Page 1 of 1

Quad Core Processors & V3

PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:04 pm
by William1111
We are still using Capture One Pro 3.7.7

I am planning to purchase another workstation and am curious as to whether I can benefit from a Dual AMD Opteron quad-core processors and 4 GB of Ram.
The unit will run on Win XP pro.

I am still waiting for Capture One 4 Professional, I tried the first version 4.0 and because this version is void of the old Quick Proofs, I have no use for it. I was very disappointed.

Version 4 while having some very, very nice controls, failed in my book when I opened up the proofing for web feature when it renumbered the images different from the original files. I loved the speed at which these images were processed though!

We are still using 3.7.7 as 3.7.8 will not process an image if it has been Trashed and then recovered from the Trash Bin.

I sincerely hope that Phase One will consider these issues!

Capture One is the one program that is hard to live without, Version 3 was so well thought out for the working portrait photographer, the shortcut keys saved time, and I learned to love them when sorting and processing 200+- per client are all very important to us.

All of us in our studio love Phase One. Capture One Pro is that important to us.

:?: :D :)

PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:40 pm
by Paul_Steunebrink
I don't have any experience with XP/CO3.x on more dual core (in 1 proc) machines. In my case CO3.x benefits from the second core during procoessor intensive tasks.
If I understand your post properly, you intend to buy a 2x 4 core machine. I doubt it will give you anything more than a single 4 core machine where CO3 is concerned. Of course you might have more applications running at the same time, like CO3 and Photoshop or run a print job in the background. More cores more fun.
Don't expect much development regarding CO3.x in the near or distant future if any at all. Phase One is putting all its resources currently on finalising CO4 Pro after which release CO3.x becomes end of life (I expect).

PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:36 pm
by William1111
Paul,

Thanks for the info.

The salesman stated that when it comes to batch processing that normally took me 30 minutes on my single 1.29 GHz Athalon XP 3200, the dual Quad processors would knock it down to 4 minutes.

I will not order the new machine until CO4Pro is out.

If you have any other info or hints for me, I'm listening!
And I do appreciate it!!!

Bill :?

PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:36 pm
by Paul_Steunebrink
Wildman wrote:The salesman stated that when it comes to batch processing that normally took me 30 minutes on my single 1.29 GHz Athalon XP 3200, the dual Quad processors would knock it down to 4 minutes.

Salesman talk indeed. Symmetric Multiprocessing (SMP) does not scale linear. 8 cores instead of 1 is not 8 times faster. The good news is that applications and the operating system are getting better in SMP, but for the desktop I do not see a lot a benefit beyond 4 cores. I noted that approx. 50% of the processing time of a CO4 batch queue is used for writing the result to disk. Something to put your money into if you buy a new computer is a faster disk. It is about finding a balance in resources (proc, memory, disk) in relation to budget and OS/application. It's a continuing search.

CO4 Pro will probably not differ in multiprocessor performance compared to CO4 (light). I see the Pro version as having some additional modules for additional functionality, but the core of the application is already there including how it handles multiple threads. But again, I haven't seen or tried CO4 Pro too, so what am I talking? :lol:

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:34 am
by William1111
Paul,
Thank you again,
May be a single quad core with 4 Gig Ram, then work from a fast RAID 0, and later transfer back to my RAID 5 NAS, via Ethernet 1000?
Also, how much video ram? I don't think SLI would benefit, would it?
My gosh am I glad there is someone out there like you.
Bill

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:22 am
by Paul_Steunebrink
Wildman wrote:...
May be a single quad core with 4 Gig Ram, then work from a fast RAID 0, and later transfer back to my RAID 5 NAS, via Ethernet 1000?
Also, how much video ram? I don't think SLI would benefit, would it?
...

Bill, thanks for the kind words. Sounds like a good configuration to me. A lot of current powerful systems support several RAID configurations onboard, so a lot of options there. You can go for speed (RAID 0) and backup later or go for redundancy (RAID 1 or 5).
Regarding video, current video adapters are way to powerful for non-moving graphics like photography due to the focus on games. 128MB RAM is sufficient. A good card (in my book) should be able to give 24-bits color on a big screen with an optional second screen for tools, and allow proper calibration (oh yeah, the screen, that is were my money went...). ATI and Nvidia are well known brands, I often use the more conservative Matrox adapters.

Build it myself

PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:51 pm
by William1111
Hi Paul,

You certainly know what you are talking about, and honest besides!
Just thinking, I have built the last 4 computers, maybe I should build this next one also. I used AMD processors in the last three on ASUS motherboards.

What do you think it I try again using an Intel Q9450 quad 2.66 GHz cores, with 12MB L2 Cache then put in 4 Gig of DDR2-800 memory on a 1333MHz front sided bus motherboard?

As far as OS go, I don't know if Vista is where it needs to be yet, and none of the software is set up for 64bit, so I might as well stick with XP Pro.

I like your idea of a Matrox Video Card, also the display is where it's at. I picked up an EIZO Color Edge CG211 last year and love it.

If you have been looking at any specs on motherboards and have any recommendations I hope you will share them with me.

Talk to you soon!

Regards,
Bill Nieman

:D

PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:57 am
by NN2212
I have built both dual-core 64 bit AMD and Core2Quad computers for processing images in 3.7.8 Pro.

I was surprised (maybe I shouldn't be) that the AMD's are quite a bit faster. I don't have results with me, but it is several seconds per image. That's huge for me, since I process thousands of images daily.

I will probably use AMD's for my next round of machines just because of the speed. But like the other Paul mentioned, disk and/or network speed can be just as big a bottleneck as the processor.

Paul Samuelson

Multi core

PostPosted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 2:18 am
by William1111
Thanks Paul S,

Sounds great to me, please share your thoughts as to Mobo, CPU, mem, and video cards you are prospecting. I am respecting your knowledge.

Thank you for your response, and don't be afraid to e-mail me directly.

Bill N :D