Upgrade path

[SanDiegoPC]

I'm looking to get my current main computer to run a bit better. It's got the P35 Pro board from Abit and perhaps there's a Bios update for the newer Quad chips?

At any rate what Quads have more cache or run better than this current setup (See my sig)? This computer runs ~good~ but is over 2 years old and I'm looking to upgrade. Hopefully I can keep this board, swap out the chip and not reinstall Windows. (Using XP Pro)

Suggestions appreciated.

 

[pcunite]

I have nearly an identical system to yours:

Q6600 Quad (SLACR) with G0 Steppin
ASUS P5K-E
Crucial PC2-5300 8GB of memory
1 500gb Western Digital 7200rpm
nVidia 800GT 512mb (G92)
Corsair CMPSU-520HX 520watt
Windows XP x64

I use my system for RAW image processing to .jpeg and C++ software development. If you want any speed improvments look to one area... hard drive.

Speed up reads by going to faster RPM or SSD drives.
Speed up writes by using a real RAID card with lots of cache or going to SSD type drives.
Crazy speed up by going with SSD drives and real RAID cards.

For a raid card consider: Areca ARC-1231ML-2G
For SSD consider: Intel X25-M
If you have money to burn just get this: Fusion-io ioDrive

 

[richierich1212]

What do you mainly use your computer for? Maybe swap out those 500GB HDs to at the minimum two Western Digital 640GB Black HDs and run RAID. And then maybe do a clean install of windows because it makes your computer feel a lot snappier and "clean" lmao.

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: SanDiegoPC
what Quads ... run better than this current setup

Run better for what? If you're just gaming, a new GPU will help you more than a new CPU.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: SanDiegoPC
I'm looking to get my current main computer to run a bit better. It's got the P35 Pro board from Abit and perhaps there's a Bios update for the newer Quad chips?

At any rate what Quads have more cache or run better than this current setup (See my sig)? This computer runs ~good~ but is over 2 years old and I'm looking to upgrade. Hopefully I can keep this board, swap out the chip and not reinstall Windows. (Using XP Pro)

Suggestions appreciated.

Run better for what?

The Q6600 @ 3.2 Ghz is still a heckuva CPU. You are not going to get a huge boost in most cases just by upgrading the CPU.

If you're a gamer, the 8800gt is holding you back.

Maybe you have a bunch of crap on your OS drive? Have you defragged recently?

 

[SanDiegoPC]

Please allow me to better explain my needs for this main computer: I am an Astronomer and this machine I'm working on now is the main one that processes my images. The other one that I wanted to upgrade is the one that operates the telescope and it's imaging software.

So to explain the use of this main machine, consider the way AstroPhotography works in this brief explanation: The CCD camera on the telescope shoots multiple images (50-150 depending on the object) of the object as the telescope follows it across the sky. Since no telescope can PERFECTLY track an object, the object appears in a slightly different location in each of the perhaps 150 images that the CCD camera takes.

Special astro software is used to stack these pictures. Each one is 1200x1600 and is 8.3MB in size. Stacking them requires the software to track as many of the stars in the field of view as possible, and move each picture slightly to match the position of the one before it. You can picture what it takes for the software to scan pictures that large for stars, then superimpose those stars on each other 150 times.

This is done three times for each color image. One stack for RED, one for BLUE, and one for GREEN. Finally the resulting three RGB files are themselves stacked in Photoshop CS4 to produce a color image (each of the three individual components is a grayscale image). Special astronomy actions for Photoshop do the final processing on these color images and they may have 10 layers or so which can mean I'm processing an image that is about 25MB in size.

So you can see, that if I use the telescope to shoot images of say, 6 or 10 different objects on a good night, the next day is spent doing a lot of image processing. That is the main function of this computer. FYI examples of my AstroPhotography can be found here at this link. That site has a hundred or so images that I have processed of different objects, most of them in color using the above procedure.

The other computer that actually runs the telescope and it's associated software, is the one that I used the Pentium-D chip in. It is outdated and needs a better processor, now that updated versions of the software are requiring more horsepower. That's why I figured I would donate this chip which is already a quad-core.

I hope this makes sense. And remarks on my photography are always welcome too!

 

[Schmide]

I don't know the exact nature of the image processing algorithm or how much memory it uses, but with XP you're only getting 2gb of usable space. In addition, since the software runs in Photoshop, it is doubtful it actually takes advantage of your multi-core. Before you go out spending money on hardware that will basically buy you very little, think about upgrading your OS to get better use of ram, and see if there is another software product that can take advantage of multi-cores.

I think you will get the most benefit from new software.

 

[Scotteq]

So if I understand it properly:

(1) Existing Computer running the Telescope is hopelessly outdated, and will be going away to either the Great Hyperthreader In The Sky, or perhaps to some string theorist's alternate universe where the entire planet exists in the space between Simona Halep's breasts**.

(2) The Existing Q6600 rig will be replacing #1

(3) A new computer will be created to take the place of #2. At which time, the world will stand by for photographic evidence the string theorists are correct...







**The recent subject of a "Save the Boobs" campaign when the minor - in both senses of the word - tennis starlet announced she was going to have them reduced to a more manageable size. Yes, Google is your friend!


p.s. Don't you hate it when a liberal arts major... well.. does *anything*, really...

 

[Schmide]

After what Scotteq said. If your CS4 doesn't multi-core your script and you're willing to get a new OS that can take advantage of more ram, you could have your current computer do both as you most likely have idle cores.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Some nifty photos there, SanDiegoPC!

Clock-for-clock, an Intel Q9xx0 is about 10-15% faster than your current CPU. So, if you get (for example) a Q9550 and overclock it, you could have around 25% more CPU power.

If I were you, I would look into Vista x64 or hold on for Win7 (64 bit) and also upgrade to 8 GB RAM. Photoshop CS4 comes with a 64 bit edition.

Does the motherboard for the Pentium-D based machine support Q6600?

 

[SanDiegoPC]

Originally posted by: Schmide
After what Scotteq said. If your CS4 doesn't multi-core your script and you're willing to get a new OS that can take advantage of more ram, you could have your current computer do both as you most likely have idle cores.

Yea the q6600 is a direct drop in on the motherboard for PC #2

 

[SanDiegoPC]

Originally posted by: Schmide
I don't know the exact nature of the image processing algorithm or how much memory it uses, but with XP you're only getting 2gb of usable space. In addition, since the software runs in Photoshop, it is doubtful it actually takes advantage of your multi-core. Before you go out spending money on hardware that will basically buy you very little, think about upgrading your OS to get better use of ram, and see if there is another software product that can take advantage of multi-cores.

I think you will get the most benefit from new software.

Thanks for that. Actually the image stacking software does not run under Photoshop; it is a seperate entity. The images that are already stacked with the astro software, I then import into PS and build the multi color images from there. But within PS there are always at least four of the 8.3MB files open.

 

[Scotteq]

Originally posted by: SanDiegoPC

Originally posted by: Schmide
I don't know the exact nature of the image processing algorithm or how much memory it uses, but with XP you're only getting 2gb of usable space. In addition, since the software runs in Photoshop, it is doubtful it actually takes advantage of your multi-core. Before you go out spending money on hardware that will basically buy you very little, think about upgrading your OS to get better use of ram, and see if there is another software product that can take advantage of multi-cores.

I think you will get the most benefit from new software.

Thanks for that. Actually the image stacking software does not run under Photoshop; it is a seperate entity. The images that are already stacked with the astro software, I then import into PS and build the multi color images from there. But within PS there are always at least four of the 8.3MB files open.

I'm in agreeement with Schmide. The processor you have is still perfectly good - If anything, add a little more RAM. Since your (telescope) app runs on XP, I would suggest you look into XP 64 as a possible means to bring more of the hardware you already have to bear. It doesn't suffer the address space limitations of it's 32 bit older sibling, and Photoshop will definitely make use of whatever resource you can give it.

If there are newer versions of your software that run on Vista, I'd suggest Windows 7 RC (available for free for a year - for Sale in October) on a new/clean drive. That'd leave your source installation unsulled... If not, then definitely XP 64

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Some nifty photos there, SanDiegoPC!

Clock-for-clock, an Intel Q9xx0 is about 10-15% faster than your current CPU. So, if you get (for example) a Q9550 and overclock it, you could have around 25% more CPU power.

If I were you, I would look into Vista x64 or hold on for Win7 (64 bit) and also upgrade to 8 GB RAM. Photoshop CS4 comes with a 64 bit edition.

Does the motherboard for the Pentium-D based machine support Q6600?

+1

Get a Q9xx0 & Vista or 7 64 bit with 8Gb of ram