Performance Increase - Best Bang for the Buck?

[Fred Weiss]

I am entering into a new development phase in my digital art business that will require me to either get a much hunkier computer to do the work or to beef up a nice stable but older box with all my graphics software, saved email and browser bookmarks already on it. The work involves 3D creation and renderings. What I am experiencing is image display delays of typically 5 to 30 seconds whenever I make a change and typical rendering times of 20 to 30 minutes for hi res final images. I am also experiencing low resource warnings after rendering an image.

I am also concerned about the one to two days work it would take to reinstall all my software, saved email and bookmarks if I switch computers.

The existing computer has an Intel P4, 2.4 GHz with 1GB of RAM, running XPPro SP2 and is using the integrated video.

I am considering replacing the RAM with 4 GB PC4000 500 MHz speed which is the top RAM supported by my particular motherboard. This would cost $432 plus tax and shipping.

I am considering a mid-level video card with 512 MB RAM at a cost between $50 and $75.

If I replace the computer, I am looking at a custom configured SystemMax from TigerDirect with the following specs:


Intel D975XBX2 ATX motherboard
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, 2.4 GHz 8M Processor
4 GB DDR2 PC6400 800 MHz Dual Channel RAM
Radeon X1550 512 MB PCI-Express Video Card
Windows XP Pro DSP
Two Hard Drives and assorted other drives
The new SystemMax would cost $1,468 plus tax and shipping.

The 3D software I am using, BTW, will use all four cores according to their information.

What I am seeking is to have near instantaneous redisplay of the image display to promote a comfortable and productive workflow during the creation process. Of great interest but secondary to the redisplay issues is the rendering times of the hi res images.

So my question is which will give me the best bang for the buck? Will I get there or come close by beefing up what I have for around $500 or should I spend three times that amount for a new computer?

[Bogie]

You can maybe add more RAM without replacing what's in it...

IMHO, the "best bang for the buck" for a workstation is a dual monitor card. You have more real estate, so you don't have to open/close windows as often.

I'm max the RAM however is cost effective, and add dual video and another monitor.

I'm running a pair of 21" CRT trinitrons, and like 'em.

[dclet]

What 3d App? I have experience in 3d Studio Max since 3.1 and Lightwave, I prefer max Currently ver 8. and limited work in Houdini.

You will not see a huge big performance increase,

Render times will remain around the same. YOU WILL SEE much more stability... Instant gratification isn't something you get in the 3d world. Most of my rendering is done at night...:) while I
am asleep. :) ....

I would ditch the ATI card and go Nvidia, and not one of their gaming cards.... quadro series...

My specs aren't all that much different

Core 2 Quad , 2.4 GHz
2 GB DDR2 PC6400 800 MHz Dual Channel RAM
scsi 320 - 5
Win xp sp2.
Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTX pci ex <--- I do not like it..

render times are good, display is glitchy...under dx, openGL runs much smoother



I also have an older system -

Athlon XP
2 gig ddr 266
quadro series - i cant remember off hand AGP
scsi 160

render times are real slow, display redraw isn't....and is actually better then the newer system.

Lot's of variables...:)

I'd go NEW

You'd have to spend quadruple that to get results comparable to "vector based" sign applications... as far a speed....

[Fred Weiss]

What 3d App?

Not the whole 3D shootin' match. Just a specialized filter application named Filter Forge (http://www.filterforge.com/).

Thanx for the feedback.

[Techman]

Your running exactly what i am running now except i use an old ati rage card. This setup is adaquate for now,,
If I wanted to speed up image change times I would change out the graphics card to a higher level of speed with lots of on board ram. That will improve the instant image viewing.

However,

For rendering, that is all based on your 3d software and your CPU. Lots of muscle means lots of speed. Rendering is cpu based and is not accelerated.

There are techniques you can use to speed up renders. Such as cloning and stamping and partial renders.

[Fred Weiss]

So then what you are saying is that I would benefit from the quad core?

Since my purpose is to produce artwork for DVD collections, it would seem to me that if I cut the render time by half then i could bring twice as much work to market in the same amount of time ... which makes it worth it. But that's why I'm asking.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Bogie]

Don't discount the dual monitor bit tho... Won't help with rendering something, but back when I was playing management consultant, we did a little study, and a 21" monitor resulted in something like 4x productivity over a 14" one... And duals was something like 4x over a single... just for day-to-day activities, it's something I'd recommend to anyone.

[Bogie]

Idea: Could the rendering be offloaded to another machine - or more??? Think one primary workstation, with several machines each chunking away doing their own thing...

[Fred Weiss]

Idea: Could the rendering be offloaded to another machine - or more??? Think one primary workstation, with several machines each chunking away doing their own thing...

Not really. The application is both free standing or operates as an image editor plugin. Just depends on whether or not I'm processing an existing image or creating a new one. If you have ever used, for example, any of the the Eye Candy textures with Photoshop, and saw how long it takes to render a large texture back to Photoshop, you will begin to understand. Filter Forge is similar but some of the images are much more complex than Eye Candy even puts in their filters.

I understand the value of a two monitor setup but it's not in the cards at this time. Just can't give up the desk space. I do use a 21" CRT though already.

Thanks for the feedback.

[dclet]

ahh seamless textures, Very easy to use...

Genetica (http://www.spiralgraphics.biz/gentour_index.htm)

I have never used Filter Forge...does that have a size limit?

[Fred Weiss]

ahh seamless textures, Very easy to use...

Genetica (http://www.spiralgraphics.biz/gentour_index.htm)

I have never used Filter Forge...does that have a size limit?

Genetica and Filter Forge seem to be the two options available. Genetica is better established and perhaps easier to learn but it has a 3000 x 3000 size limit. Filter Forge is more versatile and powerful and has a 65,000 x 65,000 size limit. I downloaded both their demos and decided to start with Filter Forge. I may come back and add in Genetica at a later date.

Not to take anything away from Dave Dorsey, but it may interest you to know that the Aurora Graphics Monster Wrap Fills we generated, at least in part, using Genetica. I can state this to a certainty because several of the fills in Monster Wraps are unaltered presets in Genetica. The same is true for the Vector Art Mega Digital Collection sign fills. Most of them are unaltered presets in Alien Skin Eye Candy.

[dclet]

65,000 x 65,000 size whoa...

I did a bunch with genetica I'll have to post em....I do not use them as much as I thought I would....
I also do 'em in photopaint, not hard... just time consuming....

[Cadmn]

If vyou can find a way to use multiple computers for rendering it will save lots of time when I taught we had 17 systems I could set to render on at night. & it was great instant renders get a kray<sp> from NASA. other than that I don't see it as possible especially at 65,000 X 65,000

[jiarby]

I'd install a KVM switch and keep your old machine for email/office/websurfing and dedicate the new one just for rendering.

Also find out of all your stuff works in Vista. If you have to go back to XP Pro then you are stuck a 3.4gb RAM

[bullcrew]

Quad, good board (asus or abit) 4gbs ram and a 8800 or a pny duagro fx, raid 0+1 and a good fan on cpu.
ddr3 isnt necessary and is overpriced right now so ddr2 is the way with the price drops and the q6600 is running $279 now.
Boards abit ip35e or ip35pro are great boards with a ton of support and oprtions to upgrade later being the new chipsets etc...

[dclet]

Dirt was done in CorelPHOTOPAINT
Sky was done in Genetica

Both tile well.

dirt (http://www.digital-graphica.com/gallery/dg_dirt1.jpg)

sky (http://www.digital-graphica.com/gallery/sky1.jpg)

http://www.digital-graphica.com/gallery/sky_ex.jpg

If anyone wants the full res .tifs just ask.

[mark in tx]

For rendering, you want the fast hardware, fast chip, fast ram, and fast discs.
Some 3d rendering is just not going to be instant, it takes time.

I see your point about increasing production, but how fast will that production make up the money spent?
That is what I would use use to determine the purchase.

[Fred Weiss]

For rendering, you want the fast hardware, fast chip, fast ram, and fast discs.
Some 3d rendering is just not going to be instant, it takes time.

I see your point about increasing production, but how fast will that production make up the money spent?
That is what I would use use to determine the purchase.

Very quickly because I am creating inventory to feed into marketing that is already in place. Bear in mind that I publish and sell clipart and digital art. It sells readily on first release before leveling off. What I am trying to figure out is will I get most of whatever increase I can get by just adding RAM and a video card or will the quad core improvement over the P4 be significant as well both in redisplay time and in rendering time.

I am planning to time several filters and specific renderings to get the before and after figures. I guess that would be the most useful kind of information I'd like to know up front. I can afford either but I have other uses for the $1000 difference if it isn't going to make a significant difference in the time it takes to do these two tasks.

[bullcrew]

Again Q6600 CPU, raptors or like drive raid 0+1 (speed and stability), 4gbs of ram OCZ is real good(xp only see's 3.4 but PS will take 1.7 and pipeline a little if needed), 500wt PSU (decent one is corsair), typhoon 120 extreme if you want to push the quad (they are easily 3.0 mhz safe and FAST), nvidia (pny) quadro FX. It will crush the #D as good as your going to get aside of running a zeon processor (dual).

If I didnt have so much tweeking into my dual Id be running a quad Q6600. Mine is at 3.4 and with water (mtec cooling) I can get 3.8 - 4 safely.

[Bogie]

How much is your software cost per machine? Or is it per USER?

Share one monitor/keyboard among several machines. Set it up to run, toggle to the next one.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2840201&CatId=2628

[cdiesel]

Fred,
I'm not sure what the budget is for your machine, but if you can afford it, I'd upgrade to a new machine with a SAS drive array. It's not cheap, but it's well worth it, especially if you're seeing half hour rendering times!
I don't do any 3d stuff, but I've seen HUGE increases in performance with my SAS machine. A decent video card with onboard processor and at least 512mb ram will help also. A Core 2 Duo should be sufficient, as most programs aren't written to take advantage of anything more than a single core. I'm not sure of your exact application, tho. Pro Signs & Graphics also uses a SAS machine, and can probably speak more about its value.

[Techman]

I don't do any 3d stuff, but I've seen HUGE increases in performance with my SAS machine

3D rendering is software driven,, drive arrays will not speed up rendering.. Only efficient software and lots of fast ram to that the rendering engine can swap out more frams faster

[Techman]

Since my purpose is to produce artwork for DVD collections, it would seem to me that if I cut the render time by half then i could bring twice as much work to market in the same amount of time ... which makes it worth it. But that's why I'm asking.

You are rendering the DVD??
That is compiling all your art work onto a DVD? And that is taking 30 minutes?

[Fred Weiss]

You are rendering the DVD??
That is compiling all your art work onto a DVD? And that is taking 30 minutes?

No I said DVD collections. Which is to say a quantity of original images or artwork published on a CD or DVD and normally accompanied by a nicely printed user guide.

The thread is about creating and rendering textured seamless tiles at high resolution using an application named Filter Forge (http://www.filterforge.com/). Although we burn and label our CD's and DVD's in house, this thread has nothing to do with that particular process.

My concerns are how best to get the fastest speeds of redrawing when editing in Filter Forge and how to get the fastest speeds when physically rendering the high resolution image out of Filter Forge as a saved file.

Once I have completed x number of files, they are then put together into a collection and will be published on DVD media making it a product that is ready to sell to collection buyers such as sign companies and graphic designers.

[eforer]

Rendering is CPU intensive. Ram doesn't make much of a difference. Lots of ram allows you to keep the textures cached, thats along with some other tertiary gains. CPU performance is paramount for rendering. In my pre-sign/printing life doing commercial illustration and art direction and my business did a lot 3d computer graphics and compositing. If your using a serious 3D app (Maya, XSI, 3DS Max, Cinema 4D, Lightwave etc.), you need to be running a work station video card supported by your software. I prefer Nvidia based stuff. As far as real time performance goes, thats largely a function of your video card. Getting out of your old system into something that supports PCI express will help alot with your real time performance as well because the choke point for the video card is freed up a lot. Huge improvement from AGP.

Also, spending close to $400.00 on 4gb of ancient ram is ludicrous. Smack whoever gave you that price. I suggest the system I posted in the other PC thread, and just build it your self. Its easy.

If your software supports some form of distributed rendering and you are constantly crunching out high res renders, a render farm may be for you. Back whwn 1ghz was fast, my business had a unix cluster of 12 machines with 1ghz CPUs for distributed rendering. We didn't need heat in the winter with all those things cranking.

Also, having a better understanding of your renderer will improve your render times. Being able to make judgment calls on things like depth map shadows etc., ray depth, etc. etc. can save you loads of time. Compositing elements rendered separately can also allow for clever shortcuts which will save you tons of render time as well. Rendering a whole project out at once is usually a recipe for slow render and an un-spectacular result.

[Sign-Man Signs]

Fred,

www.visioncomputers.com (http://www.visioncomputers.com)

Customize it for under a grand with two monitors.

[mark in tx]

Fred, it might be worth your time to track down and talk with someone at Pixar. I'd bet they know quite a bit about efficient rendering.

[dclet]

Get the newer machine.
Like I said render times do not change much, and filter forge will be much more "enjoyable", the lag will disapear....

Genetica ver 2.0 Pro -
3000 x 3000 full res, no anti-aliasing, 4 nodes - 5 minutes to render.

I'll give the filter forge demo a shot.

[bullcrew]

Fred, it might be worth your time to track down and talk with someone at Pixar. I'd bet they know quite a bit about efficient rendering.
Bob Allen at sigh warehouse!! Give him a call he knows someone who has a license with pixar for there graphics and rendering.

[eforer]

Do you mean Renderman? Renderman when I was doing this stuff cost 10 grand and for a long time only did depth map shadows to give that "pixar" look. Also, are you just using a seamless texture tool? Thats not a 3D program, it just helps you create textures along with diffusion maps, spec maps etc. A 3rd party renderer is not going to integrate with that as your not doing anything with geometry. So nix the workstation card and any thought of a render farm as I doubt those apps support distributed rendering.

Be careful throwing around a term like 3D, I didn't read the previous posts carefully enough, but I assumed you were talking about something like Maya, XSI, 3DS max, Lightwave, Cinema 4D etc.

[dclet]

but I assumed you were talking about something like Maya, XSI, 3DS max, Lightwave, Cinema 4D etc.

heh me too....hence the reply and I believe the "new" system would be the best option....still...I'd go nvidia either way

[Fred Weiss]

Do you mean Renderman? Renderman when I was doing this stuff cost 10 grand and for a long time only did depth map shadows to give that "pixar" look. Also, are you just using a seamless texture tool? Thats not a 3D program, it just helps you create textures along with diffusion maps, spec maps etc. A 3rd party renderer is not going to integrate with that as your not doing anything with geometry. So nix the workstation card and any thought of a render farm as I doubt those apps support distributed rendering.

Be careful throwing around a term like 3D, I didn't read the previous posts carefully enough, but I assumed you were talking about something like Maya, XSI, 3DS max, Lightwave, Cinema 4D etc.

Sorry for any confusion. Yes the renderings coming out of Filter Forge are using various components such as mapped images, noise, lighting, patterns, and various control devices and the generation of seamless tiles. It does not compare to the complexity and capability of the various 3D applications but it is still part of that medium and the rendering times for large images are still significant.

[eforer]

Yes, but from what I saw of the app, there is no geometry so its not a 3D app, and thus the rendering work flows are completely different. Much of what has been suggested will be of no benefit in light of the fact that this is not a 3D app. You can cheese out on a cheap video card with no penalty for example. All said and done, I still think the new system is the way to go.

[dclet]

whoa so i downloaded the trial of Filter Forge
Filter Forge is a pig....working with it is really slow....I do not think you'll get around that with what you posted Fred.

But.... it renders ALOT faster, the same size tile 3000 x 3000
rendered in just a little over a minute. It also produces a much larger file. 63mb compared to 20mb with genetica.

It's a nice plug and works with CorelPHOTOPAINT and CorelDRAW x3 also.
I tried both...corel and photoshop, same results. It's faster in stand alone mode :)

[Fred Weiss]

Well I've pretty much decided on the new machine. I'll report back to this thread after it's built and tested with comparative times.

63 MB sounds awfully large. What are the details as to the file type saved, color mode and depth? I'm doing 3600 x 3600, RGB 8 bit depth, and saving as JPG at Maximum Quality and averaging 3 to 4 MB per file.

Both the redraw and the rendering are dramatically effected by the antialias sampling settings.

[bullcrew]

Well I've pretty much decided on the new machine. I'll report back to this thread after it's built and tested with comparative times.

63 MB sounds awfully large. What are the details as to the file type saved, color mode and depth? I'm doing 3600 x 3600, RGB 8 bit depth, and saving as JPG at Maximum Quality and averaging 3 to 4 MB per file.

Both the redraw and the rendering are dramatically effected by the antialias sampling settings.
Look forward to seeing what you built. :cool1:

[dclet]

3000 x 3000

.tiff - lzw 16bit - 64mb
.tiff - lzw 8 bit - 30mb

anti aliasing -off

.jpg came in at 13 mb. Same settings Quality 100%

To be honest Fred, I wouldn't buy 'em in .jpg format regardless of res.

Just something to think about when your collection does go
public....:)

[Fred Weiss]

3000 x 3000

.tiff - lzw 16bit - 64mb
.tiff - lzw 8 bit - 30mb

anti aliasing -off

.jpg came in at 13 mb. Same settings Quality 100%

To be honest Fred, I wouldn't buy 'em in .jpg format regardless of res.

Just something to think about when your collection does go
public....:)

Is that because you prefer CMYK or you prefer lossless compression? Aurora's Monster Wrap collection is all JPG and it works beautifully. Those files are 4800 x 4800 and average about 13 MB. There are a number of issues with mastering in CMYK ... not the least of which is file size and reduced color gamut.

[dclet]

Is that because you prefer CMYK or you prefer lossless compression

I do prefer Cmyk. Compression should be avoided if possible.... I was just experimenting with FF.

cmyk or rgb, it's the quality of the image. a tiff will hold much more in terms of color info then a .jpg ...hence better end product with enlargement or reduction. jpg's only go so far.

We all know what compressed .jpgs look like. .tiffs are far superior in that respect...

and you're right Aurora's stuff is quit nice...even those at times
I convert, it just gives me a better feel for final output...

yes rgb has a larger color gamut, ( though not much ) and with a .jpg you're kinda throwing that away.

[Sabre]

I'm kinda late coming into the thread, but I would have voted the new machine. There may have been some small hardware changes I would have recommended but nothing that would make or break your experience with your new rig. Best of luck with your testing. :)

[eforer]

definitely don't distribute your work as jpegs. Its lossy compression and I for one would be pissed if I bought something like what your selling and the files were Jpegs.

[dclet]

It's a matter of target audience, or how he plans on marketing them....plenty of room for everyone and everything :)

It's only my opinion as a designer, give me big, quality files, that way I can manipulate them with confidence.

[Bogie]

I -hate- the artifacts that you get with jpegs.

My new Canon, even with the compression set to "highest quality" drops crap in... Which means that I can do about a 24x36 with it.

The same as I could do with the 3 megapixel one that I gave to the Teenager From Hell.

[Fred Weiss]

Interesting. So you would prefer a TIF? What about if the TIF were in RGB rather than CMYK?

Why then do most stock photography collections use JPG as their standard? This is what Fotosearch.com provides in the way of information about it:

File Compression
When you purchase an image from Fotosearch, that image will be delivered to you in a compressed format. The file size listed for the image may be 10 or 28MB but the file that you download will be approximately 10% of that size. After you save the file in an uncompressed format, it will expand to the listed size.
Most of our vendors offer their images in JPEG format. When using JPEG images no image degradation is noticeable after a single compression/decompression cycle. However, further compression(s) to and from the JPEG format will degrade the image quality to an extent that eventually it will become visible. To retain maximum quality in these images simply avoid re-saving the image in JPEG format and use uncompressed formats such as TIFF or EPS or a loss-less compression format such as TIFF with LZW compression.

[dclet]

What about if the TIF were in RGB rather than CMYK

That's fine.....I would prefer that over .jpg

Fotosearch - Is that Download Only?? I haven't tried them...
I think Istock is all .jpg too....

I have several commercial CD's, DVD's with nothing but .tifs...

[Fred Weiss]

One more question ...

My computer guy is telling me that I would be better off to use PC3200 RAM rather than the PC6400 RAM offered as an upgrade option at TigerDirect. He says that although the clock speed of the PC6400 is faster, the latency is slower and that his understanding is that the PC3200 will actually perform faster as a result.

So I need some second opinions on this issue.

[bullcrew]

One more question ...

My computer guy is telling me that I would be better off to use PC3200 RAM rather than the PC6400 RAM offered as an upgrade option at TigerDirect. He says that although the clock speed of the PC6400 is faster, the latency is slower and that his understanding is that the PC3200 will actually perform faster as a result.

So I need some second opinions on this issue.
Depends on the ram, mine is 6400 and its timings are 4;4;4;15;42 and can be tightened if needed. If that were the case Id have 3200 but its not. You can adjust (good quality) memory some either slacken or tighten the latencys up.
Heres what I run and it hands me my @$$ its so fast. OCZ2P800R22GK Its a 2pk of 1 gb ram, with heat dissapation sheilds on them to help coolthem off. They are warrantied for 2.2volts and latency is 4;4;4;15;42 and that can be adjusted. Its a quality product period!!! And its pc6400 ddr2.

depending on your board theres an even faster ram than I have its a 670 or something, expensive and between the 2 wasnt worth me paying the extra. Dont think I went cheap I didnt and i could have spent for that ram I opted not too just because this this is built to the gills for Horse Power.

[Fred Weiss]

As promised, here is a report on comparative times with the new machine.

The old computer times were performed on a P4 with 1 GB of RAM using Filter Forge as a plugin for Photoshop CS2. The new computer is an Intel Quad Core 2.4 GHz with 4 GB of DDR2 PC6400 RAM and an NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT video card.

Basically what I'm seeing is a reduction by half of both the previewing and rendering times. This is nowhere close to the improvement I was hoping for. I now have a computer with 4 times the processing power, 4 times the ram, 3 times the ram speed, three times the bus speed ... yet it is only performing at double the previous speed. The operations being timed are largely or totally independent of any disk operations and the new machine also has a dedicated 80 GB 7200 hard drive being used as a Photoshop scratch disk.

Thoughts and suggestions are welcome that might serve to improve performance or whether this is all I should expect. Bios appears to be setup correctly and the OS is Windows XP Pro SP2 for compatibility issues with current versions of too much of my software and hardware.

[Replicator]

I will say this . . . Double speeds aren't bad . . . !

The more crap that ends up on that machine, the slower it will become until finally,

it's right back to the speed you were at before . . . !

[Bogie]

Yeah - did the new one come with any crapware installed?

Pull off any antivirus (don't use it for internet or downloading...) stuff, and the rest of that sort of thing... Don't load anything that isn't specifically required.

[dclet]

Is dual core enabled in filter forge?
Did you load the drivers that came with the motherboard or did you let windows do that.

Make sure all your drivers are up to date.

Like I said earlier Filter Forge is a pig... :) It does some really nice things but needs ALOT of machine...

[Checkers]

Hey Fred,

Sometimes you can make adjustments to photoshop (and windowz) to mazimize memory usage and increase performance.

Did you configure photoshop to make use of the extra memory and scratch disks/hard drives?

Do you have other programs are running in the background? You can go to the task manager to see what else is running. I don't know if it's still true, but some programs, like antivirus monitors can be real resource hogs. If you have a lot of non-essential programs running in th ebackground, terminate them.

Checkers

[jiarby]

Fred,

I don't agree that you have 4x the processing power..

An Intel 841 is 3.2ghz single core with 2mb dedicated (NOT SHARED) L2cache.

The quad proc you have is a slower clock speed, with SHARED cache. Even though there are 4 of them on the core it is not a 1:1 relationship compared to the old performance.

Additionally you have to factor that your application may not be multithreading efficiently to keep all 4 procs glowing. Many apps still just single-thread so buying multi-core chips doesn't increase performance.

I think that your 100% increase in pewrformance should be within expectations, and is probably very good!

Turn on some perfmon counters to watch the proc cores and see what they are doing during a rendering operation.

[Fred Weiss]

Yeah - did the new one come with any crapware installed?

Pull off any antivirus (don't use it for internet or downloading...) stuff, and the rest of that sort of thing... Don't load anything that isn't specifically required.

Good logic except I sit at this machine all day and receive email and monitor Signs 101 while I work ... so foregoing anti-virus software is not an option. Other software is utilized doing other chores as well. The point is that this is pretty much the same setup as was on the old machine, so my logic is that it should be running faster.

[Fred Weiss]

Is dual core enabled in filter forge?
Did you load the drivers that came with the motherboard or did you let windows do that.

Make sure all your drivers are up to date.

Like I said earlier Filter Forge is a pig... :) It does some really nice things but needs ALOT of machine...

Yes multi-core is enabled in Filter Forge.

My contractor setup the machine as far as building it and loading Windows XP. I will ask him when he comes in next week to try to tune it up better.

[Fred Weiss]

Photoshop question for you tech wizards.

My new machine has 4 GB of RAM installed which Windows XP sees 3.25 GB of. Photoshop, however reports only 1.757 GB is available and, at it's default setting of 55% usage by Photoshop will only then be using 966 MB of the RAM.

Is this lower reading of available memory due to other resources in use? I thought that was why Photoshop was setup to only take a portion of the memory ... to allow for that.

[jayhawksigns]

3-3.5GB is all 32-bit version of windows will ever see. And I don't have an explanation for why Photoshop sees what it does, mine is that way, an answer to that would be nice.

Although its too late now, I don't think you could of used PC3200 ram in this computer, that is the old DDR speed, your new computer uses DDR2. Oh well.


Also, if someone could come up with a generic image we could render, I would run the file through FF on my rig to see how a higher end AMD system handles the work.

[jiarby]

edit your boot.ini to enable the /3gb switch. It will allocate 3gb to applications rather than 2gb. Xp splits the ram between kernel & applications. The 3gb switch makes it 1gb for Kernel & 3gb for apps

/3GB

[Fred Weiss]

edit your boot.ini to enable the /3gb switch. It will allocate 3gb to applications rather than 2gb. Xp splits the ram between kernel & applications. The 3gb switch makes it 1gb for Kernel & 3gb for apps

/3GB

I'm not finding a file named boot.ini anywhere on my C drive. My search included all subfolders and hidden files. Can you give me the location of this file or if the name is different in any way?

[jayhawksigns]

In an Explorer window go to Tools and select Folder Options. Under the View tab, select "Show hidden files and folders" and uncheck "Hide protected operating system files"

Then you can see the boot.ini in the c:\ folder. Be sure to set those properties back to normal after you are finished editting them.

[bullcrew]

I enabled mine (3gb switch) and it works great. Dont go above 70% though it starts to be counter productive.
Also what is your drive array, single raid 0 ?
I went to 2 raptor 10k rpm drives in raid 0 and 1 sata 150gb as a back up for files. "in the name of all things holy!" Is it fast.
+ when doing bigger pics the bigger card rolls through the stuff better when loaded (multiple apps) down then my 7600 did,

[Fred Weiss]

This is what my boot.ini currently reads. Would someone please give me the exact context to edit or insert? Thanks.

[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOW S
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect

[GAC05]

[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOW S
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional 3GB" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect /3GB


here is mine Fred,
This gives me the opiton to flip the 3 gig swtich on or not when I boot the system.
I have some apps that I don't want it turned on for.

wayne k
guam usa

[Fred Weiss]

Thank you Wayne. :thankyou:

[tommythesignguy]

Bogie is right on the money! dual or triple monitors ( i use NVidia Gforce 7300 GT intended for TV output) are the best investment you can make. Multitasking is where I make my money... drag-drop from one screen to another without minimizing - mucho (at least 2g) ram and the dual core, stay away from vista if you don't want to renew every software that you already bought.
... and I traded the building of this system for $600 worth of signs!

[jbq7448]

I recently got my wife a new refurb workstation from HP. It is an xw 8400. This one came with 2.4ghz zeon dual core, 2 gigs of ram, 160 gig sata 3 hard drive and 128 meg nvidia quadro fx video card and a DVD-RW drive. These things are built to be heavy duty cad and 3-d modeling workstations. It can upgraded later to 2 xeon quad-cores and up to 64 gigs of ram. I wound up paying just over $1000 including upgraded 3 yr onsite warranty and shipping.

If you keep an eye on their site, they do promotions on refurbs that they have too many of that are deeply discount from even the refurb price.

[trsolo]

The first thing to do is to replace your video card and don't go cheap there, it's all in the speed. Get the best and fastest gaming card you can afford, that will increase your speed. Second, upgrade your ram, if you run vista, you will need 4 gig, if you stay with XP pro, you can get by with 2 gig.