New Video Workstation PC Spec - Any advice on my new build?? Thanks

• Change the E5-2640 to E5-2690.
• Increase RAM to 8 x 8 GB to profit from the quad memory architecture.
• You can save money (needed for the 2690's) by lowering SSD capacity to 128 GB or there abouts. 512 GB is a waste of space and money.
• Check those disks. If they are Velociraptors, are are better off with large capacity 7200 disks. If they are SCSI disks, you are better off with 15K models.
• Don't know about the SAS controller, but it looks like just a simple backplane, not a raid controller and the one one the mobo is pretty slow.
• Get a big tower. That Celsius R920 is only a mid-tower and will cause heat problems with all those disks, being filled to the rim.

I suggest a case like this, with some expansion room for the future:

These remarks are solely based on your specs. I really think you can get much better BFTB by looking at a DIY build with an i7-3930K and overclock it.

Mind you, the E5-2690 is over $ 2 K apiece, an i7-3930K is around $ 500, the dual CPU mobo is way more expensive than a simple X79 mobo, the ECC memory is way harder to get and more expensive.

FYI, I'm looking at the case above for my new system, possibly with two PSU's.

The SAS controller is a simple SAS controller based on the LSI 2008 chip

"D2607 SAS/SATA RAID controller The Fujitsu D2607 SAS/SATA RAID controller, based on the LSI SAS2008, offers small businesses exactly the low-cost data safety unit which they have been looking for. The D2607 enables increased read/write performance thanks to its RAID 0, 1 and 10 implementation".

The optimal amount of memory in a system is not dependent on the number of cores, but only on the architecture of the memory controller, whether it is dual (1155), triple (1366) or quad (2011) channel architecture. You always want a number of DRAM's equal or a multiple of the architecture, so with dual channel 2 or 4 sticks, with triple channel 3 or 6 sticks and with quad channel 4 or 8 sticks. So in your case, independent of the E5-26xx CPU you opt for, go for multiples of 4 for the memory sticks, 4 or 8.

Did you notice the difference in storage capacity in your Fujitsu case and the one I'm comtemplating? The one I think about has the capability to use around 32 HDD's plus 4 SSD's plus 2 BR burners internally without modding, but with some modding can easily hold 40 or even 48 HDD's internally.

Im also reading and finding out what would be my next rig.

Regarding Harm's posts from today,,, I know you cannot overclock the new Xeon E5 as today,, so in your opinion, what would be faster on Premiere Pro and After Effects,, a couple of Xeon E5-2690s or the fastest i7 out there (i think is the 3960X extreme) overclocked?

I know is comparing bananas to apples, but, other than $$ is there any reason to pick one overclocked I7 instead of two regular Xeon E5's?

Go to the results page at CS5 Benchmark http://ppbm5.com/ to see what is fast

There are no XEON E5-2600 Series on the PPBM5 yet.

That is because they were just introduced this week

Yes, thats exactly why Im asking.

Ive seen the PPBM5 results before,, and I have submitte dmy own.

I was wondering if anybody (such as Mr Millard) would have an educated oppinion on how the new Xeon E5-2600 would perform compared to an i7 (even comparing a single i7 OC against a dual Xeon E5-2600 system withouth OC).

If you do not mind spending twice as much you might get medocre results without the overclocking available.  If you look at PPBM5 results and first filter on CS5.5 under the version Tab and then Filter on Xeon's under the Model CPU Tab you can see that without overclocking dual Xeons are not a good bang-for-the-buck item.  I seriously doubt that will change when someone submits results from this new generation.

Message was edited by: Bill Gehrke

Now if you are a real heavy multitasker and use other demanding software there could be advantages to having two Xeons, my comments above are for a Premiere Pro user.

For the money that you spent, dual E5s do not perform anywhere near that much faster than systems equipped with single i7-39xx CPUs. In fact, dual E5s might actually perform slower than single i7s in H.264 encodes due to the excessive latencies in the switching in dual-CPU systems (and the more CPUs within the single system, the greater the latency).

I see,, just to make sure, we are talking about the new Xeon E5-2600 series right? the ones that just came out.

I though they were based on the same architecture as the i7 ,, the logic told me that two is better than one,, but with the being being OC Im getting all confused.

If the multi CPU increase latency, then why the Xeon exist to begin with? sounds like they are all slower than i7 then.

I wish that would be a little more clear.

Hey MM2004, I feel your pain. Im in the same exact situation as I consider investing in the most powerful system as possible. Able to handle Epic 5K jobs as well as AVCHD long forms.And both with lots of effects and AE motion graphics. I am also on the fence until I get a better understanding of the new chips performance. Apparently there are latency issues with the dual Sandy Bridge EP setups that could be an issue.

Tom Daigon

Avid DS / PrP / After Effects Editor

www.hdshotsandcuts.com

Mac Pro 3,1

2 x 3.2 ghz Quad Core Intel Xeon

10.6.8

Nvidia Quadro 4000

24 gigs ram

Kona 3

Maxx Digital / Areca 8tb. raid

Bradley,

Here is one major problem with all dual-CPU setups (not just dual e5s):

No dual-CPU system performs anywhere near twice as fast as an otherwise comparable single-CPU system. In fact, without all of the latencies and bottlenecks that switchers, disk systems and graphics systems impose on the system, a dual-CPU system performs at best 41 percent faster than a single-CPU system. (In fact, one would need a quad-CPU system just to theoretically double the overall performance of a given single-CPU system.) Add in the chipset, disks and GPU, and the performance advantage could plummet to less than 20 percent. That's way too small of a performance improvement for such an astronomical increase in total system cost (which could amount to double or even triple the cost of an otherwise comparable single-CPU system). And that's not to mention that the second CPU increases the total system cost by at least $2,000 up to a whopping $6,000. No wonder why dual-CPU systems are relatively poor values (bang-for-the-buck).

Those Fujitsu (well, currently Toshiba, after last years take over) drives are great and perform better than any SATA disk.

Are you sure about 8 x 16 GB sticks? That would be the first I hear about 16 GB DDR3 sticks for the 2011 platform, but then I may be a bit deaf.

If I were in your shoes, I would suggest my boss to save money and not go for a dual Xeon system (bosses love that you think in terms of saving money!) but instead invest some of that savings in an even better disk setup in combination with an overclocked i7-39xx.

If your 16 GB sticks are accurate, maybe your company also has access to the i7-3980X with all 8 cores and full 20 MB L3 cache enabled. That would be the sweet deal currently I think.

Harm

I stole your suggestion and ordered a Magnum TH10 Case.
:-)

Ill move all my Dell T7400 internals to that case to improve ventilation and speed up my learning curve for when I decide between the i7 or the dual Xeon E5 2600 set up.

Manny

so far i am not impressed with the new Xeons..

we have a dual here but having issues with it. at some point we will have #s

we ran up a single Xeon 8 core (they drop into X79 boards) against the rest. is was soundly beat by everything

NOTE: these DO NOT overclock

once again GHZ is king over core count..

CS5.5

Video material - AVCHD 1080P 24 Frame Each Cut to 30 minutes of material

Export Codec - H264 HDTV 1080P 24 Preset Default

4 Effects per Layer - Fast Color Corrector, Brightness & Contrast, Video Limiter, Sharpen

Each Layer Scaled to 50% for 4 frame PinP view.

E5 2670 @ 2.6 GHz 8 CORE

32GB  1600

570GTX 2.5GB

4  1Tb Sata 32 Meg Cache 600 Drives in 2 Raid 0 arrays

CS5.5.2

3 Layer -

4 Layer - 40:41

X79 3.3 @ 3.8 GHz

32GB  1333

580GTX 3GB

4  1Tb Sata 32 Meg Cache 600 Drives in 2 Raid 0 arrays

CS5.5.2

3 Layer - 32:15

4 Layer - 35:19

X79 3.3 @ 4.5 GHz

32GB  1333

580GTX 3GB

4  1Tb Sata 32 Meg Cache 600 Drives in 2 Raid 0 arrays

CS5.5.2

3 Layer - 27:43

4 Layer - 30:02

I7 2600K 4.7 GHz  4 core

16GB Blackline 1600 CL 9

570GTX

4 WD 1Tb Sata 64 Meg Cache 600 Drives in 2 Raid 0 arrays

3 Layer - 30:46

4 Layer - 33:36

Scott

ADK

Wow,, thats an eye opener.

I was inclined to go the i7 way, but I use other programs that require multicore (like Photoshop, Autocad, etc)and I was thinking on a good balance for all of them.

Right now Im running a Dual Xeon E5420 (Harpertown at 2.5 Ghz),, I guess any Xeon (even the E5-2600 series) would be faster for me that what I have now.

I was also considering getting the EVGA SR-X Mobo (designed for Dual Xeon E5-2600)  because EVGA says that today's Bios on that Mobo supports single i7 and have Overclocking capabilities.

Then if one day this year Intel release OC for Xeon at least I have everything else and I just swap CPUs.

I cannot make up my mind yet, so, for now Ill focus on case, HDs, RAM, etc.

Manny

At this point unless doing animation a single X79 over clocked is recommended.

Obviously until we get numbers on the dual Xeon I can only “guess”

We tried every way to OC that Xeon it aint happening they have it locked down big time, I don’t see how the EVGA can unlock a locked product

They ticked Intel off with the last board they did and I think this is Intels answer to that..

I guess EVGA will have a great time explaining to the community things about the SRX Mobo :-) and how they release a product that is dead withouth being born.

(on the Xeon compatibility, at least).

Nobody wants to spend that kind of money just to run stock speeds.

Scott - "we have a dual here but having issues with it. at some point we will have #s"

Hi Scott. What kind of issues are you having with the dual Xeon board?

keeping it under wraps for now

Alrighty then....

Have a look at the Featured Discussion at the top of the page about Raid performance and rebuild issues. Follow the links in there as well.

can help advise me

Here's what I'd consider using those drives.

System (Windows & Programs) - SSD

Projects - 600GB

Media - 600GB x 4 in a RAID 3

Previews - 600GB

Exports - 600GB

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/950539