Many questions about computer parts

[Dae]

1. Would you choose a water cooling over air one?

2. Would you choose QX9650 (older gen — Core 2) over i7 920 (new gen — Nehalem)?

3. Would you overpay for Core i7 965 to get better performance at Adobe Suite or any other professional apps?

4. Would you overpay for NVidia Quadro to get better performance at Adobe CS4 or any other professional apps? If so, which NVidia Quadro would you choose in terms of best price/value ratio?

5. Additionally, what would you choose to work with professional apps: hyperthreading or overclocking? (I can't do both for some reason on Core i7 920).

Any thoughts on any of the questions are welcome. Thanks.

[clyzm]

1. No, I believe air cooling is easier to install and requires less maintenance not to mention is cheaper overall.

2. Yes. I believe i7 is extremely overpriced even for today's standards, not to mention the unique X58 mobo that you have to buy. Core 2 Extreme uses older LGA 775 or even LGA 771 (QX9775 only) which is versatile with most Intel builds today

3. No I would not -- I'd rather use a Quadro or similar graphics accelerator.

4. Yes -- the CX accelerator edition for CS4: http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_quadro_cx_us.html

5. Both are very important - but hyperthreading is a bit more important to me due to 3D rendering. If I had a Skulltrail build they wouldn't be problems, since it is 8 threads with 3.2+ ghz clock

[Dae]

Thanks for the advice, Derek.

Quadro CX indeed, I meant — which of them? There is 1700, 3700, 5600:
http://www.compusa.com/applications/cam ... aignID=759

[clyzm]

Thanks for the advice, Derek.

Quadro CX indeed, I meant — which of them? There is 1700, 3700, 5600:
http://www.compusa.com/applications/cam ... aignID=759

Those are the Quadro FX series - CX is a unique version meant only for Adobe CS4. I used to have one, I think it was an FX 1700, at work, believe it or not :^D

I would also look at the latest FireStream cards from AMD - they seem cheaper and more functional than Quadro series. Alternatively, if your workload is more scientific and requires superprocessing, you can always pick up a Tesla. I've always wanted to try out one of those.

[Dae]

Oh wow looks like I've mixed them up. Thanks.

Is there still any point in getting an FX card? CX seems to be too overpriced and an overkill for solely Photoshop editing, as the only thing it does better is zooming and navigating on big pictures (it doesn't speed effects up and such).

[clyzm]

Oh wow looks like I've mixed them up. Thanks.

Is there still any point in getting an FX card? CX seems to be too overpriced and an overkill for solely Photoshop editing, as the only thing it does better is zooming and navigating on big pictures (it doesn't speed effects up and such).

Oh it does, just that it works with other programs as well, especially Premiere. Render time is much faster with it.

It depends on what you use. Quadros are for digital content creation and CAD - this means they'll mostly help with multiple monitor solutions. When I was using the FX 1700 at work, I barely noticed a difference from using my GTX 260 in Cinema 4D, Maya, 3DS Max and XSI.

If you're looking for Photoshop and CS4 stuff, you can either get a CX or just upgrade your processor and RAM. FX doesn't specifically help "speed" up CS4 products.

[Dae]

Interesting.

All reviews I've read didn't convince me that I should get a CX for Photoshop. It makes much sense for Photoshop 3D editing and Premiere though.

New question: is there any point in a two processor configuration? Like, Xeon 5500?

[clyzm]

Interesting.

All reviews I've read didn't convince me that I should get a CX for Photoshop. It makes much sense for Photoshop 3D editing and Premiere though.

New question: is there any point in a two processor configuration? Like, Xeon 5500?

Oh yes, server processing power. Dual processors are very powerful, and most likely they'll give you that "boost" of speed you'll need for Photoshop or similar.

I don't see a huge benefit though - I have a mid-level quadcore with 8GB of RAM, and Photoshop CS4 is extremely fast for me, even when opening/editing renders of 5,000 x 5,000 pixel size and higher.

[James]

By dual processors are we talking about dualcore or 2 processors running along side by side?

[clyzm]

By dual processors are we talking about dualcore or 2 processors running along side by side?

The latter, like watered down Skulltrail builds.

[Dae]

SAS drives — would you use them?

[Siva]

1. Would you choose a water cooling over air one?
Nope. Watercooling is overkill and requires too much maintenance.
2. Would you choose QX9650 (older gen — Core 2) over i7 920 (new gen — Nehalem)?
Nope. I THINK that that i7's are more power/heat efficient and that is a gain imo.
3. Would you overpay for Core i7 965 to get better performance at Adobe Suite or any other professional apps?
No. It's still going to take a while and I'm patient.
4. Would you overpay for NVidia Quadro to get better performance at Adobe CS4 or any other professional apps? If so, which NVidia Quadro would you choose in terms of best price/value ratio?
If I was a professional yes, it's like buying a taxi license to be a taxi driver imo.
5. Additionally, what would you choose to work with professional apps: hyperthreading or overclocking? (I can't do both for some reason on Core i7 920).
Overclocking.

[clyzm]

core i7s are not heat efficient at all lol, and they use like 120W

[~[ß]Lost~]

New question: is there any point in a two processor configuration? Like, Xeon 5500?

Only if you want to set up a data server box.

[Siva]

core i7s are not heat efficient at all lol, and they use like 120W

Statement retracted
Informant killed