Looking for retail 8 core Xeon w/ Vista 64

[gar655]

I'm having a hard time finding many or any manufacturers that offer dual quad core setups for Windows. I want it with Vista 64 as well.

I've been looking at the Mac Pro as well. As much as I like OSX, I'm leary of the hardware tie in and the lag of current hardware available.

So any reputable companies offering something similar for the same or less?

Thanks
Gene

 

[themisfit610]

What exactly do you plan on doing with the system?

The Mac Pro is a tremendous value, and runs Vista 64 flawlessly.

What "hardware tie in" are you speaking of?

~MiSfit

 

[alevasseur14]

Dell offers dual quads with their Precision line. I just checked and you can get them with Vista 64 as well.

I've been out of the loop for a few years with Dell so I don't know much about the Precision line or what they are, I'm thinking they are simply beefy workstations...

Good luck in your quest!

 

[gar655]

Originally posted by: themisfit610
What exactly do you plan on doing with the system?

The Mac Pro is a tremendous value, and runs Vista 64 flawlessly.

What "hardware tie in" are you speaking of?

~MiSfit

Use- mostly photos and video. Some gaming. I suppose I could save some coin and get a single quad core.

Mostly the MB, video and sound. I've been reading the Apple support forums (mistake I think) and some of the "stuff" that is suggested there (mostly for trouble shooting OSX or hardware issues) boggles my mind.

I've never had to delete "preferences", "plists", repair "permissions", or reinstall my OS (XP home). Seems these are regular occurences for Mac users. Likely the reason there is such a well known procedure for booting off the opitcal drive or having the need for a complete system bootable back up. This stuff scares me off of Mac.

If I had a Mac I wouldn't want or need to run Vista 64. I want 64bit for the abilitly to use more ram. No point in being limited to 4gb on a new machine that I will keep for the next 3-4 years.

I know and am familiar with windows and would be more comfortable staying with it at this time.

Thanks for the reply.

Gene

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Dual socket boards require registered ram which is much more expensive and is slower than unbuffered ram, and require more expensive lower clocked CPU's , and offer no overclocking abilities. For your stated purposes a single quad system will be faster and much more economical. The only thing that would benifit from more than 4 cores is video encoding and the increased performance from 4 > 8 cores is not great and definately not worth the expense.

 

[gar655]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Dual socket boards require registered ram which is much more expensive and is slower than unbuffered ram, and require more expensive lower clocked CPU's , and offer no overclocking abilities. For your stated purposes a single quad system will be faster and much more economical. The only thing that would benifit from more than 4 cores is video encoding and the increased performance from 4 > 8 cores is not great and definately not worth the expense.

Thanks for the reply.

I'm not interested in OC, tried it b4 and had nothing but problems.

As for the lower clocked CPUs. That's not really true. You can get "Intel® Core? 2 Extreme Processor QX9775" this in a dual cpu configuration.

I'm now on the fence over single or dual cpus. I'm trying to look down the road another 2 years or so. I don't want to get there and wish I would've bought the 8 core system. I'm hoping software would catch up by then.

Thanks again.
Gene

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: gar655

As for the lower clocked CPUs. That's not really true. You can get "Intel® Core? 2 Extreme Processor QX9775" this in a dual cpu configuration.

I'm now on the fence over single or dual cpus. I'm trying to look down the road another 2 years or so. I don't want to get there and wish I would've bought the 8 core system. I'm hoping software would catch up by then.

Thanks again.
Gene

Yeah, I know about Skulltrail and QX9775 but I don't consider $3600 for mobo and cpu to be a reasonable solution for much of anything other than bragging rights. And skulltrail only makes sense if your overclocking, otherwize a standard dual socket board and reasonably priced tigertown CPU's give you 95% performance of Skulltrail for around $1200-1400

Overclocking modern CPU's is much easier, testable, and stable than it was just a few years ago.

And don't hold your breath waiting on applications than can effectively use more than 4 cores. Quad cpu's have been out several years and duals have been out longer and general apps and games that can fully utilize 2 cores are becoming more plentiful, but apps that scale at all to 4core are very few, and apps that show significant improvement from 2 > 4 > 8 are limited to scientific number crunching (folding@home) or intense graphics rendering and CAD. I think it will be 3+ years before we see games and general apps starting to scale well to 4 cores and longer for 8 cores

 

[gar655]

Thanks a lot. Much to think about.

Do you think nehalem will be out in quantity by December or even out at all?

Gene

 

[themisfit610]

Dual socket boards require registered ram which is much more expensive and is slower than unbuffered ram, and require more expensive lower clocked CPU's , and offer no overclocking abilities. For your stated purposes a single quad system will be faster and much more economical. The only thing that would benifit from more than 4 cores is video encoding and the increased performance from 4 > 8 cores is not great and definately not worth the expense.

FB-DIMM is more expensive than vanilla DDR2, but not hugely so. Just don't buy the RAM from your OEM!! 4GB (2x2) of FB-DIMM is ~$140, whereas 4GB of DDR2 is ~ $80. This seems like a big difference, but DDR2 is just stupid cheap ATM. $140 for 4GB of ram is perfectly reasonable IMO.

Also LOL at the video encoding comment. I'm a professional compressionist, and ALL of our encoding machines are 8 core. We max them out all day, every day, and they are quite literally 2x faster than a single quad. Literally >90% scaling. No joke. On each machine we can encode 3 movies at once, at 40fps each.

Mostly the MB, video and sound. I've been reading the Apple support forums (mistake I think) and some of the "stuff" that is suggested there (mostly for trouble shooting OSX or hardware issues) boggles my mind.

I've never had to delete "preferences", "plists", repair "permissions", or reinstall my OS (XP home). Seems these are regular occurences for Mac users. Likely the reason there is such a well known procedure for booting off the opitcal drive or having the need for a complete system bootable back up. This stuff scares me off of Mac.

You sound a little confused. The MacPro is just a (very beefy) PC. Sure, it runs OSX, but why do so if you want to stick with windows? Use Boot Camp to natively install Vista x64, and get exactly what you want.

Any of these stated issues are a result of Mac OS X, and have little or nothing to do with the underlying hardware. You won't have them on Vista


To sum things up:

If you encode video, or do CAD / rendering - then get an 8 core. As far as 8 core systems go, the MacPro is unbeatable in price : performance, so it would be my firm recommendation.

If you don't, just get a vanilla single socket, quad-core system - or heck, even a fast dual core

~MiSfit

 

[Modelworks]

In the visual fx community lots of companies use BOXX.
They tend to offer the type of systems you are looking for.
The support is also top notch.
Never had a single issue with them.

http://www.boxxtech.com

I wish I had the budget !

APEXX 4's multi-processor architecture exhibits outstanding performance scaling across sixteen cores, delivering a tremendous boost in processing power with multi-threaded applications. The APEXX 4 chassis can accommodate a great range of storage configurations from 15 TB+ of local storage for instant access to
large CG files..

VFX is all about impressing the world with your vision. Here, the graphics options available for APEXX 4 deliver in spades and then some. With two PCI Express x16 (TM) graphics slots, APEXX 4 is ready to make the best use of the power of dual-graphics technology for a smooth visualization experience no matter how rich your creations may be.

APEXX 4 is powered by four Quad-core Opteron (TM) processors featuring a next-generation Integrated Memory Controller in each processor and Hyper-TransportT technology for a blazing fast data interconnect between CPUs. All tests confirm exceptional performance in raw processor speed and in applications benchmarks. And with four processors harnessing a total of sixteen cores, you command a beast that drives real gains when running, Autodesk® Combustion ® & EYEON Digital FUSION ®, Autodesk TOXIK®.

With APEXX 4, you have more flexibility to make adjustments before final rendering. The dilemma between risking to miss a deadline vs. running a pre-render to verify a design has just become a bit easier
to solve. You gain more flexibility and your customers get high quality work, and that is good for your business.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: themisfit610

Also LOL at the video encoding comment. I'm a professional compressionist, and ALL of our encoding machines are 8 core. We max them out all day, every day, and they are quite literally 2x faster than a single quad. Literally >90% scaling. No joke. On each machine we can encode 3 movies at once, at 40fps each.

I respect your professional opinion, but would like to see some benchmarks to back it up.

Because none of the comparisons I've seen come anywhere close to 90% scaling from 4 to eight cores. For example the x264 encoding results

Here

Those results show 8x at same clocks outperforms 4x by aprox. 29%. So LOL at me all you want, but until you post something more than "I'm a pro, trust me it's twice as fast"
The LOL is on you

 

[vailr]

The Mac Pro is probably the best value for a dual quad-core system. But, Apple seems to
overcharge on memory and video cards. Consider picking a lower-end Mac Pro, then
upgrade the memory and video card via parts from Newegg. Maybe upgrade to a WD
Raptor hard drive, as well.

 

[RESmonkey]

BoxX

 

[funkypixel]

I agree with Modelworks statement.


Also, we have benchmarked BOXX Systems at work, and they literally blew the doors off of Dell and HP!

BOXX 7550 (8 Cores)
The 3DBOXX 7550 is based on the revolutionary Opteron processor and allows maximum creative flexibility for the digital artist. The new 3DBOXX 7550 comes updated with Quad-Core AMD® Opteron® processors. With a total of eight cores and AMD's famed integrated memory controller architecture, the 7550 boosts even further its ability to run complex complex applications.

The BOXX 7550 Workstation leverages a powerful 64-bit architecture
based on AMD's DirectConnect® technology that makes it the ideal platform for running new 64-bit DCC applications such as Autodesk® Maya® or Autodesk® 3ds Max®. Higher performance-per-watt provides cooler and quieter operation for a better overall user experience and a higher level of stability.

Under the hood are multiple, high-speed PCI-e and PCI-x slots, up to 32GB of RDDR2 system memory, dual Gigabit Ethernet ports and upgradeability for up to 6 TB of internal RAID storage.

Strap yourself in for a ride --> BOXX has things like:
APEXX Series
# 16 processor cores
# Up to 64GB of memory
# 15 TB+ of local storage
# High bandwidth I/O