My station (project)
- Thread starter USLatin
- Start date
it ran for 1hs. 10min with no errors or warnings... the CPU got beat up by Orthos, which it a good CPU stress tester for duos (so "they" said)
so there it goes, the big one now... this will be the 24 hours of Le-Prime95
it started just before noon PST, adjust your watches (nobody is reading this, I know, lol)
Prime95 set to 10, and it is a "little bit of everything" torture test testing the CPU and RAM
so there it goes, the big one now... this will be the 24 hours of Le-Prime95
it started just before noon PST, adjust your watches (nobody is reading this, I know, lol)
Prime95 set to 10, and it is a "little bit of everything" torture test testing the CPU and RAM
Last edited:
so I actually tried to go higher, 3.4, no go... I might have been able to go a tiny bit higher, but I don't want to run the tests again for a miniscule increment... plus I had decided to back away far far away from the limit... so here I am... and I will stay here... unless the 3.325 doesn't pass the 24hs Prime... I re-started it at 3pm.
maybe I should have waited for my NorthBridge heatsink and fan... maybe that's what it was!... oh well... 3.325 or 3.5... a difference of 0.175GHz (or 0.35)...
well there's that other guy that got 3.72... lol so 0.395 (or a hughe 0.79) so I might have a 3.325 (6.65) wich is prety close to the 3.72 (7.44)... he is probably running a better cooling system too, and I am running air... also, it is quite the hot day in LA, it was close to 90 in the sun... so i closed the windows and let the room go up to 30 celcius (87f) and like that Prime95 had the CPU at 47-55c... it ran like that for 20minutes...
maybe I should have waited for my NorthBridge heatsink and fan... maybe that's what it was!... oh well... 3.325 or 3.5... a difference of 0.175GHz (or 0.35)...
well there's that other guy that got 3.72... lol so 0.395 (or a hughe 0.79) so I might have a 3.325 (6.65) wich is prety close to the 3.72 (7.44)... he is probably running a better cooling system too, and I am running air... also, it is quite the hot day in LA, it was close to 90 in the sun... so i closed the windows and let the room go up to 30 celcius (87f) and like that Prime95 had the CPU at 47-55c... it ran like that for 20minutes...
jeffmiller
Active member
Do you have to wear a seatbelt when your editing! Sweet Sytem!
What was your total cost for it, including monitors?
What was your total cost for it, including monitors?
a few pictures... 
I added a 120mm super silent fan to increase the flow of air that goes directly to the heart of the motherboard, the top three internal bays are now empty and create an overkill wind-tunnel, it will be a good thing to have once I get the extra HDDs in there though. The fan is a Yate Loon
I really need to get a digital camera, but for these shot there was no substitute for my Treo
.
here is a picture of the three speed switch for the rear panel 120mm fan... all four fans that came with the case have it and this one makes it all the way out though the expansion slot I left open for the video card to breathe... very convinient since it is also the most audible
The rice-burner is back! I shouldn't call it a rice burner, because these fans are way stronger than the Yate Loon that I initially switched it out for... Medium is quiet enough... and the switch is outside the case... the blue lights might not be around much longer though
I added a 120mm super silent fan to increase the flow of air that goes directly to the heart of the motherboard, the top three internal bays are now empty and create an overkill wind-tunnel, it will be a good thing to have once I get the extra HDDs in there though. The fan is a Yate Loon
I really need to get a digital camera, but for these shot there was no substitute for my Treo
here is a picture of the three speed switch for the rear panel 120mm fan... all four fans that came with the case have it and this one makes it all the way out though the expansion slot I left open for the video card to breathe... very convinient since it is also the most audible
The rice-burner is back! I shouldn't call it a rice burner, because these fans are way stronger than the Yate Loon that I initially switched it out for... Medium is quiet enough... and the switch is outside the case... the blue lights might not be around much longer though
Last edited:
jeffmiller
Active member
Are you running Vista or XP?
XP... Vegas doesn't benefit Vista on it's current release, and the summer pach isn't here yet so if anything it would be a grave mistake.
My plan is to get more of these fast HDDs first, when Vegas incorporates 64-bit I'll upgrade and get two more GB of RAM to be at 4GB. Then I will consider getting a Quadro on this same board.
Then again Quadros might be cheap before Vegas 64-bit comes out... it will all be cost driven... but HDDs first.
My plan is to get more of these fast HDDs first, when Vegas incorporates 64-bit I'll upgrade and get two more GB of RAM to be at 4GB. Then I will consider getting a Quadro on this same board.
Then again Quadros might be cheap before Vegas 64-bit comes out... it will all be cost driven... but HDDs first.
So memory bandwith isn't as important in Vegas. Apparently even when editing HD Vegas uses something like 512MB to 1GB of RAM? Even when checking after the most intense 1080i HD editing sessions...? It is a very smart program, I know that, and it seems it works straight off of the HDDs rendering each frame only when you need to see it, and it would seem it would be rendered again if you want to see it right away. I say this because little memory usage would seem to me as limited rendered frame buffers, storing on the memory very little if any of the recently viewed frames.
I currently have two internal HDDs with four bays still open:
_ One is a 320GB partitioned into 100GB for OS and programs, and the 220GB partition is my current my Target to render to.
_ The second internal HDD is a 500G of the same flavor that I use as my source for the media to be read from.
Because of the HDD requirements I got two Seagate's 7200.10 HDDs, the ones with perpendicular recording, thinking that these would be fast enough when used in this DS3 Gigabyte motherboard. Do you think I should have opted for faster rotational speeds instead? Or are these just as fast as the popular 10,000 rpm HDDs and such? I didn't have any jumpy previews when doing as much as three layers of 720p at the same time (all visible)... so the HDD was feeding three streams of it at the same time without breaking a sweat. On the other hand I had previews with stutter while previewing this same sequence where I had added color correction and other CPU draining fades and track motion... It held up surprisingly well though!!! Super fast CPU!!!
Also, I could now get a smaller drive for my OS and programs for faster renders... that one should be cheap to pick up but not as important as fast source drives.
This setup may be good, but there are much better configurations out there, the one I was shooting for was kinda like this:
_ I would love to have a smaller HDD for the OS and programs, so I can have the 320 partitioned only for safety, and use both of it's virtual drives as render targets, and also for temporary storage for finalized projects.
_ Lastly, the much more important Source drives... I'd love to have more of the same 500GB 7200.10 perpendicular drives... unless you think these aren't fast enough for the monster CPU I created here. In the future I'd love to have something crazy like two 4TB drives set up in a raid 0 os something like that... but for now, do you think I should look into a different type of drive to use as a 3.32GHz-hungry-monster feeder?
I am not sure it I have the settings correct in the BIOS as I only left them on their defaults values, so I'll check on that today. Any suggestions?
I currently have two internal HDDs with four bays still open:
_ One is a 320GB partitioned into 100GB for OS and programs, and the 220GB partition is my current my Target to render to.
_ The second internal HDD is a 500G of the same flavor that I use as my source for the media to be read from.
Because of the HDD requirements I got two Seagate's 7200.10 HDDs, the ones with perpendicular recording, thinking that these would be fast enough when used in this DS3 Gigabyte motherboard. Do you think I should have opted for faster rotational speeds instead? Or are these just as fast as the popular 10,000 rpm HDDs and such? I didn't have any jumpy previews when doing as much as three layers of 720p at the same time (all visible)... so the HDD was feeding three streams of it at the same time without breaking a sweat. On the other hand I had previews with stutter while previewing this same sequence where I had added color correction and other CPU draining fades and track motion... It held up surprisingly well though!!! Super fast CPU!!!
Also, I could now get a smaller drive for my OS and programs for faster renders... that one should be cheap to pick up but not as important as fast source drives.
This setup may be good, but there are much better configurations out there, the one I was shooting for was kinda like this:
_ I would love to have a smaller HDD for the OS and programs, so I can have the 320 partitioned only for safety, and use both of it's virtual drives as render targets, and also for temporary storage for finalized projects.
_ Lastly, the much more important Source drives... I'd love to have more of the same 500GB 7200.10 perpendicular drives... unless you think these aren't fast enough for the monster CPU I created here. In the future I'd love to have something crazy like two 4TB drives set up in a raid 0 os something like that... but for now, do you think I should look into a different type of drive to use as a 3.32GHz-hungry-monster feeder?
I am not sure it I have the settings correct in the BIOS as I only left them on their defaults values, so I'll check on that today. Any suggestions?
I don't think you're going to have a problem with the 7200 RPM drives. A RAID will help, though.
UGAfan,
ok so that's a 10,000 rpm drive, but super expensive and small...
do you mean I should use that one for my OS and programs to load them fast boot faster, and so on..? I'd much rather have fast Source drives and save money by using a slower small drive as my c:
I am not sure I understand what you are suggesting
David,
so should my first priority be getting a second 500GB 7200.10 and set both 500s on a raid 0 configuration?
ok so that's a 10,000 rpm drive, but super expensive and small...
do you mean I should use that one for my OS and programs to load them fast boot faster, and so on..? I'd much rather have fast Source drives and save money by using a slower small drive as my c:
I am not sure I understand what you are suggesting
David,
so should my first priority be getting a second 500GB 7200.10 and set both 500s on a raid 0 configuration?
I wouldn't worry about it in terms of how it will play with your processor. You'll be fine on that score.
It may help when working with HD, though.
It may help when working with HD, though.
Not sure how much memory Vegas uses as a matter of course, but I know RAM's significance is very low compared to processor speed, which is about the whole ball game.
I do know Vegas will use at least 1400 MB for Dynamic RAM Preview -- but that setting doesn't affect normal timeline playback.
I do know Vegas will use at least 1400 MB for Dynamic RAM Preview -- but that setting doesn't affect normal timeline playback.
ok... so I should get a cheap OS and programs HDD first, so accesing OS and vegas files mid-preview/render doesn't hurt performance... and be happy with the, let's see... 18 or more hours of HD I could fit into the 500GB for now... and use the 320GB as a target and short term storage o'stuff...
Oh! and I'm gonna finally get Celluloid David! I'll start off with Packs 1 and 5 (Hollywood Today 1)...
does all of that sound good to you?
I don't know now... I can get a 320GB for $45 more than an 80GB but, $33 more than a 160GB.
But all along what I am most concerned with is preview performance, so I look at these and for
$150 I could get a second 500GB and RAID 0 both together...
Would I notice it? David, you say I would be fine... but just "how fine" will I be with one, I mean
is it my bottleneck or is the CPU/RAM not fast enough to get ahead of the 7200.10? A Raid of two
7200.10 is complete overkill though, untill I get into 4k, lol... so what should I do?
Celluloid would be an other $50...
$300 more over budget now..?
aghhh....
Oh! and I'm gonna finally get Celluloid David! I'll start off with Packs 1 and 5 (Hollywood Today 1)...
does all of that sound good to you?
I don't know now... I can get a 320GB for $45 more than an 80GB but, $33 more than a 160GB.
But all along what I am most concerned with is preview performance, so I look at these and for
$150 I could get a second 500GB and RAID 0 both together...
Would I notice it? David, you say I would be fine... but just "how fine" will I be with one, I mean
is it my bottleneck or is the CPU/RAM not fast enough to get ahead of the 7200.10? A Raid of two
7200.10 is complete overkill though, untill I get into 4k, lol... so what should I do?
Celluloid would be an other $50...
$300 more over budget now..?
aghhh....
Last edited: