport. good things come to those who wait. This forum ain't going anywhere and my build isn't for sure either. Now is a crazy time for me. It will be before the end of the week. Thanks for the initiation fport. your a true contribution to this forum.
 
Hmmm, time enough to throw a reply up but not enough to run a quick benchmark. Patience it is then. I'm wondering about the other denizens of the forum - it would be nice to get a range of benchmarks based on a good sized sampling. Solving sweetspots would be a worthy endeavour.
 
While we wait lets broaden the data points we have to work from, alternative views are always
helpful to get past the inbuilt biases that make up our mindsets. It has been pointed out that
people hold on to beliefs long past the time they have been irrefutably disproved by the facts.

I'm a big fan of certain systems of dealing with issues such as using pros and cons but only
starting with pros because human beings naturally trend towards raising negatives. After you
get all your positive points down then you go to town with the negatives. After that you can
winnow the commonalities out and then address them with work around's or fixes or the
compromises. I've watched that being done over and over in this thread.

So, let's try this article:

http://www.hardware-revolution.com/best-workstation/

 
Powered by "http://unigine.com/products/unigine/">Unigine Engine
Heaven Benchmark v2.5 Basic

Settings
Render: direct 3D 11
Mode: 1920x1080 fullscreen
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: 4x
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Volumetric: enabled
Tessellation:normal

Unigine Corp. © 2005-2011[/quotemsg]


fport computer:

FPS: 28.7
Scores: 723
Min FPS: 19.6
Max FPS: 66.6

Hardware
Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011
Operating system: Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit

CPU model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5620 @ 2.40GHz
CPU flags: 2400MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 8.17.12.7533 2048Mb



puff computer regular:

FPS:45.0
Scores:1133
Min FPS:9.5
Max FPS:113.5

Hardware
Binary:Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011
Operating system:Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit
CPU model:Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz
CPU flags:3073MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model:NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 8.17.12.6658 1280Mb



puff computer oc'd to 4.025ghz ram 1750mhz:

FPS:45.2
Scores:1139
Min FPS:24.9
Max FPS:106.3

Hardware
Binary:Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011
Operating system:Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit
CPU model:Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz
CPU flags:4025MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model:NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 8.17.12.6658 1280Mb
 
PassMark(TM) PerformanceTest 7.0 Evaluation Version (http://www.passmark.com)
Results generated on: Sunday, May 29, 2011



fport:

Benchmark Results

Test Name: This Computer
CPU - Integer Math: 3660.1
CPU - Floating Point Math: 4363.5
CPU - Find Prime Numbers: 1326.7
CPU - SSE: 32.0
CPU - Compression: 12905.5
CPU - Encryption: 40.8
CPU - Physics: 670.4
CPU - String Sorting: 7907.1
Graphics 2D - Solid Vectors: 0.8
Graphics 2D - Transparent Vectors: 0.8
Graphics 2D - Complex Vectors: 74.5
Graphics 2D - Fonts and Text: 100.7
Graphics 2D - Windows Interface: 55.1
Graphics 2D - Image Filters: 204.5
Graphics 2D - Image Rendering: 317.9
Graphics 3D - Simple: 2318.8
Graphics 3D - Medium: 1123.0
Graphics 3D - Complex: 42.9
Graphics 3D - DirectX 10: 33.4
Memory - Allocate Small Block: 1770.4
Memory - Read Cached: 1752.9
Memory - Read Uncached: 1839.1
Memory - Write: 1812.7
Memory - Large RAM: 7752.1
Disk - Sequential Read: 123.0
Disk - Sequential Write: 117.1
Disk - Random Seek + RW: 13.8
CD - Read: 2.6
CPU Mark: 10272.4
2D Graphics Mark: 207.4
Memory Mark: 2432.9
Disk Mark: 918.2
CD Mark: 316.1
3D Graphics Mark: 2069.8
PassMark Rating: 1770.6

System information: This Computer
CPU Manufacturer: GenuineIntel
Number of CPU: 2
Cores per CPU: 4
CPU Type: Intel Xeon E5620 @ 2.40GHz
CPU1 Speed: 2400.3 MHz
CPU2 Speed:
Cache size: 256KB
O/S: Windows 7 (64-bit)
Total RAM: 24567.1 MB.
Available RAM: 20714.0 MB.
Video settings: 1920x1080x32
Video driver:
DESCRIPTION: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460
MANUFACTURER: NVIDIA
BIOS: Version 70.4.2e.0.80
DATE: 4-7-2011
Drive Letter: C
Total Disk Space: 279.3 GBytes
Cluster Size: 4.0 KBytes
File system: NTFS



puff (regular 3.06mhz):

Benchmark Results

Test Name: This Computer
CPU - Integer Math: 2439.7
CPU - Floating Point Math: 2872.2
CPU - Find Prime Numbers: 1161.4
CPU - SSE: 17.9
CPU - Compression: 8490.5
CPU - Encryption: 27.0
CPU - Physics: 506.3
CPU - String Sorting: 5631.4
Graphics 2D - Solid Vectors: 2.4
Graphics 2D - Transparent Vectors: 2.4
Graphics 2D - Complex Vectors: 148.2
Graphics 2D - Fonts and Text: 243.9
Graphics 2D - Windows Interface: 118.2
Graphics 2D - Image Filters: 330.4
Graphics 2D - Image Rendering: 595.9
Graphics 3D - Simple: 3887.8
Graphics 3D - Medium: 1900.0
Graphics 3D - Complex: 70.6
Graphics 3D - DirectX 10: 52.7
Memory - Allocate Small Block: 6180.8
Memory - Read Cached: 2612.8
Memory - Read Uncached: 2505.2
Memory - Write: 2775.0
Memory - Large RAM: 17062.5
Disk - Sequential Read: 182.7
Disk - Sequential Write: 63.7
Disk - Random Seek + RW: 230.9
CPU Mark: 6847.1
2D Graphics Mark: 476.8
Memory Mark: 5177.5
Disk Mark: 1726.1
3D Graphics Mark: 3411.2
PassMark Rating: 2904.0

System information: This Computer
CPU Manufacturer: GenuineIntel
Number of CPU: 1
Cores per CPU: 4
CPU Type: Intel Core i7 950 @ 3.07GHz
CPU Speed: 3074.4 MHz
Cache size: 256KB
O/S: Windows 7 (64-bit)
Total RAM: 24567.1 MB.
Available RAM: 21416.2 MB.
Video settings: 1920x1200x32
Video driver:
DESCRIPTION: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570
MANUFACTURER: NVIDIA
BIOS: Version 70.10.17.0.3
DATE: 1-7-2011
Drive Letter: C
Total Disk Space: 83.7 GBytes
Cluster Size: 4.0 KBytes
File system: NTFS



puff (oc @ 4.025ghz + 24gb@1750mhz):

Benchmark Results

Test Name: This Computer
CPU - Integer Math: 3054.5
CPU - Floating Point Math: 3587.2
CPU - Find Prime Numbers: 1453.3
CPU - SSE: 22.4
CPU - Compression: 10645.5
CPU - Encryption: 33.7
CPU - Physics: 603.9
CPU - String Sorting: 6852.3
Graphics 2D - Solid Vectors: 2.2
Graphics 2D - Transparent Vectors: 2.1
Graphics 2D - Complex Vectors: 182.0
Graphics 2D - Fonts and Text: 299.6
Graphics 2D - Windows Interface: 148.1
Graphics 2D - Image Filters: 416.2
Graphics 2D - Image Rendering: 745.5
Graphics 3D - Simple: 4308.3
Graphics 3D - Medium: 1892.8
Graphics 3D - Complex: 89.1
Graphics 3D - DirectX 10: 58.2
Memory - Allocate Small Block: 7766.6
Memory - Read Cached: 3278.2
Memory - Read Uncached: 3117.1
Memory - Write: 3229.1
Memory - Large RAM: 21828.0
Disk - Sequential Read: 201.6
Disk - Sequential Write: 65.8
Disk - Random Seek + RW: 232.6
CPU Mark: 8502.3
2D Graphics Mark: 525.0
Memory Mark: 6581.4
Disk Mark: 1808.5
3D Graphics Mark: 3666.5
PassMark Rating: 3312.9

System information: This Computer
CPU Manufacturer: GenuineIntel
Number of CPU: 1
Cores per CPU: 4
CPU Type: Intel Core i7 950 @ 3.07GHz
CPU Speed: 4026.3 MHz
Cache size: 256KB
O/S: Windows 7 (64-bit)
Total RAM: 24567.1 MB.
Available RAM: 22267.1 MB.
Video settings: 1920x1200x32
Video driver:
DESCRIPTION: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570
MANUFACTURER: NVIDIA
BIOS: Version 70.10.17.0.3
DATE: 1-7-2011
Drive Letter: C
Total Disk Space: 83.7 GBytes
Cluster Size: 4.0 KBytes
File system: NTFS
 
PCMark 7
Version: 1.0.4.0


fport:
Version: 1.0.4.0
29/05/11 17:33:03
Id: 63671
Score: 2557 PCMarks

puff (oc'd):
Version: 1.0.4.0
6/12/11 3:27:54 AM
Id: 77656
Score: 4922 PCMarks

puff (regular):
Version: 1.0.4.0
6/12/11 1:55:18 AM
Id: 77605
Score: 4377 PCMarks



THE PROTOCOL
pcmark stat
fport, puff (oc'd), puff (regular)

PCMark score
2557, 4922.0, 4377.0

Video playback and transcoding / Video playback
Video playback iteration 1
23.09, 23.1, 23.13 fps
Video playback iteration 2
23.03, 23.16, 23.13 fps
Video playback iteration 3
23.11, 23.16, 23.12 fps

Video playback and transcoding / Video transcoding - downscaling
Video transcoding - downscaling iteration 1
4174.76, 7259.85, 6423.45 kB/s
Video transcoding - downscaling iteration 2
4149.63, 7674.35, 6330.69 kB/s
Video transcoding - downscaling iteration 3
4235.21, 7526.28, 6278.01 kB/s

System storage - gaming / System storage - gaming
System storage - gaming iteration 1
5.2, 15.5, 15.48 MB/s
System storage - gaming iteration 2
5.22, 15.58, 15.49 MB/s
System storage - gaming iteration 3
5.18, 15.58, 15.49 MB/s

Graphics - DirectX 9 / Graphics - DirectX 9
Graphics - DirectX 9 iteration 1
50.79, 86.51, 69.01 fps
Graphics - DirectX 9 iteration 2
50.48, 86.01, 69.98 fps
Graphics - DirectX 9 iteration 3
51.13, 86.81, 69.24 fps

Image manipulation / Image manipulation
Image manipulation iteration 1
6.89, 12.41, 10.02 Mpx/s
Image manipulation iteration 2
6.97, 12.33, 10.06 Mpx/s
Image manipulation iteration 3
7.43, 12.36, 10.08 Mpx/s

System storage - importing pictures / System storage - importing pictures
System storage - importing pictures iteration 1
8.72, 18.66, 18.35 MB/s
System storage - importing pictures iteration 2
8.72, 18.22, 18.66 MB/s
System storage - importing pictures iteration 3
9.07, 18.65, 18.33 MB/s

Web browsing and decrypting / Web browsing
Web browsing iteration 1
8.44, 21.81, 17.12 pages/s
Web browsing iteration 2
8.37, 21.11, 17.26 pages/s
Web browsing iteration 3
8.85, 21.49, 17.03 pages/s

Web browsing and decrypting / Data decrypting
Data decrypting iteration 1
53.93, 86.38, 68.16 MB/s
Data decrypting iteration 2
52.79, 85.61, 68.13MB/s
Data decrypting iteration 3
52.0, 84.57, 68.38MB/s

System storage - Windows Defender / System storage - Windows Defender
System storage - Windows Defender iteration 1
2.02, 5.43, 5.41 MB/s
System storage - Windows Defender iteration 2
2.0, 5.42, 5.41 MB/s
System storage - Windows Defender iteration 3
2.05, 5.42, 5.4 MB/s
 
Nice, showed several important differences but I think we need Alvin to explain them but I think they are
somewhere in the 'I told you so' arena.


 
specviewperf 11


puff (oc'd 4.0ghz + 1750mhz):

catia-03
5.05

1 12.00 3.16
2 12.00 1.40
3 14.00 1.58
4 14.00 2.19
5 12.00 3.16
6 12.00 29.90
7 12.00 7.93
8 12.00 51.30


ensight-04
37.02

1 20.00 16.80
2 20.00 52.70
3 20.00 42.40
4 20.00 42.20
5 20.00 43.90


lightwave-01
12.79

1 10.00 11.10
2 10.00 9.25
3 10.00 7.88
4 10.00 5.56
5 10.00 15.00
6 10.00 29.60
7 10.00 19.70
8 10.00 7.49
9 10.00 19.90
10 10.00 19.90


maya-03
9.52

1 9.00 4.79
2 9.00 1.27
3 9.00 8.51
4 9.00 16.90
5 9.00 24.90
6 10.00 11.80
7 9.00 10.30
8 9.00 12.00
9 9.00 7.50
10 9.00 8.09
11 9.00 29.50


proe-05
1.64

1 17.00 2.82
2 17.00 1.44
3 17.00 1.94
4 17.00 1.30
5 17.00 2.63
6 15.00 0.64


sw-02
8.23

1 10.00 20.00
2 10.00 4.19
3 10.00 9.96
4 10.00 5.89
5 10.00 7.48
6 10.00 12.00
7 10.00 2.51
8 10.00 30.00
9 10.00 5.81
10 10.00 7.34


tcvis-02
0.97

1 20.00 2.54
2 20.00 0.50
3 20.00 0.62
4 20.00 0.51
5 20.00 2.17


snx-01
3.06

1 10.00 2.99
2 10.00 3.05
3 7.00 5.95
4 7.00 2.68
5 6.00 6.75
6 10.00 2.61
7 10.00 1.41
8 5.00 0.75
9 5.00 3.81
10 10.00 1.75
11 10.00 1.68
12 5.00 14.00
13 5.00 28.70

 
3DMark


puff (oc'd 4.0ghz+1750mhz):

Score
P5172
Graphics Score
4813
Physics Score
9204
Combined Score
4713
GraphicsTest1
21 FPS
GraphicsTest2
21 FPS
GraphicsTest3
29 FPS
GraphicsTest4
15 FPS
PhysicsTest
29 FPS
CombinedTest
21 FPS
 
puff computer specs:

$regular price | $puff after discounts (not rebates)
$205 | $190 mobo: sabertooth x58
$300 | $200 cpu: i7-950
$105 | $105 cpu hs: thermalright archon (x2 fans)
$400 | $325 ram: 24gb mushkin redline 1600mhz 7-9-8-24
$350 | $320 gpu: pny gtx 570
$175 | $150 ssd(sw) : ocz vertex 2 90gb
$050 | $050 hhd(data): wd green 5400rpm 500gb
$200 | $200 psu: seasonic 850
$300 | $150 case: Lian Li A77f

$2085 | $1690
 


Detailed scores

3DMark Score
P2927
Graphics Score
3119
Physics Score
2359
Combined Score
2665
GraphicsTest1
14 FPS
GraphicsTest2
14 FPS
GraphicsTest3
19 FPS
GraphicsTest4
9 FPS
PhysicsTest
7 FPS
CombinedTest
12 FPS
 


fport

catia-03
3.62

1 12.00 1.70
2 12.00 1.12
3 14.00 1.30
4 14.00 1.77
5 12.00 2.08
6 12.00 19.30
7 12.00 4.82
8 12.00 46.60

ensight-04
20.55

1 20.00 8.86
2 20.00 34.70
3 20.00 20.30
4 20.00 20.40
5 20.00 28.80

lightwave-01
7.56

1 10.00 6.50
2 10.00 4.94
3 10.00 4.50
4 10.00 2.92
5 10.00 7.77
6 10.00 18.50
7 10.00 14.40
8 10.00 5.08
9 10.00 11.70
10 10.00 11.70

maya-03
7.24

1 9.00 3.07
2 9.00 1.18
3 9.00 7.91
4 9.00 8.61
5 9.00 18.90
6 10.00 7.03
7 9.00 10.80
8 9.00 7.41
9 9.00 15.20
10 9.00 4.80
11 9.00 15.00

proe-05
.97

1 17.00 2.21
2 17.00 0.79
3 17.00 1.04
4 17.00 0.74
5 17.00 1.43
6 15.00 0.40

sw-02
7.26

1 10.00 13.50
2 10.00 7.15
3 10.00 6.49
4 10.00 4.56
5 10.00 5.24
6 10.00 7.40
7 10.00 4.53
8 10.00 20.00
9 10.00 6.83
10 10.00 5.92

tcvis-02
.69

1 20.00 1.39
2 20.00 0.39
3 20.00 0.52
4 20.00 0.42
5 20.00 1.28

snx-01
2.52

1 10.00 2.31
2 10.00 2.30
3 7.00 3.35
4 7.00 3.36
5 6.00 3.80
6 10.00 1.71
7 10.00 1.68
8 5.00 3.38
9 5.00 5.39
10 10.00 1.32
11 10.00 1.22
12 5.00 6.61
13 5.00 9.98
 
fport... i wish you had a gtx 570 man. it would be a better comparison. I think we have some quality comparisons here. Now to put it into easy-to-read descriptions!
 


I use a program Dx0 for my .CR2 RAW file clean ups. This usually involves a lens correction and several other adjustments. One of the reasons I upgraded to my present configuration was because of the length of time it took, over 16 minutes when I batched a mere 10 photos.

When I started to tweak stuff I ran a quick test on 71 RAWS.

http://fport.darcvhal.com/long.jpg
http://fport.darcvhal.com/mid.jpg
http://fport.darcvhal.com/short.jpg

Graphics card does not figure in this application.
 



Well whilst I wait again for life to offer you a spare moment here is another little thing I found:

http://www.mediafire.com/?0vh82dnirx8cl44 - the oc 4.5/5.0GHz stable gang recommended download place



LinX.jpg
 
fport, what are you waiting for? am i suppose to do a Dx0 test? How do i do that? we have different files... is there a benchmark test? It wouldn't make sense for me to pick some of my .raw files for the test, that would be incomparable, no?
 


Well, a RAW file in the 15-20M size and just run a batch through the free trial, adjust lens, noise, etc. if you want. You saw the improvement I had whilst tweaking and I used 71 RAWs as opposed to the 10 that made me start looking for an upgrade. Went from 16mins for 10 on the
Q6600 to 17mins for 71, then 6 something and finally just over 4mins on the new machine.

Did I not do something else?

Try LinX, I couldn't up the parameters to full gain so just match them.
 
WOWEE ZOWEEE ... YOUZE GUISES !!? 😱 😱 😱

I feel like the store-keeper who chose to dive behind the horse trough, while the bullets were flying ! ... Wholly Moley !

Well ... I just gotta ask ... After all that, my head is spinning so ... What would be your individual synopsis, in Lay-Speak ? ... Encapsulate your (now) informed opinions, in a few paragraphs, based on the benches, thus far ... Based on "DOLLARS-per-OPERATION" ... Just your best intuitive summary, if you have one.

... I am asking this because I am pretty lazy and (obviously) have not been following, blow-by-blow ...

... *MY* intuitive take is that a Dual Socket, ECC solution just is not worth the cost, of infrastructure and also the clock limitations and the extra cost of ECC Parity DRAM and the premium cost to upgrade, to more cores (put two new Xeons, in there), etc.

And, remember ... This thread is "really" catering towards the cash-strapped Grad Student and the Project Studio Pro-Sumer, rather than a fully funded Multi-National Corporate Engineer, who has his own IT buyers and padded budgets, etc. ... So ... For "Us Guys" ...

Those who are actually going to buy a WS, ... This Year (or next), really should go back to the very first (openning) post, of this thread, and really read it through ... It really is not that dry !
... And ... If one SHOULD go back and read this thread through, he will notice, tracking the date, as he reads, that "Landscape Visibility" was VERY POOR, on the date this thread began ... and that is one of the major reasons that THIS (mega) thread has been so very successful (so many reads) ... BUT, ... NOW ???

*** FORWARD VISIBILITY IS, NOW, FINALLY, "QUITE CLEAR" ***

We are now looking DIRECTLY forward to Socket 2011, Bigger/Faster/Cheaper SSDs, More Cores (cheaper), and PCIe 3.0 and Thunderbolt (doubling internal and external bandwidth) ... So, ... intuitively? ... In terms of cost? ... Now and later ?? .... I just can't (won't) recommend a Dual-Xeon ECC solution ... "Boat Anchor" is (me thinks) a very apt term, given the immediate forward visibility (THIS YEAR!) ...

Here are pasted re-prints of my last two comments, on the HIGH END WS BUILD CONTEST "sticky" thread, at the top of THIS forum ....

***************************
COMMENT # 1 :


Waiting for Socket 2011 and cheaper SSDs ... Also want to see the Dozer benches, for student builds.
... See you in ~October ?
Currently, it would seem that GTX is a better value than Quadro ... That said, all the various apps seem to have particular preferences, regarding resources.
So ... I would recommend building your system around your primary apps and NOT to over-build, as hardware capabilities are RAPIDLY overtaking software requirements.

See you when I think a system that breathes can be had for an appropriate price.

I just aint seeing that, right now ... X58+GTX+12GB-DDR3 was the last build that made real sense.

There are so many different "ws" apps, and so many "designated workloads", that one really needs to know exactly what apps will be used and how much output is expected, in a given week/month.

Editing? (Rez/apps/codecs) CAD? 3DCG? Bio and Molecular Modelling? ... WHAT?

There is just no way to know *IF* a discreet GPU is needed or if it should be GTX or Quadro ...OR ... Combined CUDA, etc.

Just look how very different the (already) proposed builds are ... Yet all could perform certain tasks, very well ... There is simply NO GENERIC METRIC, for a "WS".

PS: The new Mac-Pro (Loaded) config will (likely) provide some context for a "well rounded" PC-based WS ... Looking forward to seeing Apple's latest "visage" ... (Should be optimized for Edit/3D-CG/Pubs).

*********** END OF COMMENT # 1 **********************

***********************************************************

COMMENT # 2


@caesparktom
Yup ... context is EVerything, in THIS category and, no reason one should NEED to spend the entire (allotted) wad, either. Ditto on the OC, too ... Unless you are designing a bridge, skyscraper, passenger aircraft, etc. ... Who needs ECC parity DRAM and an overly slow clock (now that conservative OC has become the "stable" mainstream standard) ??
... And, yeah ... Quadro? GTX? IGP? ... TOTALLY depends on the resource reqs of the primary apps (and required display real-estate, etc.).

Even if we were ONLY limiting these builds to video editing? ... STILL a huge variation, depending on MANY factors ... so ... State your apps and even your "output product", in terms of required quality and quantity ...

Do remember that we are on the temporal cusp of PCIe 3.0 and that even mainstream core-counts are doubling, as power reqs are plummeting ... these trends (this particular platform evolution) is JUST HUGE (a precedent ... not the norm) so, over-building, right now would be a complete waste ... right at this moment, if I was FORCED to build ? ... It would be for a two year requirement, with an expectation of re-tasking, rather than upgrading (in most cases).

So sorry, Fans ... With PCIe 3.0 and Thunderbolt and big/cheap SSDs and a doubling of core counts BANGING at our door ? Who (other than a very highly salaried engineer) could justify blowing $4K on a dual Xeon ?! ... Unless the extra cores are REALLY gonna make/save LOTS of real money ?



Message edited by Alvin Smith on 06-27-2011 at 10:27:43 AM


********** END *****************
 
Alvin drops back in to confess: I feel like the store-keeper who chose to dive behind the horse trough, while the
bullets were flying ! ... Wholly Moley !

Ya well, Puff took the initiative and put his shoulder to the wheel so to speak and got the ball rolling making sure there
was no moss growing just because Alvin hadda step out for moment or two...

.Well ... I just gotta ask ... After all that, my head is spinning so ... What would be your individual synopsis,
in Lay-Speak ? ... Encapsulate your (now) informed opinions, in a few paragraphs, based on the benches, thus far
... Based on "DOLLARS-per-OPERATION" ... Just your best intuitive summary, if you have one.

Alvin's asking US!!!

Come on lazeeeboy....it's freakin obvious, look at the frame rates, bloody newerfaster card wins. Faster CPU smokes
slower cpu's.

Standby, incoming Alvin Admission: ... I am asking this because I am pretty lazy and (obviously) have
not been following, blow-by-blow ...

Alvin Say'd (back when) to Puff: ... and if $2K~$3K is your target, for just the system unit
(sans any LCD displays), then it is really pointless to be talking about dual socket solutions, as they are WAY
out of your league (beyond anything you could stretch for, once appropriately "populated" with procs (plural)
and RAM (starting at 12GB and up to 64GB) ... PENTAGON BUDGET !

Ya, Alvin, I came in at $2600 with those damn dual cpu's albeit clunkers at 2.4GHz but still delivering 16 threads and
of course the slow 24GB's of RAM is being used as triple channel but it sure don't seem to beat out Puff's over clocked
baby just like you sayed it wouldn't at least on the generally accepted benchmarks.

I did admit to not being up to SNUFF with regard to being what you intimated but I rankle at BOAT ANCHOR:

Despite being the antithesis of the "Alvin 'dang you don't even go off road in that tank of a truck' Philosophy",
I think I bring one of the edge cases into the light as a comparison and contrast data point and at a certain
price point as well as roadmap of the future of the actual box.

Alvin summzit up now with: ... *MY* intuitive take is that a Dual Socket, ECC solution just is not worth the cost, of
infrastructure and also the clock limitations and the extra cost of ECC Parity DRAM and the premium cost to upgrade,
to more cores (put two new Xeons, in there), etc.

Let me restate my premise to prove:

A lower pricepoint and the same performance or an equivalent cost and better performance...

Ya, as far as that goes, you are very narrow threading box usage. Say puff - want to add two virtual environments,
whilst you are actually working with your apps, to your setup?

Alvin alsosays: ...And, remember ... This thread is "really" catering towards the cash-strapped Grad Student and the
Project Studio Pro-Sumer, rather than a fully funded Multi-National Corporate Engineer, who has his own IT buyers
and padded budgets, etc. ... So ... For "Us Guys" ...

The alleged thread started with a plea for a $2-3K WS from Puff. He got his for $1.6K. Great job team!!! Shout
out to iliya77 as well for his contributions.

And he gets to compare it to something like he was thinking to build hisself with certain minor variations that
are MB related for completely OT reasons - ie. he cannot make his machine as scalable GPU wise as I can nor
can he add that extra 24 or 48 or 64GB's of RAM next year but he is a grand ahead for a new build that will
continue to smoke my best accelerometer readings.

Those who are actually going to buy a WS, ... This Year (or next), really should go back to the very
first (openning) post, of this thread, and really read it through ... It really is not that dry ! ... And ...
If one SHOULD go back and read this thread through, he will notice, tracking the date, as he reads,
that "Landscape Visibility" was VERY POOR, on the date this thread began ... and that is one of the
major reasons that THIS (mega) thread has been so very successful (so many reads) ... BUT, ... NOW ???

*** FORWARD VISIBILITY IS, NOW, FINALLY, "QUITE CLEAR" ***

We are now looking DIRECTLY forward to Socket 2011, Bigger/Faster/Cheaper SSDs, More Cores (cheaper),
and PCIe 3.0 and Thunderbolt (doubling internal and external bandwidth) ... So, ... intuitively? ... In terms of
cost? ... Now and later ??.... I just can't (won't) recommend a Dual-Xeon ECC solution ... "Boat Anchor" is
(me thinks) a very apt term, given the immediate forward visibility (THIS YEAR!) ...

And can we blame you???

DEAR ALVIN, we can't and won't. Cheaper is better. More powerful is better. More reliable is better.

YOU said it: I would just LOVE to know how the system that you just spec'd would compare (Price vs. Performance)

YOU GOT IT!!!



 
Fantastic ! I'll "give" where you didst (righteously) push ...

At least you DID read enough of the thread to grok the entire context and "limits" of the conversation.

There DEFINITELY ARE good reasons *Apps, Work Volume, Liabilities, IT strategies* for going the Big Iron Route ... Just NOT SO MANY REASONS/CIRCUMSTANCES as in the past (IMO).

I could expand on "all that" but it is fair to say that there will ALWAYS be applications that can justify ALL THE CORES AND POWER THAT CAN BE HAD (at whatever price-point) ... Mostly modelling of very large or very complex systems.

"May You live in interesting times ! " ?? .... (we most certainly DO ! ).

= Thanks for hanging in and putting out the effort ... Ain't Puff a-may-zink ?

 
PS - at the end of this year or beginning of next year...

I'm contemplating my next gen workstation looking to spend about what PUFF ended
up forking out but with the uberness of what you are envisioning but being quiet(er) than this
box which is between 60 and 80 deci-BELLS - soon to be fixed of course but gosh did I make a boner
with the "old" case <in storage for too many years> now I am going to have to do air over liquid
(which is an an entire two day thread discussion on its own that I'll have to start replete with pics)
because of the tight space over CPU1 but I can hang my Ninja3 on top of CPU0 and do the H2O 620
off the bottom side of that all air fountaining upwards with two 120's sucking and blowing to the roof
vent 120mm super silent.

I do not have any idea of what I was thinking buying standard stuff - sure it keeps it cool but omigawd!!!

I CAN NO LONGER THINK!!!
 
Noctua 140/120mm cooler (comes with in-line noise/voltage attenuators) ..with a Seasonic X-Series PSU (bigger is quiter because the fan does not even spin until it "needs" to ... ~850Watt ?? )

The enthusiast sandies will clock VERY high, on air ALONE (water is way overkill, for sandies ... there is a Tom's article on how coolers may be extinct, with the next gen, or so).

And ... I think there is one, particular Silverstone case that is especially quiet, yet airy.

Hope that helps.
 
NOTICE ! ! ! THESE ARE JUST "EXAMPLES" OF X58 QUIET KIT ...

The listed Noctua cooler is HUGE and even that is over-kill ... A basic Hyper 212+ with two 120mm Noctua noise attenuated fans would also be MORE than plenty to run a (current gen) Sandy to well over 4GHz ...
.... The assumption (of course) is that these coolers (PSU, etc.) will also be compatible with 2011 kit, as well ... I'd bet YOUR lunch money that all of this will work, just fine, with 2011s, when they arrive (in 7 months, or less ... including the usual delays ... current schedule is before this xmas ... but late January would not be surprising.).

Noctua NH-D14 120mm & 140mm SSO CPU Cooler
Average Rating 323 users give it 5-stars
5/5(323 reviews)
OUT OF STOCK.
Now: $89.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835608018

*****************

SeaSonic X Series X-850 (SS-850KM Active PFC F3) 850W ATX12V v2.3 / EPS 12V v2.91 SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Modular Active PFC Power Supply
Average Rating
5/5(8 reviews)
Hardwaresecrets Golden Award
In stock.
Now: $205.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151102&cm_re=seasonic_x-series-_-17-151-102-_-Product

*****************************

Yeah, ... This is the mid-tower version ... Look for the full-tower version with the same sized case fans (180mmx2?) ... Also go to quietpc.com and brush-up (because I am so lazy).


Silverstone FT01 Fortress Case - Black

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811163120&cm_re=Silverstone_FT01_Fortress-_-11-163-120-_-Product

http://www.xoxide.com/silverstone-fortress-case-black.html

Silverstone SF01 Noise Absorption PC Case EPOM Foam Pad

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811999222&nm_mc=OTC-Froogle&cm_mmc=OTC-Froogle-_-Accessories+-+Case+/+Rackmount-_-Silverstone-_-11999222
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom