Want to purchase a new PC system for a graphics professional (extensive photoshop, some webpage creation, some 3D & animation. Apparently the Intel 820 & 840 chipset MBs with their RD Ram have not been well received. Can't wait (must purchase this week!), need to buy something now ... am considering the lesser but more stable Intel 815e chipset MB even though it has a 512mb RAM limitation.
Price and stability are important. Would like a manufactured/warrantied system ... am considering the 815e Dell Dimension 4100 ...
Anybody got some real world experience and advice on this? (Can't consider a Mac on this one ...sorry). How bad/dead end are the 820/840 MBs etc. ?
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by dbota on 01/08/01 04:32 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
More about :current chipset graphics professional
January 8, 2001 5:10:06 PM
So whats the hurry! Wait for the AMD760. I too am looking for a video editing system. I am very excited but will not let that get the better of me.
Wait for it!!!.
If money was no object, how could you spend it!
1. Insofar as a PC is concerned, I wouldn't consider any RDRAM platform including the new 850. Image editing can really consume RAM and the cost of RDRAM is robbery!
2. I take it you want to buy (not build) a system. Well, IMO, 512MB should do just fine, but I'm pretty sure that the ASUS CUSL2 (815) motherboard permits up to 1GB, so if you are concerned about needing more RAM, get the CUSL2 (512MB or 1GB, it's the best 815 board out there)!
3. Unless you are into gaming (or other 3D apps) get a good 2D graphic card like the Matrox G400 (that's not to say there are not others just as good or better for 2D, I just don't have any personal knowledge of them).
Why win2k over win98SE? I know it is more stable but we don't have professional staff to support it and I have heard drivers, plug and play and multi-media plug-ins, software and applets are still hard to come by for win2000. I am willing to sacrifice stability for compatability and ease of setup and use. ??
Let me start off by saying I'm not a graphic-arts pro, but I am a serious Photoshop user. I had almost predictable stability problems running PS with Win 9x, especially when multitasking (which I do most of the time). Win 2K eliminated those problems and it manages memory far better than Win 9x (BTW, I find 512MB ample for everything I do)!
While you might find a few drivers missing on the MS media, I have had no problems downloading driver updates from MS or the device mfr. I've never used Win ME (or Mac), but I found Win 2K to be as setup-friendly and user-friendly as Win 9x (in fact, the user interface is just about the same).
Insofar as using PS, I really don't believe you would notice too much difference between the different processors and chipsets mentioned here, but "for my wallet", RDRAM is just not worth it. If you have the $ to spend, and since you do this for a living, you would realize far greater return on your investment buying a SCSI system (preferably with 2 HD's). SCSI will provide noticeably faster HD and CD-RW I/O (than with EIDE/ATA), not to mention much faster scanning (all of the better scanners support SCSI)! If you decide to go SCSI, get it from a reliable major PC OEM or a perhaps a local shop that works with it on a regular basis.
I say go with pvsurfer's recommendations. Sure, if ALL you want to do is "photoshop, webpage creation, and some 3D animation", then (supposedly) Mac G4 rules. But a P3/Win2K/SCSI system can't be too far behind it and IMHO, the Mac is dying a slow death!
January 12, 2001 12:10:26 AM
As for image editing you need a good 2D card.. Macs are good for that. But since you don't want a Mac, then try a PC. Scsi is a good idea for HD but don't be fooled, SCSI is faster but NOT really that fast.
With SCSI you can mount disks on raid 3,5,1,0 . That would make the disk transfer faster.
Remember this though..
SCSI cards have a transfer bandwith. Example Adaptec 2940 I think ( I don't wanna check i'm just using this as an example so change for the real adaptec model if you care ) has a transfer bandwith of 80 Megabytes per second. Which is fast..
But no HD on the Market can tranfer much more than let's round up to 40 Megabytes/s
That 80 megabytes /s bandwith is shared By everything plugged on your card.. SO if you really want faster Disk access than
1 - Don't plug any other devices than disks.. Because those devices use that Bandwith I talked about. And usually SCSI cards tends to manage the speed of all devices to the slowest one plugged on the card.. THAT means If a CD-ROM is plugged on the card then your hd might run as fast as the CD which is very slow compare to theirs. THat's also why you see all those Servers on the net Coming with a Raid adapter and then the CD is IDE ( who needs a SCSI CD-ROM anyway ? ).
2 - It's useless to use more than 2 disks on the card if you want very fast access on that drive..
3 - Raid 3,5,0 accelerates the transfer of the disk because the data is written on all disk at once.. ( if you need further explanation let me know ).. So all the disks can read or write at once
The only TRUE advantage that SCSI disks have over IDE disks are the SEEKING time and that's it.. In sequential transfer it's about the same speed.
So SCSI Disks are faster by a small margin.
SCSI is also A lot more expensive.. So I would stick with ide.
as for the vid card Matrox G400 with dualhead is a nice pick. You can use 2 monitors if needed.