New Graphics PC specs

Post by **maxxis** » 29 Oct 2005, 17:57

Hi guys

Im gonna guy a new PC for graphic design.

Im thinking

AMD X2 3800
4 Gigs ram
4 x 250gig SATA2
nVidia Quadro GFX

Any recommendations?

Tolklein · Post by **Tolklein** » 29 Oct 2005, 18:09

Are you serious?

That would be quite the machine I should think.

Post by **maxxis** » 29 Oct 2005, 18:13

Dead serious.

Not sure which quadro. Might skip it casue I dont that much 3D work.

Bottom line is I am sick and tired of waiting for applications to do stuff. My problem is that I work incredibly fast and waiting for the PC just slows me down like crazy.

shlebib · Post by **shlebib** » 29 Oct 2005, 18:19

How much is that going to set you back?

Post by **maxxis** » 29 Oct 2005, 18:23

Busy working it out quickly.

Money is no object here.

Post by **maxxis** » 29 Oct 2005, 18:28

About R20k give or take a few.

Decided on a 7800GTX instead. Might as well use it for games 2.

Tolklein · Post by **Tolklein** » 29 Oct 2005, 18:37

Money no object you say?

Alas, I know jack about graphics design hardware.

But yeah if you're spending that kind of cash multi-purpose would be high up on my list

Rayne · Post by **Rayne** » 29 Oct 2005, 18:46

The 3D performance from a X2 3800+ equals that of the Athlon 64 3000+.

-Bad choice # 1

9/10 AMD boards will clock down your 4Gb of RAM.

-Bad choice # 2

Thus, Intel suits your needs better here.

And I think a Quadro cost R18k just by itself anyways.

Post by **maxxis** » 29 Oct 2005, 18:57

Wrong on a fews things there

1. Quadro start at R1395 for a real crappy one.

2. I changed to the 4400+ since its got 1mb cache

3. I hate Intel. My AMD 2600 out performs a 3ghz P4 on most gfx apps.

As for the ram. Clock down to 333?

Leigh · Post by **Leigh** » 29 Oct 2005, 19:09

Yeah a Quadro would be overkill if you're not doing much 3D. Quadro's totally and utterly kick a$$, so if you ever do decide to start doing more 3D, get one because they're really the best for 3D (and they actually run games pretty well too!). If you weren't planning on using the machine for games as well, I'd recommend a Matrox display card since they're awesome for 2D, but they're not going to work for games.

And personally I think you're overdoing the RAM a bit. Photoshop won't even use all of that.

Rayne · Post by **Rayne** » 29 Oct 2005, 19:10

Well, sorry to ask you this, but wth would any graphics designer buy a R1400 entry-level card when "money's no object"?

That's like Jonathan Wendel gaming on a MX440...

Yeah the 4400+ is a step-up, better choice there, but remember - "10 000 cores cannot speed-up a single-threaded app".

Will you be working with two or more programs at the same time?

Intel has better multimedia capabilities, period.

Yes, your RAM will be clocked down, whilst on Intel chipsets it won't.

EDIT : PS - Whilst I see Leigh mentioning Photoshop - might wanna through-in 2 10 000rpm Raptors there as well, seeing the program itself is heavily relyant on a pagefile.

Post by **maxxis** » 29 Oct 2005, 19:18

The Quadro I chose was about R5990 ex vat so I wasn't planning on getting a crap card to begin with.

I use about 3 to 4 programs at a time on certain projects.

My gfs machine uses 2gigs of ram 4x512 and the ram is not clocked down. Why would it happen? I heard it was only on the older core AMDs where the memory controller on the chip caused this.

Rayne · Post by **Rayne** » 29 Oct 2005, 19:26

AMD's memory controller problems will only be fully addressed with the next socket.

Look, for the money your willing to spend here, the machine will be a killer regardless, so if you prefer AMD then by all means go for it.

At the end of the day your the one using it, so get what you want.

Google a few reviews, do some compatibility research on the setup, compare it to simmilar setups, and if all checks out, then get it.

I'm not trying to change your mind here, I just got a machine too, and I know it's not an easy choice with all the hardware available today.

I'm just pointing out the alternative.

Basipooh · Post by **Basipooh** » 29 Oct 2005, 20:07

maxxis wrote: 3. I hate Intel. My AMD 2600 out performs a 3ghz P4 on most gfx apps.

I Think u a bit wrong there.... An Athlon XP 3200+ cannot even beat a 3GHz p4 in gfx. Unless of couse u r overlocked..
The A64 is a different story as an A64 2800+ will beat a 3ghz p4 in gfx apps.

Leigh · Post by **Leigh** » 29 Oct 2005, 20:33

maxxis wrote: 3. I hate Intel. My AMD 2600 out performs a 3ghz P4 on most gfx apps.

How can you "hate" Intel? That's such a silly thing to say. I use a dual Intel Xeon system at home and a dual AMD Opteron system at work and I think (and know!) that both are GREAT.

And I honestly don't see how an AMD 2600 can outperform a 3ghz P4 on graphics apps, seriously. Especially considering that programs like Photoshop are actually optimised for Intel platforms.

Azriel · Post by **Azriel** » 29 Oct 2005, 21:36

I'm with maxxis, I'd take an AMD anyday over an Intel!

And what's this about the RAM?

On my friends Athlon 64, the memory is actually faster!

Post by **maxxis** » 30 Oct 2005, 15:16

Basipooh wrote:
maxxis wrote: 3. I hate Intel. My AMD 2600 out performs a 3ghz P4 on most gfx apps.
I Think u a bit wrong there.... An Athlon XP 3200+ cannot even beat a 3GHz p4 in gfx. Unless of couse u r overlocked..
The A64 is a different story as an A64 2800+ will beat a 3ghz p4 in gfx apps.

And you know this because you have done extensive graphic design on both platforms? Right. Thought so.

Post by **maxxis** » 30 Oct 2005, 15:18

Oh and my system is not a A64 3200+ its a normal Athlon 2600+.

Take my word for it people. The creative director at my company uses a P4 3ghz with 1gig ram and I have worked on her machine. My AMD just feels faster in photoshop than what her system does.

I was a bit puzzled by this but still.

Post by **maxxis** » 30 Oct 2005, 15:20

Leigh wrote:
maxxis wrote: 3. I hate Intel. My AMD 2600 out performs a 3ghz P4 on most gfx apps.
How can you "hate" Intel? That's such a silly thing to say. I use a dual Intel Xeon system at home and a dual AMD Opteron system at work and I think (and know!) that both are GREAT.

And I honestly don't see how an AMD 2600 can outperform a 3ghz P4 on graphics apps, seriously. Especially considering that programs like Photoshop are actually optimised for Intel platforms.

I guess im just not a fan of Intel. AMD has always had this rebel status, the underdog, etc.

I guess I'll try to be more open minded towards Intel in the future. Im sure they make great products.

Basipooh · Post by **Basipooh** » 30 Oct 2005, 15:46

maxxis wrote:Oh and my system is not a A64 3200+ its a normal Athlon 2600+.

Take my word for it people. The creative director at my company uses a P4 3ghz with 1gig ram and I have worked on her machine. My AMD just feels faster in photoshop than what her system does.

I was a bit puzzled by this but still.

The whole thing about "feels faster" is mostly in the mind. u also gotta take into account that a system may be faster but badly configured. Eg. there may alot of useless background apps running.

maxxis wrote: And you know this because you have done extensive graphic design on both platforms? Right. Thought so.

Dude, every bench ive seen shows the p4 3ghz outperforming the athlon xp 3200+ so how is it possible for ur 2600+ to beat a 3ghz p4???
I havent used gfx design apps, but logic is logic, its as simple as that!!

Post by **maxxis** » 30 Oct 2005, 15:50

Basipooh wrote:
maxxis wrote:Oh and my system is not a A64 3200+ its a normal Athlon 2600+.

Take my word for it people. The creative director at my company uses a P4 3ghz with 1gig ram and I have worked on her machine. My AMD just feels faster in photoshop than what her system does.

I was a bit puzzled by this but still.
The whole thing about "feels faster" is mostly in the mind. u also gotta take into account that a system may be faster but badly configured. Eg. there may alot of useless background apps running.

maxxis wrote: And you know this because you have done extensive graphic design on both platforms? Right. Thought so.
Dude, every bench ive seen shows the p4 3ghz outperforming the athlon xp 3200+ so how is it possible for ur 2600+ to beat a 3ghz p4???
I havent used gfx design apps, but logic is logic, its as simple as that!!

Feels faster in GFX apps traslates directly to being faster. The P4 was on fresh install of XP and so was my AMD.

Anyways benchmarks for GFX software is non existant as far as I know.

Mozz · Post by **Mozz** » 30 Oct 2005, 16:52

lol @ you two.

The Xenon/P4 is a cheaper setup than an A64 X2!!! does logic apply here??? jus joking basi

If its dual purpose you want, then i say go for the X2, its the most balanced CPU for ur case, AMD's Name in the gaming arena, as well as two cores pumping the image manipulation

I guess, when ur in the industry, ur work can only be as good as ur PC, so, YOU GO BOY!!

hehe

i'll be one of those waiting to see the benchies

trailb · Post by **trailb** » 30 Oct 2005, 18:38

well, the people here are so bi@#$% lately dam ...... i have used the amd 2000,2200,2500,2800 and 3200 and a intel 3.0,3.2 ghz ht 1mb and from experiance i can tell you that the Intel is much better in apps and keeps up graet in games.

I am a die-hard AMD fan, people have fun.

Basipooh · Post by **Basipooh** » 30 Oct 2005, 19:05

Mozz wrote:
i'll be one of those waiting to see the benchies

ill show dem benchies wen im uncapped.

Leigh · Post by **Leigh** » 30 Oct 2005, 21:11

maxxis wrote:Oh and my system is not a A64 3200+ its a normal Athlon 2600+.

Take my word for it people. The creative director at my company uses a P4 3ghz with 1gig ram and I have worked on her machine. My AMD just feels faster in photoshop than what her system does.

I was a bit puzzled by this but still.

There could be a number of reasons for this. Photoshop uses virtual memory which can differ from machine to machine, and she may have had different RAM settings in Photoshop on her computer.