Hardware recommendations
-
That appears to be a quality machine, the only thing i can think to check is how good the openGL support is for the graphics card, it can be quite variable.
If youve got any spare cash id up the ram a but, although 6GB should be enough for most stuff.
-
ditto on what Remus said. The ATI card would probably be fine for everything except SU, where many many people have issues with them. 6Gb Ram is a good amount but you probably wouldn't be sorry if you bumped it up to 8, although that's something you could always do down the road.
Everything else looks high class to me.
-Brodie
-
I have done a little reading, according to the product specs it says OpenGL 2.1 support.
http://ati.amd.com/products/Radeonhd4800/specs.html
Is this what I would be after or should I do a bit of a background search first.
And/or just get the maching with the cheaper of the two graphics cards and buy a NVIDIA card later?
-
It's not that this particular card should have any problem with SU (at least that most people would know of here) but in general, many ATI cards have been performing somewhat "funnily" despite all claim to be fully OpenGL compliant of course. This may certainly be true with certain nVidia series as well - maybe just folks know nVidias better here.
I used to have an ATI card and have never had any problem with it (true that it didn't seem to have any effect if I turned hardware acceleration on/off)
As for dual video cards - forget about it (if you are asking about SU).
Finally the processor; if you have the chance to go for the 3.2 GHz one, go for it - even if you need to "sacrifice" some performance on the graphics card end to be in balance with the budget. This is the part SU uses a lot with high poly models.
And if you eventually buy this machine, don't ever come back here because we will hate you.
-
If you can find a great deal on the 3.2 it'd definately help SU out a bit but I think they're running about $600 more expensive than the 2.66's right now. For that kind of money you could probably overclock and burn through 2 2.66's and by that time the i7's will be going for 6 cereal box tops.
-Brodie
-
I've got an Intel Q9450 which is originally 2.66GHz, but a friend of mine helped me overclock it to 3.3GHz. I would have gone higher if I had better RAM.
There is money to save on the CPU if you get a processor and motherboard than can be overclocked. (And you know how or know someone who can overclock computers.) -
Thank you very much for the replies and feedback.
The more I have learned about this the more questions it has raised.
Are the issues associated with migration of 32bit xp pro to 64bit vista ultimate all that bad. Many of the applications I have will not be upgraded at the same time. (Autocad 2004, Sketchup, and 3ds Max and Adobe suite at work.)
-
you shouldnt have too many problems, as long as you remember to download 64 bit drivers for everything.
-
@akabear said:
Thank you very much for the replies and feedback.
The more I have learned about this the more questions it has raised.
Are the issues associated with migration of 32bit xp pro to 64bit vista ultimate all that bad. Many of the applications I have will not be upgraded at the same time. (Autocad 2004, Sketchup, and 3ds Max and Adobe suite at work.)
Vista64bit support is much much better than XP 64. I haven't run Vista64bit, but I'm running Windows7 64bit, which uses pretty much the same driver system as Vista and I got no problems with any applications. That include SU, 3DSMax, Adobe CS4.
I got wo-workes that run Vista64 at home and they also report no real issue.
32bit applications will run with no problem under 64bit OS unless they do some funky stuff they shouldn't. What do you might want to double check if all your hardware drivers are available in 64bit drivers. With new hardware that's rarely an issue. But if you got some older hardware the manufacturers might not have bothered to provide one. -
Thanks to all those that assisted.
Ended up settling on something roughly the same for home, but fractionally cheaper and less power but opted for a safe route to avoid conflict with existing software that is not likely to be upgraded anytime soon.
As for the work pc, well might go higher yet. Still working on that one.
Dell XPS 630
Intel Intel
Core
2 Quad 2.66GHz
4GB DDR2 667MHz RAM
500gb Harddisk 7200rpm
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTx 512MB (avoided the ati card just to be safe for now, the NVIDIA is a fair card for graphics but the home pc is also partly for funn too!)
20.5in monitorWill try out Vista Ultimate 32bit (but sad to let go of XP pro) although may downgrade later if dissatisfied.
-
Quite a tidy setup
quick piece of advice with regards to the operating system: i wouldnt bother with vista, if you stick with xp for the moment and then upgrade to windows 7 when it comes out. Its basically a much more polished version of vista and much nicer to use.
-
Looks like a good setup to me. I had the 8800 GT for awhile, I think you'll be very happy with it (and it plays quite nicely with SU). I'd probably ditto the advice on waiting for Windows 7. And if you anticipate wanting some more ram later of course it'd be a good idea to go w/ a 64 bit OS as 32 bit won't recognize any more than the 4GB you've got.
-Brodie
-
HI Guys
I am still trying to spec a new company laptop and was hoping you can give me some advice.
I would really like to have a Lenovo W700 notebook with the Nvidia Quadro FX3700 1GB with Intel x9100 CPU however it is very very expensive!!
I am looking at a DELL alternative with the following specs for about 25% less than the Lenovo
It has Intell T9800 Core 2 Duo CPU
Nvidia Quadro FX3700 1GB
4GB 1067MHz DDR3 RAM
200Gb 7200rpm SATA HD
17" WUXGA 1920x1200 LCD Panel
All running on XP pro SP3Can you guys tell me if this would work well with SU
Alternitivley
Can anyone recommend and alternative NoteBook with similar specs that would be cheaper?
Thanks for the feedback
Ben
-
Would it be worth considering downgrading to the FX3700 512Mb card and upgrading the processor?
Which would have bigger impact on graphics performance where SU is concerned?Many thanks
BEn
-
SU is more CPU hungry than GPU hungry.
-
Interesting thanks you
So a better CPU would be preferable to a high spec Graphics card.
Cheers
Ben
-
Your specs look really good to me. In fact they're almost overkill for SU, which doesn't use hardware very well (eg, doesn't recognize dual processors).
To elaborate on Thomthom's point. SU uses the processor to show the geometry and GPU for textures and shadows. Textures and shadows can be turned off while you're modeling and orbiting but you can't turn off the geometry, so the CPU is typically the more important.
-Brodie
-
Hi Wazzer,
IMO you could even go to the lower spec (Quadro FX 2500 512 Mb or what the number now was, I was looking at the specs a couple of days ago) card but consider a CPU with more than 3 GHZ clock speed.
Anssi
-
Thats interesting thanks
So i would get as good or better performance with an X9100 processor and a Quadro FX5700 512Mb
Combination plus 4GB system Ram?I appreciate your help guys
Ben
-
Core i7 920 ou Q9650 ???? (Well, both without overclock). Does anyone have experiences, benchmarks, opinions?
Advertisement