motor

Sir_GT · 08-20-2006, 02:23 PM

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 · 08-20-2006, 06:14 PM

Do you really need all that power?

nickthaskater · 08-20-2006, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by dutchmasterflex

Do you really need all that power?

Do we really need Zondas?

cooperluke · 08-20-2006, 07:13 PM

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

TNT · 08-20-2006, 07:59 PM

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 · 08-20-2006, 08:14 PM

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 · 08-20-2006, 08:41 PM

I have just one question?

Why?

Sir_GT · 08-21-2006, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by RC45

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 · 08-21-2006, 02:35 AM

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

Shinigami · 08-21-2006, 06:49 AM

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 · 08-21-2006, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by saadie

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

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 · 08-21-2006, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by 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..

dutchmasterflex · 08-21-2006, 11:02 AM

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 · 08-21-2006, 12:15 PM

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

And I usualy have a ton of applications open at once.

Sir_GT · 08-21-2006, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by RC45

Originally Posted by 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*