Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
Igor Roshchin wrote: I am choosing between Core Duo and Intel I7 (Quad Core). If I go for the latter, I will probably choose something close to this set: I7 2.66 or 3 GHz ASUS P6T motherboard, Otherwise: Intel Core 2 Duo system: ASUS P5Q SE, E8400 or E8500 CPU This is what I chose, I mean the E8400 and some motherboard by Gigabyte. I've 8GB memory on board and disks are in external Linux box with direct gigabit connection between the two. The disks are RAID-1 (mirror). Under WinXP Pro 64bit I've no stability problems and the speed of the system is absolutely adequate for K-7 files processing in LR 2.4. Also, I've turned off the Windows swap file, using only RAM. So that you don't have to shoot for the best of the best of the best, and you can still get good results. One thing though, the CPU fan that came with E8400 sucked big time. The CPU would hit 90+C temperatures routinely running LR. Thus I bought a 3rd party fan (by ThermalTake, but I am not sure as to its precise model, which I can look up) and voila - CPU is never hotter than 50C. Some say that E8400 is very much into overclocking, but so far I haven't had a real need to do it. It works fine as it is. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
Boris Liberman wrote: Igor Roshchin wrote: I am choosing between Core Duo and Intel I7 (Quad Core). If I go for the latter, I will probably choose something close to this set: I7 2.66 or 3 GHz ASUS P6T motherboard, Otherwise: Intel Core 2 Duo system: ASUS P5Q SE, E8400 or E8500 CPU The I7 is probably a bit faster overall, even at a lower clock speed, for normal usage. Get the fastest memory that the motherboard supports. I expected things to get better, but was shocked at how much more responsive my E8500 system was after replacing the 4GB of PC2-6400 (800MHz) memory with 4GB of PC2-8500 (DDR2 1066MHz) memory. This is what I chose, I mean the E8400 and some motherboard by Gigabyte. Personally, I always use Intel CPUs, and I buy Asus or Gigabyte or MSI motherboards and not really anything else. I've had too many problems with other brands, like certain boards only liking certain types of memory, often inferior ones (quality or throughput). The Intel boards are probably good, but I've never used them because they're often down on the bang-for-the-buck meter. I've 8GB memory on board [...] If you're using a 64-bit Windows, be careful about 64-bit drivers. A fair amount of gear that's as little as two or three years old doesn't have and won't ever get 64-bit Windows drivers. I don't know what the situation is for 64-bit Linux/BSD/*nix or MacOS. This seems especially to be true of cheaper products, like by US$50 Canon LiDE 50 flatbed scanner. In some cases, I think the 32-bit drivers can be used in 64-bit XP, Vista, or 7, but I'm not sure of that, and I am sure that some just won't work without 64-bit Windows drivers. One thing though, the CPU fan that came with E8400 sucked big time. I always use Zalman fan/heatsink combos. The CNPS9700 series works particularly well with the LGA775 socket CPUs and MBs. They are a little pricey (around US$50 on NewEgg.com) but they work well and they're quiet. ThermalTake is another quality brand for cooling accessories and quiet cases, too. Some say that E8400 is very much into overclocking, but so far I haven't had a real need to do it. It works fine as it is. With the right motherboard, the E8300/E8400/E8500 can be heavily overclocked. The E8500 has a base clock of 3.16GHz but I've heard of them run up as high as 4.4GHz with the right motherboard and cooling solutions. Personally, I don't overclock, mainly because I don't have the time or inclination to do the tuning. BTW, my current main system, right at a year old is: E8500 3.16GHz Core 2 Duo Asus P5Q-E (P45, ICH10R) 4GB (2x2GB) PC2-8500 (DDR2 1066MHz) DRAM nVidia 9800GT 512MB PCI Express 2.0 video 4 x 320GB SATA-II drives in RAID 10 (striped over two mirror pairs) Windows XP Pro SP3 32-bit usually Windows 7 Pro 64-bit occasionally now that I have the RTM version 64-bit Linux (Ubuntu or SuSE) when I spend the time to get the RAID drivers to properly coexist with the Windows RAID That motherboard (Asus P5Q-E), and many other Asus boards, have a bunch of on-board overclocking support built in and settable through the BIOS configuration screens. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
Doug Franklin wrote: The I7 is probably a bit faster overall, even at a lower clock speed, for normal usage. Get the fastest memory that the motherboard supports. I expected things to get better, but was shocked at how much more responsive my E8500 system was after replacing the 4GB of PC2-6400 (800MHz) memory with 4GB of PC2-8500 (DDR2 1066MHz) memory. At work our sys admins had really hard time making I7 not overheat... I7 is faster, probably not just a bit, but E8400 is fast enough. If you're using a 64-bit Windows, be careful about 64-bit drivers. A fair amount of gear that's as little as two or three years old doesn't have and won't ever get 64-bit Windows drivers. I don't know what the situation is for 64-bit Linux/BSD/*nix or MacOS. This seems especially to be true of cheaper products, like by US$50 Canon LiDE 50 flatbed scanner. In some cases, I think the 32-bit drivers can be used in 64-bit XP, Vista, or 7, but I'm not sure of that, and I am sure that some just won't work without 64-bit Windows drivers. Agreed, but so far I had no driver problems. BTW, my current main system, right at a year old is: E8500 3.16GHz Core 2 Duo Asus P5Q-E (P45, ICH10R) 4GB (2x2GB) PC2-8500 (DDR2 1066MHz) DRAM nVidia 9800GT 512MB PCI Express 2.0 video 4 x 320GB SATA-II drives in RAID 10 (striped over two mirror pairs) Windows XP Pro SP3 32-bit usually Windows 7 Pro 64-bit occasionally now that I have the RTM version 64-bit Linux (Ubuntu or SuSE) when I spend the time to get the RAID drivers to properly coexist with the Windows RAID I forgot to mention that I have nVidia GEForce 8800 GT card with 1GB memory. I am hoping that future versions of LR will have CUDA support and then this card will be put to a good use. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
On Aug 9, 2009, at 6:04 AM, Alastair Robertson wrote: So CPU's options start with Pentium Dual 2.6 GHz 2MB cache, then Core 2 Duo processor 2.8 with 3MB cache, then move into the Quad systems. I take it then that a Duo would be ok Why not AMD? The Athlon or Phenom processors are working nicely. They also have already a build in memory controller, which makes the memory access a little more efficient. Thomas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
My 2 cents: * If bang for the buck is what you want, go AMD, not the best in town but certainly best price/performance ratio. * 4GB is alright (I'd say OKish). You may want to consider getting a 64bit OS if you're using windows. Peripheral support isn't good in 64bit versions if you have too many older peripherals (old scanners etc.). However, it will let you add mor memory later. As for 64bit versions: Vista Home basic will go up to 8GB. Vista Home Premium up to 16GB. Others (Pro etc.) up to 128GB. 32bit version will NOT use 4GB , whatever they tell you but 3.3GB. Basicaly throw 1 out of your 4 GB of RAM. * Fast disk drive is always better. Don't even look at 5400rpm drives. 7200rpm is the minimum you want. If you can drop more dollars in storage, I'd buy a 10.000rpm 300GB WD drive for OS and PS scratch drive. Nothing else to add, others gave good advices. Regards, -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- Photo: K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... Thinkpad: X23+UB,X60+UB Programing: D7 user (trying out D2007) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Thomas Bohntho...@bohnomat.de wrote: On Aug 9, 2009, at 6:04 AM, Alastair Robertson wrote: So CPU's options start with Pentium Dual 2.6 GHz 2MB cache, then Core 2 Duo processor 2.8 with 3MB cache, then move into the Quad systems. I take it then that a Duo would be ok Why not AMD? The Athlon or Phenom processors are working nicely. They also have already a build in memory controller, which makes the memory access a little more efficient. Thomas Because their performance for dollar ratio is inferior to the Intel's right now, aside from the bottom end. The Core 2 and i7 processors offer more performance at the same pricepoint in the mid and high end. Personally, I'd get a lower-end Core 2 Quad and stuff as much RAM in there as possible, then round out the rest of the system. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU? -- Memory
Some thoughts about memory clock speed (800, 1066, 1333, 1600, ..) and latency timing (CL7, CL9..). About a year ago, in 2008, many people were saying that DDR2 was giving a bettera bang for buck: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ram-speed-tests,1807.html On the last (Conclusion) page, they said: Our conclusion is very simple: you get the best bang for the buck if you stick to the mainstream of the memory market, which currently is still DDR2-800 or 1066, preferably at low latencies. DDR3-1066 and -1333 memory do not yet result in better performance, and so should only be considered by hardcore enthusiasts, who aim for maximum overclocking performance knowing that they will get little benefit for spending a fortune. But this was prior to I7. I read that the recent trend has changed, and many recommend going with DDR3 for a performance system. (And DDR3 prices came down, at least until this July's price surge.) In this recent review they compare memory latencies to memory clock speed: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-memory-scaling,2342-10.html they conclude: It is interesting to see that low latencies typically are more important than clock speed bumps. This is not always the case on the AMD Phenom II X4 or Intel's Core i7 platform. Both come with memory controllers integrated into the CPU core, while the CPU controller is part of the (X48) chipset in the case of the Core 2 Quad on Socket 775. Apparently, latency seems to be much more of an issue on non-integrated memory controllers. And they recommend: Enthusiasts should go for DDR3-1600 and low latencies, while others will get the best bang for the buck at DDR3-1333 speeds and low latencies. CL7 timings can be considered ideal, but refrain from paying a significant premium over CL8 or CL9 memory. See also charts comparing faster processor vs. faster memory performance: http://www.tomshardware.com/gallery/RAM-Core2-scaling,0201--6464jpg-.html However, personally I still won't go for the fastests CPUs. HTH, Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU? -- Memory
On 10/08/2009, Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org wrote: See also charts comparing faster processor vs. faster memory performance: http://www.tomshardware.com/gallery/RAM-Core2-scaling,0201--6464jpg-.html However, personally I still won't go for the fastests CPUs. The laws of diminishing returns are well proven in those graphs! -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU? Some of the just past Intel Core 2 Duo processors seem to be the best price point, great value really, 4GB of RAM can be had for peanuts and will allow the PC to handle even big composite imaging tasks. Go for a large fast drive for your OS (even if you don't use much of it) and add a stripe set using two fast drive for scratch/temp operations. If you're a thrill seeker and are prepared to do a little work ghosting your OS to an external drive you could load up the OS on a stripe set, it really does make a huge performance increase (with the downside of making the system half as reliable). I just went through that and finally decided that it was more important to have a machine that would boot up reliably rather than one that would maybe boot up but be fast if it managed it. My present solution is a single HD for my OS, a stripe drive for Photoshop to play with and a video card with 1gb of ram for Photoshop to take advantage of. It seems to be pretty quick. When Win7 is released I will probably move over to that OS and max out the ram (I think my present board will support 16gb). William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
- Original Message - From: Graydon Subject: Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU? So somewhere in the performance, rather than enthusiast categories; a Radeon 4850 or 4770, for example. I went to a Radeon 4850 (1gb ram). It seems to do the trick. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
Alastair Robertson wrote: thanks for the great info re a suitable monitor(s) for the workstation. Now, how about the CPU, RAM, graphics card etc? I am sure that bigger, faster etc is always better but what makes a sensible tradeoff between features and price? For most of what you're doing with photographs, more and/or faster memory, and faster disk drives tend to help more than a couple of hundred MHz of CPU clock speed. The more advanced tools, like Photoshop, /can/ make use of additional CPU cores. I don't know exactly how much leverage you actually get from this in real-world circumstances since I've never actually tested it. Since those operations on photos still have to process a lot of memory, and all of the cores share the same memory bus (and often caches, etc.), you're probably not going to see a linear increase in throughput with additional cores. Adding cores helps most when the algorithms in question operate on limited amounts of data so that memory (bus) contention doesn't come into play. So, when I built my new machine about a year ago, I opted for a dual core rather than a quad core, but I got a motherboard that could handle the fastest memory that was economical at the time (PC2 8500), 4GB of that memory, and a RAID 0+1 disk subsystem (4 drives, stripes and mirrors). Saved a bunch of memory and lost relatively little performance for the money I saved. The other thing to consider is that the makers of tools like Photoshop are adding in the ability to make use of the advanced features of 3D (gaming) video cards to speed up things like filters and unsharp mask. I saw a couple of articles this week about that sort of stuff being added to Photoshop for CS4. I don't know any more detail than that right now, but they claim it's fast enough on at least some hardware to do real-time, interactive zooming and filtering. So, even if you're not going to play games on the machine, it may make sense to spend a little more on the video card to get the photo tool acceleration. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
On 09/08/2009, Alastair Robertson kiwibiolog...@gmail.com wrote: thanks for the great info re a suitable monitor(s) for the workstation. Now, how about the CPU, RAM, graphics card etc? I am sure that bigger, faster etc is always better but what makes a sensible tradeoff between features and price? Some of the just past Intel Core 2 Duo processors seem to be the best price point, great value really, 4GB of RAM can be had for peanuts and will allow the PC to handle even big composite imaging tasks. Go for a large fast drive for your OS (even if you don't use much of it) and add a stripe set using two fast drive for scratch/temp operations. If you're a thrill seeker and are prepared to do a little work ghosting your OS to an external drive you could load up the OS on a stripe set, it really does make a huge performance increase (with the downside of making the system half as reliable). Cheers, -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
Rob and Doug Thanks again - more good into but I am starting to get a bit lost when it comes to RAIDs stripes and mirrors - wikipedia helped me out a little but as you can tell I am pretty dense on this stuff. I have to work within the Universities workstation platform so can't custom build any old thing. So CPU's options start with Pentium Dual 2.6 GHz 2MB cache, then Core 2 Duo processor 2.8 with 3MB cache, then move into the Quad systems. I take it then that a Duo would be ok 4GB RAM is allowed Hard drives specified are Seagate SATA 3G units of varying sizes with varying sized caches. There are a variety of graphics cards offered from the base Intel Dual DVI controller to ASUS and PNY Quadro cards with a whole lot of acronyms I don't understand. If I get two of the Dell 22 Monitors I found yesterday - what do I need to look for in the card? No mention of including a RAID scheme in the specs Sorry for being uninformed on all this stuff! Alastair On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Rob Studdertdistudio.p...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/08/2009, Alastair Robertson kiwibiolog...@gmail.com wrote: thanks for the great info re a suitable monitor(s) for the workstation. Now, how about the CPU, RAM, graphics card etc? I am sure that bigger, faster etc is always better but what makes a sensible tradeoff between features and price? Some of the just past Intel Core 2 Duo processors seem to be the best price point, great value really, 4GB of RAM can be had for peanuts and will allow the PC to handle even big composite imaging tasks. Go for a large fast drive for your OS (even if you don't use much of it) and add a stripe set using two fast drive for scratch/temp operations. If you're a thrill seeker and are prepared to do a little work ghosting your OS to an external drive you could load up the OS on a stripe set, it really does make a huge performance increase (with the downside of making the system half as reliable). Cheers, -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
Alastair, http://tomshardware.com is a good resource for getting this sort of information. They have nice reviews, comparative charts, etc. It's always an optimization between the price and the capabilities.. I am also trying to choose a desktop for myself, so I can share with you some of my search results. I am choosing between Core Duo and Intel I7 (Quad Core). If I go for the latter, I will probably choose something close to this set: I7 2.66 or 3 GHz ASUS P6T motherboard, Otherwise: Intel Core 2 Duo system: ASUS P5Q SE, E8400 or E8500 CPU For either: At least 4 GB (DDR3 with P6T Motherboard, DDR2 with P5Q), but probably 6GB (I am considering a 64-bit OS, otherwise, no more than 4GB) Antec 300 case or maybe the one step up, Thermaltake 500W or 600W PS. You definitely want to have at least 512MB of memory in you video card. I've been considering Radeon 4770, but just recently somebody posted a link to Adobe's page describing how CS4 is capable of using 3D features of some GPUs (video cards) http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/405/kb405711.html However, I am not sure how important this enhancement is, - as it seems to only improve the visual effects, not the performance (at least that's how I understood the discussion). HDD: I had good experience with WD RE3 recently, but it's been 1 year since that, - so there may be better models now. I would not go for striped RAID - too much complexity and potential for a problem to happen. I'd rather have one HDD for the OS and applications, and a separate one for all the documents images. I'd configure Photoshop to have its temporary space on the latter. If you are considering a custom-configured computer, but don't want to waste your time putting it together and testing, - I'd recommend kc-computers.com. Kevin provides good pre- and post-sales support, but post-sales is not an on-site or white-glove service, - you'd have to test things under his careful guidance. He is very responsive to questions and problems. You can read what I wrote about this shop: http://www.resellerratings.com/profile.pl?user=346323 Read other reviews: http://www.resellerratings.com/store/KC_Computers HTH, Igor On 09/08/2009, Alastair Robertson wrote: thanks for the great info re a suitable monitor(s) for the workstation. Now, how about the CPU, RAM, graphics card etc? I am sure that bigger, faster etc is always better but what makes a sensible tradeoff between features and price? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 04:04:12PM +1200, Alastair Robertson scripsit: There are a variety of graphics cards offered from the base Intel Dual DVI controller to ASUS and PNY Quadro cards with a whole lot of acronyms I don't understand. If I get two of the Dell 22 Monitors I found yesterday - what do I need to look for in the card? Dual DVI outputs! Does you no good to have two monitors if the card can't drive them both. You don't care -- for LCD flat panels -- if it's DVI-D or DVI-I; you don't want DVI-A. (A is for analog. :) Generally speaking, you want a fairly good card to drive a pair of 22 monitors; this does *not* include the Intel. If you were in the US, I'd expect you want the 200 USD price point, rather than the 139 USD price point. -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
Alastair Robertson wrote: Thanks again - more good into but I am starting to get a bit lost when it comes to RAIDs stripes and mirrors - wikipedia helped me out a little but as you can tell I am pretty dense on this stuff. RAID is getting esoteric. The payoff can be good, but selecting the right modes for your usage can be a little tricky and you have to buy more drives. So you best probably avoid it for now. So CPU's options start with Pentium Dual 2.6 GHz 2MB cache, then Core 2 Duo processor 2.8 with 3MB cache, then move into the Quad systems. I take it then that a Duo would be ok That Core 2 Duo sounds like maybe an E8400 or so, which is at a pretty good price point. If what I've been reading about the photo tools using the video card's processing, then giving up two or three hundred MHz on the CPU won't make much difference there, and it's virtually undetectable in most other circumstances. As long as the Quads are at similar nearly 3 GHz clock rates, any of them should be fine. More cache is better, especially as clock speed increases. 4GB RAM is allowed Get 4GB of RAM, but do it so that you have free memory sockets for future expansion. For example, if your motherboard has four memory sockets, get two 2GB sticks of memory now ... then if you go full 64-bit later, you've got room to expand the memory. Most motherboards these days will work best if memory is added in pairs or triplets of sticks, depending on the motherboard. Hard drives specified are Seagate SATA 3G units of varying sizes with varying sized caches. SATA 3 is pretty much /de rigeur/ on the consumer front, and the best price per GB of storage. Faster RPMs and bigger caches are better, within the limits of economy. 7200 RPM drives with 8-32MB of cache are common. Anything faster or with much more cache is going to get expensive quickly. The 15000 RPM drives, though, are real speed demons in the right configuration, though expensive. There are a variety of graphics cards offered from the base Intel Dual DVI controller to ASUS and PNY Quadro cards with a whole lot of acronyms I don't understand. If I get two of the Dell 22 Monitors I found yesterday - what do I need to look for in the card? You want a regular nVidia chipset rather than the Quadro, to get the benefit of the 3D stuff, I think, but I'm not well versed on the Quadros, either. I'm not sure which ATI chipsets have and don't have the appropriate 3D accelerators. Make sure that the card has two display outputs, and both DVI if possible, rather than VGA. That'll let you hook both monitors to the one card with digital communication between them. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
Graydon wrote: Generally speaking, you want a fairly good card to drive a pair of 22 monitors; this does *not* include the Intel. If you were in the US, I'd expect you want the 200 USD price point, rather than the 139 USD price point. There are plenty of cards out there even below the 139 US$ price point that will work just fine for his plan. For example, any of the nVidia 8800/9800 cards with 512MB or more of video RAM will be dual DVI out and plenty of oomph to handle dual 1680x1050 monitors and should run nearer 100 US$ online. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
you guys are great! so how does this sound? Intel Core 2 Duo Processor 3.0Ghz LGA775 6M Cache 1333FSB #E8400) 2x Adata 2GB DDR2 800 DIMM Seagate 1TB SATA 3G 32mb cache (they don't list the speed) Asus EN9800GT 512MB PCI-E Video Card 2x DVI-I HTV) Highpower HPC620-A12C 620W ATX PSU Triple 12v Rails Cable Management 2xDell UltraSharp 2209WA 22 inch HD Flat Panel Widescreen LCD Monitors Alastair On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Doug Franklinjehosep...@mindspring.com wrote: Graydon wrote: Generally speaking, you want a fairly good card to drive a pair of 22 monitors; this does *not* include the Intel. If you were in the US, I'd expect you want the 200 USD price point, rather than the 139 USD price point. There are plenty of cards out there even below the 139 US$ price point that will work just fine for his plan. For example, any of the nVidia 8800/9800 cards with 512MB or more of video RAM will be dual DVI out and plenty of oomph to handle dual 1680x1050 monitors and should run nearer 100 US$ online. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
AFAIK, most today's video cards are capable of driving dual monitors. You don't really need dual DVI outputs, - you can get two monitors attached to one video card using a DVI splitter that you can buy for ~$5-7 on monoprice.com. Igor Sat Aug 8 23:32:50 CDT 2009 Graydon wrote: On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 04:04:12PM +1200, Alastair Robertson scripsit: There are a variety of graphics cards offered from the base Intel Dual DVI controller to ASUS and PNY Quadro cards with a whole lot of acronyms I don't understand. If I get two of the Dell 22 Monitors I found yesterday - what do I need to look for in the card? Dual DVI outputs! Does you no good to have two monitors if the card can't drive them both. You don't care -- for LCD flat panels -- if it's DVI-D or DVI-I; you don't want DVI-A. (A is for analog. :) Generally speaking, you want a fairly good card to drive a pair of 22 monitors; this does *not* include the Intel. If you were in the US, I'd expect you want the 200 USD price point, rather than the 139 USD price point. -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 12:48:10AM -0400, Doug Franklin scripsit: Graydon wrote: Generally speaking, you want a fairly good card to drive a pair of 22 monitors; this does *not* include the Intel. If you were in the US, I'd expect you want the 200 USD price point, rather than the 139 USD price point. There are plenty of cards out there even below the 139 US$ price point that will work just fine for his plan. For example, any of the nVidia 8800/9800 cards with 512MB or more of video RAM will be dual DVI out and plenty of oomph to handle dual 1680x1050 monitors and should run nearer 100 US$ online. Sorry, overly terse. And also not paying attention to GPU price points with the recession. If you want to take advantage of GPU hardware acceleration of various image-processing functions across a couple of 22 (and presumed 1920x1200) monitors, you need a fairly good card. The mainstream cards are much better than they used to be but don't really have enough shaders for things like real-time unsharp mask. So somewhere in the performance, rather than enthusiast categories; a Radeon 4850 or 4770, for example. -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Great info on the monitor how about the CPU?
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 01:05:07AM -0400, Igor Roshchin scripsit: AFAIK, most today's video cards are capable of driving dual monitors. You don't really need dual DVI outputs, - you can get two monitors attached to one video card using a DVI splitter that you can buy for ~$5-7 on monoprice.com. One DVI signal link -- if the card's DVI socket is single or dual link is something you should check in the card specs -- has an effective max pixels of 1915 x 1436 pixels at 60 Hz. (or various other combinations for something that isn't 4:3.) Not enough for 2 large monitors with a splitter, in other words. One 1920x1200 per DVI link. While the connector has the pins for dual link, you're not guaranteed that the graphics card will drive them. Lots of value range cards (and some mainstream range cards) have dual sockets but drive the sockets single-link. -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
