Capture one 5 windows workstation?
Hi Guys!
I'm building a new workstation and was wondering what would be optimal for capture one? Computer will run c1 pro and adobe cs4.
I'm building a new workstation and was wondering what would be optimal for capture one? Computer will run c1 pro and adobe cs4.
0
-
Daniel,
Provide a few more details about what the specific demands of this workstation will be and I'm sure your fellow users would be happy to provide some more feedback.0 -
As fast as possible but not the extra 10% that the expensive highend stuff will do.
I need info on what stuff c1 runs fast on? Is a core i7 sufficient or am I better off with dual xenon processors with a total of 8 cores.0 -
Capture One scales very well on multiple core processors, hence you will benefit from a Core i7. A dual Xeon setup has a significant price premium and I would therefore consider this only is your budget is sufficient.
Regarding storage, I recently discovered how much performance gain is to have from a proper SSD. I tend to suggest that I prefer a Core i7 system (now with up to 6 cores if you like in model 980) plus SSDs instead of a dual xeon (2*4 cores) setup.
RAM preferably 6 or 8 GB (Core i7 uses triple interleave, so you will often install 3x 2 or 3x 4 GB) and a 64-bits OS like Windows 7. As you might know, Photoshop CS4 and CS5 can run in 64-bit mode on Windows.
Video adapter: every well known brand, medium priced model will do even for larger 'screen real estate'.0 -
[quote="Paul_E" wrote:
Capture One scales very well on multiple core processors, hence you will benefit from a Core i7. A dual Xeon setup has a significant price premium and I would therefore consider this only is your budget is sufficient.
Regarding storage, I recently discovered how much performance gain is to have from a proper SSD. I tend to suggest that I prefer a Core i7 system (now with up to 6 cores if you like in model 980) plus SSDs instead of a dual xeon (2*4 cores) setup.
RAM preferably 6 or 8 GB (Core i7 uses triple interleave, so you will often install 3x 2 or 3x 4 GB) and a 64-bits OS like Windows 7. As you might know, Photoshop CS4 and CS5 can run in 64-bit mode on Windows.
Video adapter: every well known brand, medium priced model will do even for larger 'screen real estate'.
You can get a dual xenon system (E5506 socket 1336 2,13ghz) for less than a core i7 870 socket 1156 2,93ghz. Which one is better?
I was opting for a 6 slot motherboard with 12gb of ram. Ssd for system and temporary images use. Full image archive on raid 5 disks which i already have.0 -
Noone else? 0 -
archiving on a RAID5 is no backup solution..
Xeon vs i7
as i'm in the UK, will use UK pricing a Dual E5506 (total 8 cores) is £343 per CPU = £686
motherboard for the Xeon - Supermicro X8DTL-IF will set you back £274
RAM ECC 2GB x 4 £71 ea = £284
Total = £1244
or i7 870 is £434 (4core + 4 Hyperthread)
motherboard for i7 - Gigabyte, GA-X58A-UD5 is £212
RAM non-ECC 2GB x 6 total £320
Total = £966
the i7 will win because it has the memory bandwidth the Xeon doesn't (and ECC RAM is slower than non-ECC)0 -
When you go the Core i7 route, you might prefer the 900 series over the 800 for higher performance (IIRC, I current don't have all the details at hand). 0 -
[quote="NN88881211" wrote:
archiving on a RAID5 is no backup solution..
Xeon vs i7
as i'm in the UK, will use UK pricing a Dual E5506 (total 8 cores) is £343 per CPU = £686
motherboard for the Xeon - Supermicro X8DTL-IF will set you back £274
RAM ECC 2GB x 4 £71 ea = £284
Total = £1244
or i7 870 is £434 (4core + 4 Hyperthread)
motherboard for i7 - Gigabyte, GA-X58A-UD5 is £212
RAM non-ECC 2GB x 6 total £320
Total = £966
the i7 will win because it has the memory bandwidth the Xeon doesn't (and ECC RAM is slower than non-ECC)
I know raid 5 isnt a backup solution. I ment for storage on workstation. Because a ssd will not be big enough for all my images. So i will use the ssd for the most recent files.
So the i7 is faster than dual xenons just because of memory speed? Doesnt both c1 and cs4 benefit more with the extra 4 cores?0 -
Noone? 0 -
C1 will fly with a D0-stepping i7 920 clocked to 3,8 GHz, which will run stable with any decent air cooling system.
Unless your pockets are really deep and you're going multi-socket, it's pretty useless to buy a higher end Intel CPU. Don't touch the P55's (i7 8xx) - they lack PCIe lanes, which might bite you badly later on.0 -
[quote="Janne2" wrote:
C1 will fly with a D0-stepping i7 920 clocked to 3,8 GHz, which will run stable with any decent air cooling system.
Unless your pockets are really deep and you're going multi-socket, it's pretty useless to buy a higher end Intel CPU. Don't touch the P55's (i7 8xx) - they lack PCIe lanes, which might bite you badly later on.
So C1 will benefit from a faster quad core i7 920 over a 8core dual xeon system with lower speed for each processor individually?
What about cs4?0 -
CS4 will fly on the system, it already flies on my Core2 Q8400 with 8GB RAM running Vista64 (have yet to OC it) 0 -
[quote="Daniel143" wrote:
[quote="Janne2" wrote:
C1 will fly with a D0-stepping i7 920 clocked to 3,8 GHz, which will run stable with any decent air cooling system.
Unless your pockets are really deep and you're going multi-socket, it's pretty useless to buy a higher end Intel CPU. Don't touch the P55's (i7 8xx) - they lack PCIe lanes, which might bite you badly later on.
So C1 will benefit from a faster quad core i7 920 over a 8core dual xeon system with lower speed for each processor individually?
What about cs4?
Daniel, when I look over your postings, you repeatedly revert to the fast-4 versus less-fast-8 core question and which is best for your purpose. This is not easy to determine either from theory or through benchmark testing. Very few people have the tools, skills, time and machines. And as you might know, not all applications benefit from multiple cores. In fact only a few currently benefit from 4 or more cores because it must be written to run multi-threaded and deal efficiently with the overhead involved.
Note that the 4 versus 8 core discussion is running considerably longer in the Mac world. As far as CO5 and CS4 is considered, CO5 scales better than CS4. The latter runs faster on 4 cores than it does on 8 (with the same core speed). Numbers about CS5 are not available yet as you might understand. But this is Mac.
Intel and its hyperthreading technology is adding another layer (of confusion) to the mix, doubling the amount of cores at the operating system level. A 4 core i7 9xx processor with HT has 8 logical cores. Already to much to handle for most applications.
Bottom line is that a fast 4 core system gives you in general greatest value regarding its price/performance today, both from hardware buying perspective as well as from what the applications can do with it. 8-cores is for special purposes only or it will perform less due to the overhead involved to multi core processing.
A fast i7 9xx system has incredible memory bandwidth. Add a few SSDs in RAID 0 for separate boot and scratch disks (CS4) and you never look back. My 2 cts.0 -
[quote="Paul_E" wrote:
[quote="Daniel143" wrote:
[quote="Janne2" wrote:
C1 will fly with a D0-stepping i7 920 clocked to 3,8 GHz, which will run stable with any decent air cooling system.
Unless your pockets are really deep and you're going multi-socket, it's pretty useless to buy a higher end Intel CPU. Don't touch the P55's (i7 8xx) - they lack PCIe lanes, which might bite you badly later on.
So C1 will benefit from a faster quad core i7 920 over a 8core dual xeon system with lower speed for each processor individually?
What about cs4?
Daniel, when I look over your postings, you repeatedly revert to the fast-4 versus less-fast-8 core question and which is best for your purpose. This is not easy to determine either from theory or through benchmark testing. Very few people have the tools, skills, time and machines. And as you might know, not all applications benefit from multiple cores. In fact only a few currently benefit from 4 or more cores because it must be written to run multi-threaded and deal efficiently with the overhead involved.
Note that the 4 versus 8 core discussion is running considerably longer in the Mac world. As far as CO5 and CS4 is considered, CO5 scales better than CS4. The latter runs faster on 4 cores than it does on 8 (with the same core speed). Numbers about CS5 are not available yet as you might understand. But this is Mac.
Intel and its hyperthreading technology is adding another layer (of confusion) to the mix, doubling the amount of cores at the operating system level. A 4 core i7 9xx processor with HT has 8 logical cores. Already to much to handle for most applications.
Bottom line is that a fast 4 core system gives you in general greatest value regarding its price/performance today, both from hardware buying perspective as well as from what the applications can do with it. 8-cores is for special purposes only or it will perform less due to the overhead involved to multi core processing.
A fast i7 9xx system has incredible memory bandwidth. Add a few SSDs in RAID 0 for separate boot and scratch disks (CS4) and you never look back. My 2 cts.
Thank you! This was exactly the answer I was looking for when I started the thread. A i7 9xx system with 12gb ram it is!0 -
For what it's worth, I'm running an i5 750 with 8GB of RAM because I wasn't convinced that going to an i7 was worth the extra outlay. You're very unlikely to be processor bound for either C1 or CS4, it's all about I/O speed and IMHO it's better to spend the money on SSDs rather than the latest whizzo processor.
Andy0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
15 comments