system setup help

[duskull]

iam buliding a new rig and the software that iam going to be using is maya 3d editing and all the adobe graphics editing softe ware. the system that i have in mind that i want to build it: quad core 2.3ghz 4 mb of cache, 1tb of hard space , 4gb of rams, a XFX motherboard, and i dont know what kind of video card that iam going use. is their any body that uses thoes programs and if so what is your system set up?

[milkmandan]

Hey duskull..
Which XFX motherboard are you getting specifically? I would personally recommend the Asus Rampage Extreme :\ Since you are sticking with a x48 chipset and a quadcore.
A lot of us here use all the adobe products as they are very useful in AMV creation so that is pretty much a given. Not sure about Maya.

Here is my set up.
Asus Z7S WS Dual Socket LGA771
2x Intel Xeon E5430 Harpertown 2.66Ghz CPU OC @ 3.0Ghz
8GB DDR2-800 FB-DIMM RAM
1TB RAID-0 w/ two 500GB Seagate 7200.11
500GB Seagate 7200.11
300GB WD VelociRaptor
ATi Radeon HD4870x2

[the Black Monarch]

You're MUCH better off with a faster-clocked dual-core system than with a slower-clocked quad, and it's extremely unlikely that you'll need more than 2gb of RAM unless you're editing in HD.

The video card won't matter unless you're also planning on using your rig for gaming.

[NeoQuixotic]

You're MUCH better off with a faster-clocked dual-core system than with a slower-clocked quad, and it's extremely unlikely that you'll need more than 2gb of RAM unless you're editing in HD.

The video card won't matter unless you're also planning on using your rig for gaming.

Where the hell do you get your information from, because it sucks! With the dual vs quad debate, if it was 2 years ago I might of agreed with you. But nowadays most professional apps are multi-threaded. And even 2 years ago, one of the few benefits people would state quad cores were good for was media creation (video, audio, 3d, etc). You can get 3 Ghz quads now for about $300 and if you want to risk overclocking you get one hell of a deal with even a cheap quad. And the new i7 processors from Intel are amazing. Yes the CPU frequencies are lower on the i7's but if you know anything about processors you know that the frequency doesn't translate into performance. AMD processors have always been a lower frequency, but had the same performance or more than comparable Intel frequency speeds. As we've seen with Intel's new family of CPUs the performance has gone up while frequency speeds have been kept low. The cheapest i7 CPU is as good, sometimes better than the most expensive Core 2 CPU (check these reviews:http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/03/inte ... ew-roundup) And just imagine if you overclocked the i7! Now you might say that quad is still useless for gaming, but that isn't true anymore. Many games now are multi-threaded and pretty much all future games are highly encouraged to be multi-threaded. And don't forget the whole multitasking benefit of having more cores available to the system.

Now to the RAM issue. Suggesting that 2 Gb of RAM is all that is needed is fine if you like to wait for renders and only run a single high-end application at a time. A few years ago having more than 2 Gb of RAM was really expensive. But nowadays 8 Gb can be had for less than $100. If there is any user that needs as much RAM as they can get, it is a media producer. Yes, now HD definitely increases system requirements, but even with SD when using programs like After Effects or a 3D program can eat up all your RAM instantly. This is especially the case when you want to render the video or 3D model. Many people complain at how slow these programs render, but if they only threw some more RAM at them they would see their render times decrease significantly. Now After Effects by default won't use more than 4 Gb of RAM, but it will if you set it up right. Generally the only things limiting people to small amounts of RAM was price and the limit of 32-bit operating systems (maxes out at 4 Gb basically). But RAM is cheap now and 64-bit operating systems and hardware are commonplace, along with being extremely compatible with existing 32-bit stuff. And as I said with quad cores, the extra RAM is a god send if you actually want to run more than 1 or 2 of these system demanding applications at the same time. There is a reason why high end workstations like the Mac Pro or Dell Precision can have 32 Gb of RAM or more. But unless you are doing something very high end or specific you'll probably be just fine with 4-12 Gb of RAM.

Now the video card is another one of those things a year or two ago didn't have a major impact on things other than 3D things like games or 3D modeling. However, the industry has realized that most computers have a very powerful computing piece of hardware going to waste. Adobe with CS4 has utilized the video card to accelerate Photoshop, a mainly 2D application. And Premiere can have accelerated video rendering (albeit only with the super expensive Quadro workstation card at the moment). Many of these accelerations are due to utilizing OpenGL, but things that aren't just about displaying an image of some sorts are doing some new stuff. Most applications are using Nvidia's CUDA to allow GPUs to do more than image processing. ATI has their own Stream Processing too. But these are generally vendor specific, so an open standard that is compatible with bascially all GPUs is OpenCL. Now yes, wide adoption of these technologies is probably a couple years away, but its worth looking in to. And your video card is of course a very important thing if you are working with 3D. The higher-end workstation cards (Nvidia's Quadro and ATI's Fire series) were basically designed for 3D and CAD applications. They can seriously help on real time preview and rendering times, but they can be thousands of dollars for the highest end cards. But in most cases you'll be fine with an upper tier consumer card.

P.S. - If you are going to post in the hardware section, please know what you are talking about. Or at the very least try to back it up with something. Ignorance is not an excuse.

[milkmandan]

P.S. - If you are going to post in the hardware section, please know what you are talking about. Or at the very least try to back it up with something. Ignorance is not an excuse.

Very nice post
i agree 100%

[the Black Monarch]

Where the hell do you get your information from

The real world, usually.

With the dual vs quad debate, if it was 2 years ago I might of agreed with you.

"Might of?" I think you mean "might have".

But nowadays most professional apps are multi-threaded.

Indeen. I hear that even Adobe Premiere is dual-threaded these days.

And even 2 years ago, one of the few benefits people would state quad cores were good for was media creation (video, audio, 3d, etc).

No disagreement there.

You can get 3 Ghz quads now for about $300

The OP was suggesting a 2.3ghz chip, which would be about half of that price, or roughly the same price as a 3ghz dual-core chip.

and if you want to risk overclocking you get one hell of a deal with even a cheap quad.

Are you kidding? Dual-core chips are MUCH more overclockable than quads, possibly due to lower transistor count (a chip is only as stable as its weakest transistor), or possibly because they produce only half as much heat.

And the new i7 processors from Intel are amazing.

They're also grotesquely expensive, as are the motherboards that support them.

Yes the CPU frequencies are lower on the i7's but blah blah AMD blah blah...

Yes, I already knew that part.

The cheapest i7 CPU is as good, sometimes better than the most expensive Core 2 CPU (check these reviews:http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/03/inte ... ew-roundup)

Sometimes better, always more expensive. Not a winning combination.

And just imagine if you overclocked the i7!

The only one with an unlocked multiplier costs $1000. Yeah, good luck with that.

AMD sells dual-core chips with unlocked multipliers for under $70, by the way.

Now you might say that quad is still useless for gaming

But I didn't.

Now to the RAM issue. Suggesting that 2 Gb of RAM is all that is needed is fine if you like to wait for renders and only run a single high-end application at a time.

Yeah, I forgot that everyone plays Crysis while they wait for their videos to render. Because, you know, Crysis doesn't stress the CPU very much.

That was sarcasm, by the way.

A few years ago having more than 2 Gb of RAM was really expensive. But nowadays 8 Gb can be had for less than $100.

That's $100 that could have instead been spent on a better CPU, which actually would improve performance.

If there is any user that needs as much RAM as they can get, it is a media producer.

If you're working for WETA, sure. If you're just messing around in your room, creating videos that are only 3 minutes long and have an amazingly high resolution (more sarcasm) of 512x288, then not so much.

Yes, now HD definitely increases system requirements

I doubt that anyone here makes their videos in HD. Exactly how many anime titles have been released on Blu-Ray?

but even with SD when using programs like After Effects or a 3D program can eat up all your RAM instantly. This is especially the case when you want to render the video or 3D model. Many people complain at how slow these programs render, but if they only threw some more RAM at them they would see their render times decrease significantly.

Can we see some benchies showing the effects of 2 GB versus 4 GB when rendering an anime music video?

Now After Effects by default won't use more than 4 Gb of RAM, but it will if you set it up right.

And if your project demands that much RAM.

Generally the only things limiting people to small amounts of RAM was price and the limit of 32-bit operating systems (maxes out at 4 Gb basically).

People have never been limited to small amounts of RAM. Well... never to amounts that were considered small at the time, anyway.

But RAM is cheap now

It has been for a long time.

And as I said with quad cores, the extra RAM is a god send if you actually want to run more than 1 or 2 of these system demanding applications at the same time.

Did you know that Crysis was designed specifically to give video-editors something to do while their projects were encoding?

There is a reason why high end workstations like the Mac Pro or Dell Precision can have 32 Gb of RAM or more.

Yeah. They're designed for companies like WETA, not for the Nuclear Tuxedo production team.

But unless you are doing something very high end or specific you'll probably be just fine with 4-12 Gb of RAM.

Or 2.

Now the video card is another one of those things a year or two ago didn't have a major impact on things other than 3D things like games or 3D modeling.

And a year later, not much has changed.

However, the industry has realized that most computers have a very powerful computing piece of hardware going to waste. Adobe with CS4 has utilized the video card to accelerate Photoshop, a mainly 2D application. And Premiere can have accelerated video rendering (albeit only with the super expensive Quadro workstation card at the moment). Many of these accelerations are due to utilizing OpenGL, but blah blah blah...

All of which is irrelevant because...

wide adoption of these technologies is probably a couple years away,

Exactly.

And your video card is of course a very important thing if you are working with 3D.

...and if:

1) your 3D software is set up to do this,
2) your hardware is set up to do this,
3) your 3D demands are such that the extra computing power from the GPU makes a difference, and
4) this difference is greater than you would achieve by spending the same amount of money on a better CPU.

Right now, the technology simply isn't mature enough to be a realistic option for someone who just wants to make AMVs.

The higher-end workstation cards (Nvidia's Quadro and ATI's Fire series) were basically designed for 3D and CAD applications. They can seriously help on real time preview and rendering times,

Really? Cool...

but they can be thousands of dollars for the highest end cards.

Oh. Never mind then.

P.S. - If you are going to post in the hardware section, please know what you are talking about. Or at the very least try to back it up with something.

Yeah. You should do the same.

[LivingFlame]

Indeen.

"Indeen"? I think you mean "Indeed."

But seriously, if you're going to comment on someone's spelling and grammar, make sure your own spelling and grammar are correct first.



And I find it funny that the majority of that ungodly long post had no arguments in it at all. Much of it was also based on hypotheticals, assumptions, unsupported opinions, and shortsightedness. I would have to say that only about four of the comments in that post were at least semi-legitimate arguments. The rest were just random quips.

Good job debating.

Spoiler :

Before you attempt to say anything, yes, I'm aware there are no arguments in my post. That's because I'm not trying to argue anything. Good day.

[Kariudo]

The real world, usually.

Funny, I didn't realize that the real world consisted only of technical resources that are the equivalent of "The National Enquirer"

Indeed. I hear that even Adobe Premiere is dual-threaded these days.

Fix't, and Multi-threaded isn't limited to two threads (though anything more than 1 is technically multi-threaded). For all you know, premiere (pro, perhaps elements now as well) might run 9001 threads

The OP was suggesting a 2.3ghz chip, which would be about half of that price, or roughly the same price as a 3ghz dual-core chip.

But that doesn't mean that you can't get a 3GHz chip. Personally though, I would just overclock a chip (heck, even my Q8200 which is locked with a max multi of 7 can get me from the stock 2.33 to 3.13).

Are you kidding? Dual-core chips are MUCH more overclockable than quads, possibly due to lower transistor count (a chip is only as stable as its weakest transistor), or possibly because they produce only half as much heat.

While dual cores tend to be easier to overclock, this isn't a concrete rule (see core i7 920 &/or Q6600). The TDP for dual-core cpus isn't half of the TDP for quad-cores. The Phenom line, for example, has a TDP of 125W for the black edition quads and a TDP of 80-95W for comparable duals

They're also grotesquely expensive, as are the motherboards that support them.

not so much....I guess it depends on your definition of grotesquely expensive...$280 for an i7 920 isn't bad, and you can get a decent msi or gigabyte board for under $200.

Sometimes better, always more expensive. Not a winning combination.

Actually, the i7 920 beat out the best core2quads in rendering and video encoding...save for the QX9770 a few times (which is only $900 more than the i7 920 )
The comparably priced Q9450 manages to beat the i7 (though if your cpu is the primary factor here, you have bigger problems on your hands) in some games.

The only one with an unlocked multiplier costs $1000. Yeah, good luck with that.

AMD sells dual-core chips with unlocked multipliers for under $70, by the way.

Unlocked multi's are nice...but aren't everything in overclocking. The i7 920 can go from stock 2.66 to 3.8 whereas the 940 can go from 3.2 to 4.12. So much for that unlocked multi

That's $100 that could have instead been spent on a better CPU, which actually would improve performance.

Oh, you mean like the Core i7 920?
But yeah, we've already had the ram argument before. 2GB ram is not gonna get you too far with programs like Maya and After Effects. Won't even bother quoting your next remark, because this one addresses it just fine

I doubt that anyone here makes their videos in HD. Exactly how many anime titles have been released on Blu-Ray?

Hooray for forum search? I don't know how many titles have been released on Blu-ray, but I know for a fact that both seasons of Gundam 00 have been/will be.

Can we see some benchies showing the effects of 2 GB versus 4 GB when rendering an anime music video?

You'd probably find some reason to discredit the bench if we did provide one
but your question doesn't really address what you quoted there. It would be interesting if someone with maya would be willing to do a 4GB vs 2GB render test though.

Ignoring the next 11 comments because they're either mind-numbingly stupid, irrelevant or have already been covered

Yeah. You should do the same.

Uhh...Milkmandan does know what he's talking about (pardon my gender assumption if it proves wrong)

@Living flame: Yeah, I know trying to argue probably won't do much...but it gave me something to do

[LivingFlame]

@Living flame: Yeah, I know trying to argue probably won't do much...but it gave me something to do

Hey, at least you have valid arguments with facts, numbers, and resources to back the majority of it up.

Besides, your posts actually have some educational value, which I appreciate, as I don't claim to be any sort of expert on the matter.

[Kariudo]

Yeah. You should do the same.

Uhh...Anubis does know what he's talking about

Oops, fix't