Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Image Processing Machine

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 29, 2012 1:53:27 PM

Hello,

I'd like to build a very fast computer mostly for processing Lunar & Planetary images which were taken in AVI form through various telescopes I own. The program used is Registax, which stacks thousands of images over top of each other.

I'd like to go with a 6 core machine or?

Any one have any particular thoughts of a cost efficeint CPU & motherboard combo with such speed and where to get it?

Besides blazing speed are there any other considerations I should look for for this type of application?

The setup will also incorporate Photshop as the final software to complete the images.

Lastly, apparently a 7200 rpm drive is usually call for for avis , but is a 10,000 rpm unit more attractive?

In terms of supplier I've had luck with Newegg.

Thanks,

Al.
a c 203 à CPUs
March 29, 2012 2:50:10 PM

Hello alpaslow;

What kind of computers do expert users of Registax software prefer?
It might be something different from the 'six core machine' you mention.
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2012 3:10:30 PM

Well in looking around this software takes very little system requirements.. Is it takeing a long time to do what you are asking of this software? I would just suggest a quad i5 as reading a bit on the version 6 says hyperthreading does not help any so i7 will not help you any. I would go i5 2550k and say 8 or 16 gigs ram as it says the more cores you use the more ram the software needs but does not say how much.. I think the 6 core would be over kill but if you have the money by all means have at it.

Source: http://www.astronomie.be/registax/previewv6.html

Thent
Related resources
a c 203 à CPUs
March 29, 2012 3:50:21 PM

alpaslow said:
I'd like to go with a 6 core machine or?
Or an 8 core machine? Maybe with a SSD instead of 7200/10K rpm HDD?

AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 3.6GHz Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core CPU ~$250

(about $20 more than the four core i5-2550K 3.4GHz CPU suggested by Thently)

On the other hand - Thently's suggestion might work out to be a better option.


Which is why I think you want to know from other expert Registax users if one of those new AMD Bulldozer FX-8150s is going to be the CPU you want to choose.
March 29, 2012 4:13:32 PM

The use of registax slows my newer inexpensive pentium Lenovo lap top down. Runs much better on a dual core machine I have.

However naturally the larger the files the slower it all goes. Then oddly enough the pentium Lenovo apparently leaves "artifacts" on occassion in the final stacked image where I haven't experienced the same with the dual core machine.

The artifacts appear as areas of random noise, etc that perhaps have not been properly processed, and are somewhat difficult to explain, but in reality shouldn't be in the final picture.

I am going to use a new camera soon that will provide a much large color image that will most likely crash the newer Lenovo. Therefore the idea of "more CPU power" the better may be the way to go.

Can someone explain the advantage of an SDD instead of an 7200/10K Hard drive?

Thanks for all the imput,

Al.
a c 203 à CPUs
March 29, 2012 4:26:46 PM

Your "newer inexpensive pentium Lenovo" doesn't have a dual core CPU? I'd be very surprised if it didn't. What CPU is installed?
Same for your 'other dual core machine'.... which CPU?

Is it possible the different graphics cards/chips between the Lenovo and... what ever else you're using... could be causing the graphic "artifacts"?
April 6, 2012 2:04:17 PM

WR2 said:
Your "newer inexpensive pentium Lenovo" doesn't have a dual core CPU? I'd be very surprised if it didn't. What CPU is installed?
Same for your 'other dual core machine'.... which CPU?

Is it possible the different graphics cards/chips between the Lenovo and... what ever else you're using... could be causing the graphic "artifacts"?


Well, I stand corrected. The newer Lenovo Laptop is a G570 unit pentium. It is the Intel® Pentium® Processor B940. (2M Cache, 2.00 GHz) and it it is 2 core running Windows 7 Home.

I have 4096m of Ram; as per the box the laptop came in.

The performance is less than a much older desk top Lenovo/IBM machine S/N LKPYV86, MI-M 8808-94U.

This desk top machine is uses the Intel 2 Core , 2.66 ghz processor, with 2 Gig of Ram. Specs are:

ThinkCentre M55 (8808-94U)
Intel® Core 2 Duo Processor E6300, Maxtor MaxLine Pro 500GB 7200RPM S-ATA 3.0Gb HDD, no diskette drive, PCI/PCIe Small Form Factor (2x3), Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 3000, 16x DVD-ROM, Broadcom Gigabit Ethernet,

Running Windows 7 Professional.

So what gives?

The 2.66 2 core desk top runs Registax much better and cleaner than the "pentium" 2 core, and again with less artifacts.

Does the 0.66 difference in the computers make that much of a difference? perhaps the 7200 HD in the desktop is the reason. But on the other hand the Laptop has 4 Gig of memory compared to the desktop's 2 Gig!! :whistle: 

Thanks for your help!

Al.

Here is info on the laptop: http://ark.intel.com/products/55626/Intel-Pentium-Proce...(2M-Cache-2_00-GHz)

a b à CPUs
April 11, 2012 7:16:56 PM

Laptops will always be slower than compairable hardware in a desktop.. They have to fit within a specific TDP (temp range) and this is always limiting. Newer laptops i7 with SSD are getting allot closer but the video cards are still cut down version so lose in the end.

Thent
!