New PC: Build recommendations

[MorneDJ]

OK. Another PC build thread. While I have read the other threads, I do not overclock, and my use is far different from the normal gamer.

I recently upgraded my graphics card to the Gigabyte HD5850 card, but suddenly my PC overheated. I had the same problem with my previous 9600GT card (the reason for the upgrade). So clearly I have a case problem. So after advice I (here) I selected the CM HAF 932 .. but at about R1,500 it is a rather serious case, and deserves something better in it. Some-one at our office also requires a new PC, so I guess mine is fine for him, I will get the new PC

Stuff I have includes:
- HD5850 card
- SSD card (40 GB)
- Audigy4,
- 24" and 22" screens

I never overclock, and play a game or two a week. I mainly would be using the PC for work, which includes photo-editing, GIS work as well as modelling. I might have 10 maps open each being up to 150 GB big. I cannot afford that my PC break, so spend a bit more on a reliable product than one with features (that I never use).

Price as always is a factor, and would like to spend less than R10,000 on components, including case, PSU, Motherboard, CPU (thinking i7-950), RAM (4-8 GB), HDD, DVD R. What would be recommendations, and where do I buy that?

[Sojourn]

SSD card? Is Sata not a better option?
I am not giving advice here, I am really asking.

[GDI_Lord]

Morne, did you mean an SSD card that plugs into a PCIe slot or an SSD that connects over a SATA cable?

Can your photo editing and GIS software make use of OpenCL? Or perhaps ATI/AMD's Stream or NVidia's CUDA GPGPU technology? That might influence your gfx card choice.

Unless you plan on RAIDing a few HDDs in a RAID 10 configuration like you mentioned in another post, I don't think that you'll get as great an improvement on doing your work with just your OS drive being an SSD. With HDD prices as they are now, why not go for six 1TB or four 2TB HDDs for data storage? You mentioned that each model could be up to 150GB, so I guess that might force you to go the 2TB route.

How much does available RAM influence your GIS software? Is your GIS software 64bit? Will you be running a 64bit version of Windows 7? Or does the GIS run on Linux?

[KALSTER]

Ok, just off the cuff suggestions, but you should give thought to GDI_Lord's questions:

CPU: Intel i7-950 Quad Core 3.06GHz LGA1366 8MB Cache CPU for about R2550
Motherboard: MSI X58 Pro-E LGA1366 i7 Triple-Channel DDR3 Triple-CrossFireX for about R2000
Ram: 12GB triple channel DDR3 (just standard will do) for about R2200
Case: You say you can get the HAF 932 for R1500
DVD/RW: Anything but Samsung for about R200
HDD: 2TB for about R1200
PSU: At least a 600W PSU, maybe a Coolermaster Extreme for about R700

That brings the total to about R10 350.

I think for the type of work you are doing the more ram you have, the better. You already have a powerful GPU, so no need to change that, unless your software can make use of CUDA, in which case you might consider selling your GPU and getting a NVidia GTX460 1GB for around R2200.

[MorneDJ]

OK, sorry. One major mistake. The images are approximately 10 - 200 MB, not GB We do noise modelling (sound propagation), and use photo editing software and GIS for mapping purposes. I am not a photo or GIS expert, use it minimum to do reports. Problem is the massive tiff images that we use (complements Surveyor General). The images are topographical maps of South Africa.

I use the SSD mainly for the model to write to it. Because it is much faster the model also runs faster.

[GDI_Lord]

So from what you're saying, you could then get four (or as many SATA connectors that your board has minus one for the SSD and one for the optical drive) small (80GB? 160GB?) very fast HDDs to RAID 0/1/10* together as your OS drive and use the ENTIRE SSD for data and, probably most importantly, your temporary directory.

Can your noise modelling program use OpenCL/Stream/CUDA to operate faster?

* Read up on different RAID levels available. Remember: the zero in "RAID 0" indicates how much data you'll be able to recover if a drive fails. Since this could just be your OS drive, and the fact that you're making regular backups of your computer AND TESTING THOSE BACKUPS, you could then confidently use RAID 0 for your OS drive. But once again, read up on the pros and cons of the various RAID levels first.

[japie_my_skapie]

I recommend AMD CPU because intel motherboards tend to warp after the second or third time of placing a heatsink. AMD motherboards have a solid backplate and retention mechanism that prevents the motherboard from warping even with huge heatsink like the Orochi

[MorneDJ]

I rather stick with Intel. Normally I buy a PC, build it and leave it alone for a long time. I do not replace heatsinks, overclock and play around with the PC. In addition, experience have shown me that Intel just is slightly faster with calculations.

Our server runs on RAID 10, and if I go for a RAID solution, if will again go for RAID 10. Currently the server use 4x 500 GB drives, and I might replace them with 4x 1.5 or 2.0 TB drives, depending on which is the cheapest when I take the step. I will then "inherit" the 4x 500GB hdds. Problem is I do not know how good these RAID systems are that one get on a motherboard currently. Years ago I tried a RAID system build into the motherboard, and I was not that impressed. It only offered a few RAID options (0, 1 and 5 I think), and was horrible to work with. We currently use a promise PCI card in the server, and it is brilliant (but R3500). We lost 2 drives in the last 2 years, and everytime we did not lose data or uptime (switch off, replace HDD, start. The card sort outs everything else).

The SSD is there only as temp drive.

Our modelling software does not support OpenCL/Stream/CUDA. Not that we need it. With the SSD drive and optimised model it takes 1 - 10 seconds to run a small model, 2 - 10 minutes for a larger model.

[MorneDJ]

Since I have a LGA775 motherboard, I see I also have the option of taking a LGA775 CPU, such as the E8600 Core 2 Duo 3.33GHz (R2350), the Q9550 2.83GHz (R2400), or should I get new motherboard with the i7 950 3.06 GHz (R2560). I currently have the E8400 3GHz (3GHz), but it just seems slow, especially if I have 20 different applications open. If I spend 10K on a system, which CPU would at least make it feel if I had an upgrade, as none of these CPU's are particularly "faster" in terms of GHz.

I used my P4 (without hyperthreading) up to 2 years ago before I got this E8400 system. Yet I must be honest, I did not see a massive improvement (not the same when I went from my 1GHz AMD Duron to the P4 2.4).

[GDI_Lord]

It's not just GHz that count, but also efficiency - "work done per GHz" ("Efficiency" could also be defined as "performance per watt," but that is different to what I am trying to tell you. Related to what I am trying to tell you, but a tad different.)