Project: I want to build a quad-core system... input?

[Sir_GT]

Let's not go windows vs mac here.

I have to admit, I really like the idea of having the hardware that the macpro offers, but I still don't feel like paying that price for it, especially since I know the bulk of the cash goes to a profit margin.

So why dont we go the PC route, and build one, same spec as the macpro, but try to beat the price?

Input from anyone then? What motherboards to use? Ram? etc? I know Pentium Xeon's are the only choice for a multiple processor system (Apparently Core 2 Duo's can only run by themselves), so where do we start? :)

[dutchmasterflex]

Do you really need all that power?

[nickthaskater]

Do you really need all that power?
Do we really need Zondas? :wink:

[cooperluke]

Yep... we need Zondas!! I need!! Just that noise.... :D

[TNT]

I would just head to a trusted computer store and ask them prices. that would be the best idea IMO. get some ball parks.

[Pimp Racer]

Check out that thread with the mac pro in which elein made. I posted prices of hardware that are similiar to the Macpro and it comes to round 2000 I think. Anyways if I were you and you seriously are thinking about building a computer just wait till January when the eight core comes out and spend a g or 2 more and make it future proof for a while at least.....or if you really dont do that much intense apps then just go 4 cores or even 2. May I ask what ya gonna do with the comp?

[RC45]

I have just one question?

Why?

[Sir_GT]

I have just one question?

Why?

Curiousity if I'm being honest with you. :)

I'm curious how much of a difference all that power makes with regards to everything.

Pimp Racer: I think I'll have to read that thread again. Link to the eight-core system news?

[saadie]

hmm ...... get a dual processor board ... hook up two dual coure processors ... :lol:

[Shinigami]

If you go with Xeon's, you'll be paying quite a bit of cash... not really worth it if all that you're looking for is an answer to your curiosity.

Also, many Xeon boards don't offer the chance to hook up proper video cards to harness all that power.

I've been running SMP PC's for a long time now, and whilst they're nice when you have a certain number of applications open (for example, surfing the new while rebuilding a 3d scene is no problem), you need to understand that there are many applications which simply will not take advantage of multiple processors. Games are notorious for this, and those who do support more then one processors, don't usually run that much faster as the bottle neck is often the video card, and it also requires some tinkering to modify the game to run that way...

If you want SMP, just go with a dual AMD system or something. Not too expensive, and you'll see some difference for sure.

[Sir_GT]

hmm ...... get a dual processor board ... hook up two dual coure processors ... :lol:

That's the idea. :)

Thamar: Wouldn't that be throwing away good money? Since AMD's dual core's aren't really that competitive compared to Intel's?

Also, it's not supposed to be used at home. It's for the office anyway. :) So it's actually an investment, but the reason why I decided to go for one PC with 4 cores rather than 2 dual-core pc's is due to my curiousity.

Shinigami: The macpro's board lets you hook up quite a lot of videocards IIRC. I need to check to be sure.

Again, the purpose of this isn't to test how much the hardware will affect one application; rather, it's a test to see how much improvement there will be with regards to multitasking.

[RC45]

Again, the purpose of this isn't to test how much the hardware will affect one application; rather, it's a test to see how much improvement there will be with regards to multitasking.

The answer, not much at all.

I gave up an 8way dual core system (16 effective procs is what Windows saw) a while back - because it did nothing quicker than any other system with the same clock speed would do... even when using multi-proc aware applicaitons.

It's only value was bragging rights.. ;)

[dutchmasterflex]

Listen to RC, he know's what he's talking about ;)

You'll see a bit of a difference when you run a shit load applications at the same time.. but it will also slow down in certain areas where it looks through your quad caches and huge main memory..

[SFDMALEX]

Its tottaly useless because a lot of programs arent even optimized to run two cores, I doubt very much that there is anything you will do that will take use of 4 cores.


And I have no problems with an old HT 3.4 as far as multitasking goes :wink: And I usualy have a ton of applications open at once.

[Sir_GT]

Again, the purpose of this isn't to test how much the hardware will affect one application; rather, it's a test to see how much improvement there will be with regards to multitasking.

The answer, not much at all.

I gave up an 8way dual core system (16 effective procs is what Windows saw) a while back - because it did nothing quicker than any other system with the same clock speed would do... even when using multi-proc aware applicaitons.

It's only value was bragging rights.. ;)

Well. Then there's no point then is there? :|

*kicks a can*

[RC45]

Again, the purpose of this isn't to test how much the hardware will affect one application; rather, it's a test to see how much improvement there will be with regards to multitasking.

The answer, not much at all.

I gave up an 8way dual core system (16 effective procs is what Windows saw) a while back - because it did nothing quicker than any other system with the same clock speed would do... even when using multi-proc aware applicaitons.

It's only value was bragging rights.. ;)

Well. Then there's no point then is there? :|

*kicks a can*

There is however a strong argument for dual core/dual proc...

You wont get anything done quicker than the same single proc system of the same clock speed... but you will be able to do "more"...

So you could in theory have a video rendering and then use the free cpu cycles to review the web or continue other work.. instead of having the system at 100% CPU and unusable.. or you could do 2 things at once (say render a video) and then have the system at 100% usage.

With the 8cpu 16 core system, Iw as aboe to render 12 videos at once - but since the system was only 1.2GHZ the 12 videos rendered slower than a single video rendering on a 1.5GHZ single proc box.. but - you get 12 times the work done - if you have the need that is.

There is no doubt that there is valid commerical (and even high end hobby need) for such systems, but you would get more fun out of 2 single proc dual core gaming systems for in house mini-LAN parties than a single dual cpu quad core system ;)

Of course, if you have money to burn - then go for it, but don't forget to first donate $5 to JW... ;)

[Sir_GT]

Again, the purpose of this isn't to test how much the hardware will affect one application; rather, it's a test to see how much improvement there will be with regards to multitasking.

The answer, not much at all.

I gave up an 8way dual core system (16 effective procs is what Windows saw) a while back - because it did nothing quicker than any other system with the same clock speed would do... even when using multi-proc aware applicaitons.

It's only value was bragging rights.. ;)

Well. Then there's no point then is there? :|

*kicks a can*

There is however a strong argument for dual core/dual proc...

You wont get anything done quicker than the same single proc system of the same clock speed... but you will be able to do "more"...

So you could in theory have a video rendering and then use the free cpu cycles to review the web or continue other work.. instead of having the system at 100% CPU and unusable.. or you could do 2 things at once (say render a video) and then have the system at 100% usage.

With the 8cpu 16 core system, Iw as aboe to render 12 videos at once - but since the system was only 1.2GHZ the 12 videos rendered slower than a single video rendering on a 1.5GHZ single proc box.. but - you get 12 times the work done - if you have the need that is.

There is no doubt that there is valid commerical (and even high end hobby need) for such systems, but you would get more fun out of 2 single proc dual core gaming systems for in house mini-LAN parties than a single dual cpu quad core system ;)

Of course, if you have money to burn - then go for it, but don't forget to first donate $5 to JW... ;)

Good thing you reminded me. I've just setup a new paypal account. :lol:

Let me just put money in and pay the big guy... :)

I'm still curious, so I'll still be doing quite a bit more research. :)