Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: A Japanese headfier's monologue (Sasaki)
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
can i just say that at the price of quad cores, get a Q6600 if your doing 3d. Most 3d apps are very good at handling multiple threads.
I've personally stopped with the single multicore race. My current workstation is a dual core. My previous was a dual processor Xeon, which did seem better at multitasking then early dual core processors. A lot of 3D programs are better optimized for multithreading with their renderer. So you would see most of your advantage with dual quad core at rendering. Dual quad core Xeons have been around for awhile now: and there are quite a few workstations that offer that choice. However, what with network setup being so easy, I find it's still nicer to just have a rendering farm. Makes multitasking even better: your workstation will not get any slowdowns if it's not doing those rendering tasks
Originally Posted by lordmozilla
Also if its XP don't get more than 4gb, but maybe for 3d its worth looking at XP-64bit (i wouldnt recommend vista 64bit purely because vista is slower than XP, but maybe its a good choice too).
This is something I would disagree with. I tried XP-64 only for a short while: it wound up being slower at rendering then XP pro was. Vista 64 has good memory management for 64bit programs, as well as WAY better 32bit support. I have not run into any differences in speed between XP pro vs Vista Ultimate 64. There can be an occasional incompatibility with 32bit somewhere: but that usually leads to a minor wonky behavior. So for that 32bit code (which we'll have some legacy code for awhile), I do think Vista is a pretty good 64bit platform. If you want something better performance wise, Linux would be the only other option. I know Mac folks will probably chime in to say OSX does better then Windows, but with my experience the Mac is now finally even with the PC when it comes to rendering.
__________________ Home Rig/ Digital: Music Hall Maverick SACD>Benchmark DAC1>SinglePower PPX3 SLAM Home Rig/ analog: Music Hall MMF-5>NAD PP-2>SinglePower PPX3 SLAM Portable Rig: Sony D-555 Discman>HeadRoom Microamp Photo-Fi: Canon 5D, Canon 135mm 2.0L, Canon 70-200mm 2.8L, Canon 100mm 2.8 macro, Canon 50mm 1.4, Tamron 28-75mm 2.8, Canon 580EX flash Headphones: HD650(silver dragon), SR325i, HD595, HD580 (modded), k501:Sold....just not into AKG
Last edited by Davesrose; 02-04-2008 at 03:38 PM..
It really depends on the software. I do not know if the CAD programs take advantage of quad core. I am pretty sure Pro/E and Solidworks do take advantage of 64 bit though. At my work, our workstations are using Pro/E and Windows XP 64 bit.
__________________
Portable:128k WMA/AAC -> Rio Carbon 5gb or 2nd gen Ipod shuffle or Verizon Moto Q9C-> JVC Marshmallows
Home:128k WMA (Contemplating trying FLAC and backing up all music) -> Foobar2k -> Onboard Sound (Soundblaster Live couldnt fit) -> Dying AHS515 (Still deciding for new pair) - JVC HA-RX700 on the Way!
Why not get future proof capability built-in? Good programs like CAD programs often take advantage of multiple core chips. If his CAD program doesn't recognize multiple core chips, stick with a cheap dual-core.
__________________
"...If anyone thinks he knows something, he has not yet learned it as he ought to know it."
Why not get future proof capability built-in? Good programs like CAD programs often take advantage of multiple core chips. If his CAD program doesn't recognize multiple core chips, stick with a cheap dual-core.
. Now you are talking
Linear Mode
