Deus Ex Alpha

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 12:04 pm**

So. Yeah.

I need a PC for DTP work. It's mainly Photoshop & InDesign and no rendering.

Biggest 'resource taker' is creating a print PDF.

Seeing as it doesn't really do rendering, I was thinking about this setup:

Mobo: Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD3R
Proc: Intel Xeon W3520
RAM: OCZ Platinum XTC OCZ3P1333LV6GK
HDD: Western Digital Velociraptor WD740HLFS (10k rpm, 74GB) (Possibly x2: RAID 1)
Video: XFX HD 5770 1024 MB DDR5 DisplayPort XXX (HD-577A-ZNDA)

I picked a 10k rpm HDD due to the fact that we store most files on a mainserver, but Adobe stores some files on it's HDD (temporary files, right?), thus a increased rotation should help a tad.

Anyone got more advice on this? Anything that I should change?

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 12:34 pm**

You don't want Xeon for Photoshop & InDesign, as far as I know there could be some benefit only for continious rendering and movie post production.

Don't Xeons require server RAM (FB-DIMM)? (which can be twice more expensive)

Why RAID 1 if

Alex wrote:Adobe stores some files on it's HDD (temporary files, right?)

Go with RAID 0. Personally I would pick 3-4 7.2k RPM raid-edition HDDs, such as WD5002ABYS (possibly you should pick even less than 500GB, because Adobe temporary files do not take too much of the disk space). If you want to go with 10k RPM, many people say that WD3000HLFS is good (also raid edition).

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 1:03 pm**

Dae wrote:You don't want Xeon for Photoshop & InDesign, as far as I know there could be some benefit only for continious rendering and movie post production.

Don't Xeons require server RAM (FB-DIMM)? (which can be twice more expensive)

Why RAID 1 if
Alex wrote:Adobe stores some files on it's HDD (temporary files, right?)

Go with RAID 0. Personally I would pick 3-4 7.2k RPM raid-edition HDDs, such as WD5002ABYS (possibly you should pick even less than 500GB, because Adobe temporary files do not take too much of the disk space). If you want to go with 10k RPM, many people say that WD3000HLFS is good (also raid edition).

Xeon's can run with ECC, etc, but doesn't have to, afaik.

But you think Xeon's are thrown away money. So you say I should go with a Intel Core i7?

As for RAID 1: I can't afford that the PC crashes down. Every hour the DTPer can't work, is a few hundreds of euro's thrown away.

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 1:35 pm**

Alex wrote:Xeon's can run with ECC, etc, but doesn't have to, afaik.

right, just checked it myself: motherboards may require ECC or may not, not the processors

Alex wrote:So you say I should go with a Intel Core i7?

yes

Upd: apparently Xeon is good too:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/260 ... w3520-help

Alex wrote:As for RAID 1: I can't afford that the PC crashes down. Every hour the DTPer can't work, is a few hundreds of euro's thrown away.

in Mac Pro's we recently bought for dads new studio, I set up 3x500 GB HDDs in RAID 0 used for OS and a 1.5 TB HDD for backup, which is being performed on weekends using Time Machine utility (there's a similar program in Windows Business/Ultimate afaik)

alternatively, you can do 0+1, with 4 drives. Make sure Gigabyte mobos support that, though, never used them personally

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 5:41 pm**

James wrote:Watch out with that Mobo and a i7, my uncle spent 6 days wondering why the damn thing wouldn't boot up.

Don't worry, it's not your cooler, memory, card. Nothing fried it's just that if you look around and most places you'd see Gigabytes (and other mobos) paired with i7 and you'd see problems with trying to get it to even boot up because the stock settings refuse to operate correctly. It's been a nuisense to some users and there's no problems when you get the damn thing configured though. Just a heads up if you're wondering why a £800 computer will not run.

And don't bother with raiding such hard drives, just buy cheap 40/60gb SSDs and prepare for awesome.

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 8:15 pm**

Stefan wrote:
James wrote:Watch out with that Mobo and a i7, my uncle spent 6 days wondering why the damn thing wouldn't boot up.

Don't worry, it's not your cooler, memory, card. Nothing fried it's just that if you look around and most places you'd see Gigabytes (and other mobos) paired with i7 and you'd see problems with trying to get it to even boot up because the stock settings refuse to operate correctly. It's been a nuisense to some users and there's no problems when you get the damn thing configured though. Just a heads up if you're wondering why a £800 computer will not run.

And don't bother with raiding such hard drives, just buy cheap 40/60gb SSDs and prepare for awesome.

And that is useful because?

Gigabyte updated their BIOS ages ago, and cheap SSDs use MLC memory, which I don't like too much.

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 8:28 pm**

Post from Jay:

How isn't it useful? by the way he built this 2 weeks ago that's where I got my new computer parts from.

If you don't prefer the new SSD craze for performance that's just silly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26enkCzkJHQ

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 8:28 pm**

Don't use SSD's. After about a year they become slower than a traditional hard drive.

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 10:07 pm**

MainMan wrote:Post from Jay:

How isn't it useful? by the way he built this 2 weeks ago that's where I got my new computer parts from.

If you don't prefer the new SSD craze for performance that's just silly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26enkCzkJHQ

Gigabyte used to have troubles, but currently is doing just fine with the new Nehalem structure.

As for SSD, I didn't say I disliked SSD's. I don't like the MLC SSD's (the cheap ones). I prefer the SLC SSD's, but those are a hell lot more expensive, but more reliable when it comes to future-wise.

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 10:07 pm**

Uh why do you need a 5770? Get a workstation graphics card.

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 10:08 pm**

clyzm wrote:Uh why do you need a 5770? Get a workstation graphics card.

Quadro? Why would I, if it wont do any rendering / CAD / etc ?

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 10:14 pm**

I wasn't thinking Quadro. Get something from AMD/ATI, like FireGL and stuff.

Are you going to be utilizing OpenGL or C++?

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 10:16 pm**

clyzm wrote:I wasn't thinking Quadro. Get something from AMD/ATI, like FireGL and stuff.

Are you going to be utilizing OpenGL or C++?

Still, quite overkill. OpenGL, Photoshop & Indesign use OpenGL for the things we use them for. FireGL is too much due to not making animations, renders, and such.

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 10:22 pm**

Alex wrote:
clyzm wrote:I wasn't thinking Quadro. Get something from AMD/ATI, like FireGL and stuff.

Are you going to be utilizing OpenGL or C++?

Still, quite overkill. OpenGL, Photoshop & Indesign use OpenGL for the things we use them for. FireGL is too much due to not making animations, renders, and such.

Well it's better than getting a consumer card that you won't have much use for at work. Even a low-to-mid tier Quadro (like the FX 1800) still presents better workflow capability than, say, a comparable GTX 280.

Alternatively if you need a good consumer card I'd go with the 5670 instead of the 5770, simply because it's cheaper. But it's up to you. 5770 isn't a bad choice at all, it's a decent card. Not too fast, not too slow, etc.

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 10:29 pm**

clyzm wrote:
Alex wrote:
clyzm wrote:I wasn't thinking Quadro. Get something from AMD/ATI, like FireGL and stuff.

Are you going to be utilizing OpenGL or C++?

Still, quite overkill. OpenGL, Photoshop & Indesign use OpenGL for the things we use them for. FireGL is too much due to not making animations, renders, and such.

Well it's better than getting a consumer card that you won't have much use for at work. Even a low-to-mid tier Quadro (like the FX 1800) still presents better workflow capability than, say, a comparable GTX 280.

Alternatively if you need a good consumer card I'd go with the 5670 instead of the 5770, simply because it's cheaper. But it's up to you. 5770 isn't a bad choice at all, it's a decent card. Not too fast, not too slow, etc.

It's mainly for displaying large files, handling easy zooming, not per se hardware acceleration. Thank you for thinking along, but I don't think industrial video cards would help me at all in this case.

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 10:32 pm**

Handling eazy zooming/displaying large files is an action of RAM and processor power, not video card related.

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 10:38 pm**

clyzm wrote:Handling eazy zooming/displaying large files is an action of RAM and processor power, not video card related.

I quote:
"Photoshop CS4 leverages the graphics display card's GPU, instead of the computer's main processor (the CPU) to speed its screen redraw."

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 10:40 pm**

http://www.techimo.com/forum/graphic-de ... -vram.html

In 2D applications, like Photoshop, your video ram is used just as it is normally used by the Windows desktop. If you never do anything 3D then you'll never even use that full 128MB of graphics memory.

While CS4 does use part of the system VRAM (for its 3d functions mainly), if you want a truer efficient machine, you need as much RAM and processor power as necessary.

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 10:41 pm**

Post is from 2005. It was introduced in Adobe CS4, I believe, and it's also in CS5.

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 10:44 pm**

Even so, consumer drivers are not written to assist the screen redraw as much as, say, Quadro CX accelerator. RAM and processor is still your best bet, bro.

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 10:44 pm**

clyzm wrote:Handling eazy zooming/displaying large files is an action of RAM and processor power, not video card related.

zooming/moving is exactly what is accelerated in Photoshop by a videocard (any GPU would work)

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 10:46 pm**

clyzm wrote:Even so, consumer drivers are not written to assist the screen redraw as much as, say, Quadro CX accelerator. RAM and processor is still your best bet, bro.

No seriously, Quadro does not help a bit more for these things. Quadro is great when it comes to animations etc, because of CUDA.

All it needs is OpenGL, and 128MB of RAM (Yes! 128MB of RAM, you're right)

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 10:53 pm**

It depends. Are you going to be working pixel-by-pixel, at zooms higher than 500% etc.?

RAM is still pretty much useful especially when dealing with large files which is what I assume you are doing.

Either way it is referencing to my original suggestion; if you are requiring GPU acceleration, consumer video cards' drivers are built in such a way that it does not fully use the VRAM efficiently in design programs, whereas workstation cards are built on this preference.

No seriously, Quadro does not help a bit more for these things.

Perhaps you are confusing Quadros. The Quadro CX is a card designed by Nvidia specifically for CS4.

youtube video

Pardon my ignorance. I was aware of some GPU acceleration for CS4+ (quadro cx) but not for its versatility with any card. Where I used to work the designers put more emphasis on their RAM and processor power than their GPU speed, which provided some interesting combinations e.g. i7 @ 4.0ghz with 12GB ram but a GeForce 6600.

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 10 11:47 pm**

clyzm wrote:Pardon my ignorance. I was aware of some GPU acceleration for CS4+ (quadro cx) but not for its versatility with any card.

CS4 is not all the same. To make it clear:

— Photoshop and After Effects use OpenGL, so any GPU is alright and AFAIK there's not much difference between Quadro CX and other modern GPU

— Premiere uses CUDA and is best with Quadro:

fudzilla.com wrote:Adobe Premiere Pro CS4 can also accelerate Video but only with Quadro GPUs.

...even though earlier today I surprised to find that Adobe recommends GTX 285 as well as the aforementioned Quadro CX.

Deus Ex Alpha

PC Rig for DTP work

PC Rig for DTP work