#288828 - 25/10/2006 13:37
Which is better?
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
Have an opportunity to pick my computer at work, within reason. I am looking at the following computers. Any advice on pitfalls to watch out for would be appreciated. (iIt's been about 5 years since I've had to deal with hardware, and I'm a little, ok, a lot, out of touch)
Attachments
289513-390.pdf (297 downloads)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288829 - 25/10/2006 13:38
Re: Which is better?
[Re: lectric]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
And this is the second candidate.
Attachments
289514-490.pdf (173 downloads)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288830 - 25/10/2006 13:54
Re: Which is better?
[Re: lectric]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14496
Loc: Canada
|
The Core 2 Duo. It uses (MUCH) less power than Xeons, and will likely give very similar performance. Might run a bit quieter, too.
-ml
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288831 - 25/10/2006 14:00
Re: Which is better?
[Re: mlord]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
That settles it then. Thanks!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288832 - 25/10/2006 14:29
Re: Which is better?
[Re: lectric]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 12/02/2002
Posts: 2298
Loc: Berkeley, California
|
I'd personally try and swing the 51xx xeon, those processors just fly. I replaced an office's dual core 3GH MsSQL server with a dual dual core 5150 server, and the staff was thanking me as soon as the new server when online, and they're still grateful a month later. Queries which used to peak both cores are now blips on the load graph. There's magic in those processors, they're the first ones I've actually cared about from Intel since the Pentium M.
Matthew
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288833 - 25/10/2006 14:30
Re: Which is better?
[Re: lectric]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Also, those 5000 series Xeons are the crap P4-based "Dempsey" ones. They're much slower than 5100 Core-based "Woodcrest" Xeons or than Core 2 Duos.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288834 - 25/10/2006 19:10
Re: Which is better?
[Re: matthew_k]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
Is a 5150 1.8 ghz really as fast as a 5050 3.0 ghz? The price seems to indicate so.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288835 - 25/10/2006 19:18
Re: Which is better?
[Re: lectric]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
My 1.6 Ghz Pentium M is about as fast as my 3 Ghz P4, so yes, probably.
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288836 - 25/10/2006 20:15
Re: Which is better?
[Re: mlord]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
I'm looking forward receiving my new toy: Quote:
Base Unit:
Dell Precision M90, Intel Core2 Duo Processor T7400 (2.16GHz/667MHz/4MB)
Processor:
17 Inch Wide Screen WUXGA 1920×1080 LCD
Memory:
2 GB, DDR2-667 SDRAM
Video Card:
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2500M 512MB OpenGL
Hard Drive:
80GB Hard Drive 9.5MM, 7200RPM
Operating System:
WINDOWS XP PRO x64
CD-ROM or DVD-ROM Drive:
24X CD-RW/DVD Combo Drive
I might have to use it as my primary workstation (in place of the current dual Xeon 3.2/4GB). It sure would be nice to put these loud fans into another room.
-Zeke
(ps: spell check in FF 2.0 - nice!)
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288837 - 25/10/2006 20:19
Re: Which is better?
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14496
Loc: Canada
|
Sounds like a non-portable version of the Dell Inspiron 9400 !
Cheers
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288838 - 25/10/2006 21:08
Re: Which is better?
[Re: mlord]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
Quote:
Sounds like a non-portable version of the Dell Inspiron 9400 !
Though of course the desktop has faster bus (1066 vs 667), memory (667 vs 533), disk (10K vs 7.2K) and video...
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288839 - 25/10/2006 22:40
Re: Which is better?
[Re: andy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14496
Loc: Canada
|
Quote:
Quote:
Sounds like a non-portable version of the Dell Inspiron 9400 !
Though of course the desktop has faster bus (1066 vs 667), memory (667 vs 533), disk (10K vs 7.2K) and video...
Errr.. not by the specs he posted! 
Also, the 9400 has 667MHz DRAM.
And, yes, the portable 9400 has a higher resolution screen (option).
Edited by mlord (25/10/2006 22:43)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288840 - 26/10/2006 01:41
Re: Which is better?
[Re: mlord]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
Well, 8.5 lbs is still _technically_ portable! It's the same RAM speed as the 9400 (667) - it's the graphics I'm excited about - I do a good deal of 3d modeling (machine design). Of course, it should rip right through RAW conversions at a good clip too. The two (9400 & M90) do seem very similar (going on specs). I wonder what the differences are? -Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288841 - 26/10/2006 11:40
Re: Which is better?
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14496
Loc: Canada
|
I have a 9300 here (actually, two of them). Great machines. The 9400 is the updated refresh, with +133Mhz faster chipset, and Core 2 Duo instead of single-core CPU.
The real limitation is that they only have two RAM slots -- max 2GB. I'd really prefer about 8GB.
Cheers
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288842 - 26/10/2006 12:27
Re: Which is better?
[Re: mlord]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
Re: RAM - so true. 2GB doesn't go as far as it used to. I noticed something interesting on the M90 - the 4GB option (a mere $2200 add'l) has a slower RAM speed. Quote:
Memory Capacities:
512MB to 2GB capacities available at 667MHz speed
4GB2 is available at 533MHz speed
Both speeds are 8.5 GB/s with dual-channel to help improve performance
Do you know why that is? I don't think I've ever seen a bus speed based on RAM quantity before this.
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288843 - 26/10/2006 14:29
Re: Which is better?
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14496
Loc: Canada
|
Quote:
Re: RAM - so true. 2GB doesn't go as far as it used to.
I noticed something interesting on the M90 - the 4GB option (a mere $2200 add'l) has a slower RAM speed.
Quote:
Memory Capacities:
512MB to 2GB capacities available at 667MHz speed
4GB2 is available at 533MHz speed
Both speeds are 8.5 GB/s with dual-channel to help improve performance
Do you know why that is? I don't think I've ever seen a bus speed based on RAM quantity before this.
-Zeke
There are probably only two sockets for RAM modules, because that's likely all that the chipset is designed to drive without extra buffers + wait states.
To install 4GB therefore likely requires a pair of 2GB modules, each of which likely (current technology) simply has double the number of chips on them, compared with the 1GB modules.
Double the number of chips == double the bus load == slower rise/fall times on the signals == slower speed of operation to guarantee things still work. Alternatively, they could insert wait states everywhere and still use the faster clock, but that would be even slower if it were at all possible in the first place.
Cheers
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288844 - 26/10/2006 14:40
Re: Which is better?
[Re: mlord]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
Interesting. Makes sense. I'm betting that by the time I want >2GB the 4+ GB chips will be more common. That's why I went with the x64 OS version. If I didn't need to use Solidworks I would probably have preferred the new Mac - I just don't want the complication of running SW in a virtual machine - perhaps it'd work fine, but if it didn't I'd be stuck since it's not officially supported by Dassault.
Thanks for explaining that.
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288845 - 26/10/2006 15:00
Re: Which is better?
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 12/02/2002
Posts: 2298
Loc: Berkeley, California
|
Quote:
I just don't want the complication of running SW in a virtual machine - perhaps it'd work fine, but if it didn't I'd be stuck since it's not officially supported by Dassault.
Boot camp has been out since before parallels. No VMs needed. Beautifully designed hardware, and a great real OS for the rest of the time.
Matthew
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index