Cubase 7 | HP Z series workstation
#31
15th November 2012
Old 15th November 2012
  #31
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zephonic View Post
The obvious reason would be to add a second processor further down the road...

The 2008 MacPros were like that, too. The entry-level model had a dual processor board with just one CPU.
Hey Z,

nope the $700 difference is the single board Xeon (z420) to the Single desktop..
my guess $700 is for the onsite warranty/service..

single desktop vs dual board/single xeon (z820) was $5837 or more than double the price..

with that said IF i didnt do this for a living and i was to buy a name brand workstation system it would be HP. all day long over Dell and others..


Scott
#32
15th November 2012
Old 15th November 2012
  #32
Lives for gear
 

When I bought the Z-210 I had my choice of processor... Xenon, i7, i5... and my choice of memory type, and pretty much whatever else I wanted. There was very little difference between my buying the parts and getting the pre-assembled HP, otherwise I would have built it myself. I don't know if the same holds true for the Z400 or 800 series, but it is worth investigating.
#33
15th November 2012
Old 15th November 2012
  #33
Lives for gear
 

Bill,
not even close man.. i am way less than HP for the same system(higher end) and obviously i make a profit

Scott
#34
15th November 2012
Old 15th November 2012
  #34
Lives for gear
 

But you got to admit the name xeon sounds really good! ehe!
#35
15th November 2012
Old 15th November 2012
  #35
Lives for gear
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Most post houses I work at have Z400's or Z800's for the Pro Tools rigs. It is indeed about support and service. These HP workstations are for the business market, not the home market. They are good machines. (But for myself I prefer to build my own. Different criteria apply...)

Alistair
#36
15th November 2012
Old 15th November 2012
  #36
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

I don't get what all the hysteria is about, Steinberg jumping on the HP bandwagon is no different to what Cakewalk and AVID have done in the past.

Its a corporate decision that will be attractive to those facilities that have contracts / dealings with HP for admin/server/, etc .

It doesn't make the HP's any more or less suitable for Cubase/Nuendo.

It also doesn't change the landscape for the specialist DAW builders IMO , I'm not concerned about it at all . Those that require my services will come to me, those that are locked into contracts will mostly not consider me due to the red tape involved, and for those single end users who believe the HP's are a better option at the higher price than what I offer , more power to them.. :-)

I'd me more concerned if I was a corporate facility using MAC, in regards to what this is implying... :-)

#37
15th November 2012
Old 15th November 2012
  #37
Lives for gear
 

I didn't just run out and buy an HP, I comparatively priced it against what the popular DAW computer manufacturers had to offer, and found very little difference in the pricing. I usually assemble my own, but there was, again, very little difference in pricing... enough to make it worth my while to not go through the (relatively minor) trouble of DIY. I've bought two computers from DAW manufacturers in the past... one of which I literally threw away after ten months of frustration, and one which was fantastic. The guy who made the fantastic one doesn't build DAWs anymore, he moved into the corporate world. (Though I now hear that for old customers and friends he will still do a deal...)

Meanwhile, more than one professional (including forum member Bob O.) has recommended a workstation to me many times over the years. So this time I took the time to investigate, and so far I could not be happier with the result. I'm pretty sure that, barring some change in the landscape, workstations will be in my future purchases, too. And I'll recommend that anyone looking for a computer for DAW use take a little bit of time to explore what Dell or HP has to offer in a custom configured workstation. It may suit, it may not, but it is a smart consumer who explores all his options. Anyone who tells you otherwise... well, what is their agenda?
#38
15th November 2012
Old 15th November 2012
  #38
Lives for gear
 

Again Bill

the system you bought is thier budget line.. no one can touch those from HP, Dell etc.
(sub $1000)

go price a real system out @ HP (like those mentioned in this thread) then look around.. you will pay far more from HP and get NO support for audio.

call to HP (in india)
hi i am having pops clicks and cant get past 512 buffer

india support: huh?


just saying..

Scott
#39
15th November 2012
Old 15th November 2012
  #39
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill@WelcomeHome View Post
... well, what is their agenda?
Careful pointing that finger , there are 3 fingers pointing back... :-)

I could ask the same of your Mate, so you had a bad experience with some un named DAW builder which has absolutely no relevance to any other builder , and have been on a constant mantra directing punters away from custom builders to the brand box movers for as long as I have been paying attention, same for Bob O ( like name dropping his name gives you more weight ?? )

Yeh I know, you are going to accuse me of being on agenda, at which point I'll just get anyone reading in to read my initial post on this thread again

Enjoy your HP !

#40
15th November 2012
Old 15th November 2012
  #40
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
hi i am having pops clicks and cant get past 512 buffer
Oh come on now, this is 2012 not 1992, I'd defy anyone to walk into PC World and buy anything in there with a Intel CPU in it, that can't happily run a whole heap of audio at low buffer settings.

My wife bought a really cheap HP laptop in PC World a few months ago and for a laugh I stuck Cubase 6 on it and a cheap USB interface (Alesis Multimix 8) it was crazy just how many tracks and plugins this thing ran.

There's certainly a place for high end workstations of course, but we're definitely getting to the place where even cheap mass produced PC solutions can out run the average pop song :-)
#41
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #41
Gear interested
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcschild View Post
Wow, you dont even know there is 6 core Xeons? there are 4 core Xeons..

the fact you are not aware that the silicon waffer are all the same REGARDLESS if Xeon or desktop tells me all i need to know with concern to your knowledge. (lack thereof)
the only Xeons that are not desktop parts are the itanium.

AnandTech - Intel Core i7 3960X (Sandy Bridge E) Review: Keeping the High End Alive

to quote ""If you look carefully at the die shot above, you'll notice that there are actually eight Sandy Bridge cores. The Xeon version will have all eight enabled, but the last two are fused off for SNB-E"" end quote..

more here
Xeon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Xeon 3400-series processors based on Lynnfield fill the gap between the previous 3300-series "Yorkfield" processors and the newer 3500-series "Bloomfield". Like Bloomfield, they are quad-core single-package processors based on the Nehalem microarchitecture, but were introduced almost a year later, in September 2009. The same processors are marketed for mid-range to high-end desktops systems as Core i5 and Core i7.

Gainestown or Nehalem-EP, the successor to the Xeon Core microarchitecture, is based on the Nehalem microarchitecture and uses the same 45 nm manufacturing methods as Intel's Penryn. The first processor released with the Nehalem microarchitecture is the desktop Intel Core i7, which was released in November 2008. Server processors of the Xeon 55xx range were first supplied to testers in December 2008.


Gulftown or Westmere-EP, a six-core 32 nm Westmere-based processor, is the basis for the Xeon 36xx and 56xx series and the Core i7-980X.

Westmere-EX is the follow-on to Beckton/Nehalem-EX and the first Intel Chip to have ten CPU cores. The microarchitecture is the same as in the six-core Gulftown/Westmere-EP processor,

The Xeon E5-16xx processors follow the previous Xeon 3500/3600-series products as the high-end single-socket platform, using the LGA 2011 package introduced with this processor. They share the Sandy Bridge-E platform with the single-socket Core i7-38xx and i7-39xx processors. The CPU chips have no integrated GPU but eight CPU cores, some of which are disabled in the entry-level products. The Xeon E5-26xx line has the same features but also enables multi-socket operation.
/end quote from wiki.


again as i said within the same die line (in this case sandy E) ALL processors are the EXACT SAME Xeon sandy "E" desktop and "E" - Xeon same period..

so an E5 Xeon is the same as a 3930 or 3960 or 3820.

ARK | Compare Intel

the E5-1650 is the exact processor as the 3930k
the E5-1620 is the exact processor as the 3820

then you get into the Dual Xeon E-26xx series which again are the same silicon same waffer same die line as the desktop sandy.
only these have all 8 cores enabled finally (some are only 4 or 6 core)
due to the 8 cores enable they have to keep the GHz a bit lowered due to TDP.

E5 Xeons come in 4,6,8 core. as far as your 10 core 88xx series thats a 3 gen old westmere-EX processor. a 4 core E5 would kill that thing for most applications.
the E-46xx are for 4 processor servers and again are the exact same waffer/die line.

i dont care if you have a trillion $ lab you work in, the facts are the facts.
and its evident you dont know them..

FYI i also build and sell Xeons and servers, at the same time i talk 99% of the people who call about xeons out of it for audio/video as a single 6 core wil cream the Xeons all day long unless you get into heavy animation..

you may be a server guy a kudo's to you.. but when it comes to audio/video and whats best this you do not know...


Scott
ADK
Yes I know all the back story of how CPU are made and which product line came when. And yes I have not used a 6 core Xeon for anything in 3 years, shot me.

If Intel disables features, core, cache, etc and there is no way to re-enable those features once they are in the wild than how can those chips be the same? They don't work the same and the sure as hell don't act the same.

My question to you is if a 3830X does better than a similar 6 core Xeon that might make since (although bigger L2 and L3 cache should make a difference here). But an 8 or 10 core Xeon should smoke the 3830X or 3960X because it add 2 or 4 more concurrent possible thread processes. If it does not help, say for a full native 128 channel mix with 2 to 4 plugins per (This was Evanescence last album but with 4 HDX units in Protools), then there is something wrong with the audio programs we use. What you are say is counter intuitive but makes since if all the DAW makers are not coding parallel process correctly. So in this case I will bow to your wisdom, although I do find it troubling. What's worse is if you are correct then at some point one would be forced to add HDX or UAD to the mix get better performance.

I also may have been a bit hasty to go to war with you and for that I am sorry. I will be the first to admit that I am a huge asshole.
#42
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #42
Lives for gear
 
trock's Avatar
 

so for audio, cubase, mostly audio, but some VSTi like omnisphere

most songs 40+ tracks but less than 60

is the I7 3960x 3.33 6 core the way to go? vs the Xeon E5 3.1 8 core i think it is?

just trying to understand here

i went to scotts site and spec'd out that with 32 gigs ram, and i think 4 HD's

1TB system
3 TB each x2 others
1 2TB HD

and it was less than 3K? way less actually

would a system like that be crazy good? what if you then added say adobe premiere ( i do home movies, nothing crazy but def alot of work put in them)

i saw you have the Xeon machines scott but when i spec'd one of those i was 6K

so i am trying to understand for my needs.

also just being curious here

thanks
#43
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #43
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deusletum View Post

If Intel disables features, core, cache, etc and there is no way to re-enable those features once they are in the wild than how can those chips be the same? They don't work the same and the sure as hell don't act the same.
Allow me , and FWIW I use Xeons across my single socket 2011 Workstations - Quad , Hex and Octo.

The Sandybridge E Hexacore whether its the desktop variant 39xx or the single socket Xeon variant E5-16xx is actually an Octocore die with 2 cores and the accompanying Cache fused off. From what I can make out this is more about marketing than a technical aspect. Intel could easily have released the Octocore IMO, but the power envelope places it around 150W , which doesn't bode well with the peanut gallery. Also they really don't have an incentive to do so because AMD are no longer a threat performance wise.

The only 150W E5-26xx variant is the 2687W workstation chip , but surprisingly runs cooler than the E5-1650 Hex listed at 130W, go figure... :-)

The Sandybridge E single socket quads tho are a totally different die , fantastic chips that are largely overlooked/over shadowed by the consumer Ivy line , heap of clock, lots of cache and run cooler than any Quad I have come across the last few years.

Xeon E5-26xx Quads/Hex are not workstation chips, they are lower clocked/lower power Server based.

Re your 10 Core Xeons , they are E7, lets keep the eye on the ball shall we , they are Big Tin chips that are not compatible with single/dual socket Workstation configurations and are priced out of reach of anyone reading in here.

#44
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #44
Gear interested
 

I know I am not going to pay 5k for an 10 core E7. And yes the 3830 and 3960 are very nice, and you can get good 2011 boards that support 64GB or ram. They are monsters for the price.
#45
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #45
Lives for gear
 
crypticglobe's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcschild View Post
Wow, you dont even know there is 6 core Xeons? there are 4 core Xeons..

Scott
ADK
And 8 core XEONs too. But they don't really perform much better for Audio than the i7 3970X all by itself. Two E5-2690 8 core Xeons in a dual socket board is pretty compelling for raw number crunching, but still leaves ones disappointed in low latency tests. :(

oops... just read the rest of the thread and I see you guys have jumped way on ahead of me. Carry on....
#46
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #46
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post
Careful pointing that finger , there are 3 fingers pointing back... :-)
...same for Bob O ( like name dropping his name gives you more weight ?? )
I would think that it would give more value to the idea of using a workstation, given that there is more than one DAW builder posting negative information about that idea. Who stands to profit by turning readers away from workstations? Not I. Not Bob. Not the other places mentioned in this thread that use workstations. You can trash our positive experiences all you want, they are still positive experiences and have as much 'weight' as any other post on the subject. And in my opinion, those experience postings are needed here for a little balance.
#47
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #47
Lives for gear
 
projektk's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACIM View Post
I never build my own system so I might screw up even if I have all the parts delivered that should result in a Z820 workstation.
its a lot easier then it looks. only thing you have to worry about is manufacturing defects. I have a warped board and because of it I can't use the IO panel cover on the back. I never sent it back because I had no time to deal with getting it replaced. Anyways only happened once. I have dropped processors and hard drives and no problems, you should be careful but you shouldn't worry. build a cheap system to try it out, it'll change you for life.

Sent from my LG-P925
#48
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #48
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill@WelcomeHome View Post
You can trash our positive experiences all you want, they are still positive experiences and have as much 'weight' as any other post on the subject. And in my opinion, those experience postings are needed here for a little balance.
Where have I trashed or even commented on your experience ?

Your experiences are yours alone, I don't know you from Adam ( nor do I care to ) so they carry about as much weight as any other anonymous forumite posting tech opinions. My point being is that you have an ongoing mantra against DAW builders, so in that respect, allow me to offer some equally needed balance against your opinions ( and Bobs , seeing you want to keep dropping his name )

#49
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #49
Lives for gear
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill@WelcomeHome View Post
Who stands to profit by turning readers away from workstations?
Careful there. You are insinuating that the DAW builders are intentionally misinforming the public to sell more of their product.

Quote:
You can trash our positive experiences all you want, they are still positive experiences and have as much 'weight' as any other post on the subject.
I don't see anyone trashing anyone's experience. Just comments on pricing.

As for Bob O, he loves to comment on tech stuff but when it comes to computer tech he often gets it wrong. He is no authority on the subject (unlike experienced DAW builders which usually are).

Alistair
#50
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #50
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post
Oh come on now, this is 2012 not 1992, I'd defy anyone to walk into PC World and buy anything in there with a Intel CPU in it, that can't happily run a whole heap of audio at low buffer settings.

My wife bought a really cheap HP laptop in PC World a few months ago and for a laugh I stuck Cubase 6 on it and a cheap USB interface (Alesis Multimix 8) it was crazy just how many tracks and plugins this thing ran.

There's certainly a place for high end workstations of course, but we're definitely getting to the place where even cheap mass produced PC solutions can out run the average pop song :-)
::sigh::: not on forums much are you??
pops and clips

if it were that simple i would be out a job.
#51
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #51
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trock View Post
so for audio, cubase, mostly audio, but some VSTi like omnisphere

most songs 40+ tracks but less than 60

is the I7 3960x 3.33 6 core the way to go? vs the Xeon E5 3.1 8 core i think it is?

just trying to understand here

i went to scotts site and spec'd out that with 32 gigs ram, and i think 4 HD's

1TB system
3 TB each x2 others
1 2TB HD

and it was less than 3K? way less actually

would a system like that be crazy good? what if you then added say adobe premiere ( i do home movies, nothing crazy but def alot of work put in them)

i saw you have the Xeon machines scott but when i spec'd one of those i was 6K

so i am trying to understand for my needs.

also just being curious here

thanks
email, call or PM me.. dont like turning forums into sales floors..
no one needs a dual Xeon even for video, unless doing Red 4k or real animation

also did you check the benckmarks on the site?

Scott
ADK
Quote
1
#52
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #52
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deusletum View Post

My question to you is if a 3830X does better than a similar 6 core Xeon that might make since (although bigger L2 and L3 cache should make a difference here). But an 8 or 10 core Xeon should smoke the 3830X or 3960X because it add 2 or 4 more concurrent possible thread processes. If it does not help, say for a full native 128 channel mix with 2 to 4 plugins per (This was Evanescence last album but with 4 HDX units in Protools), then there is something wrong with the audio programs we use. What you are say is counter intuitive but makes since if all the DAW makers are not coding parallel process correctly. So in this case I will bow to your wisdom, although I do find it troubling. What's worse is if you are correct then at some point one would be forced to add HDX or UAD to the mix get better performance.
first the original was about single Xeon vs single desktop. now that we understand they are 100% the same thing, thats done..

in an ideal perfect world a dual xeon should vastly outperform a single processor system.
as long as i have been doing this it has never been 100% (double) the ability.
2x 3ghz do not equal 6GHz raw power.

without going into a long diatribe a lot of reasons why not.

1) the obvious OS ability. yrs ago there was a definate difference in using a server OS vs desktop for multi-thread. would have to say there probably is some still but not much. (server OS never did well for audio)

2) the program ability to corerctly multi-thread.. since we are in the CUBASE thread any steiny user should remember when they said NO hyper-threading.. back many yrs ago and rightly so as with the original HT is was a disaster..
fast forward to today they still say it but are very wrong (ther is one minor exception)

3)the motherboards inability to communicate efficently between 2 processors the ram and the bus. this has drastically improved over the yrs.

4) needing that much power. it rather like buying a dodge dually 350 disel pick-up to tow a kids wagon. (well ok small boat) and its slower than a smaller truck
until your load gets heavy enough you have wasted your money. track count in of itself does not make a heavy load. massive heavy effects vast amounts of VSTi and huge track counts of 96k might finally push it.

back in the days when dual systems sold well we were talking about single and dual core processors. and it seemed to make more since back them.
as more cores have been added the gain has grown further.

at best its 25-40% increase with a few scientific softwares or 3D modeling making a better showing.

again if you look at my benchmarks or Vins (tafkat) you will see that the dual Xeons are just not worth the price of admission for most.
also the cost of the Xeons (26xx series) are considerably more than the desktop or single Xeons than ever before. justified by 6 vs 8 core i guess in Intels mind.

Benchmarks for Pro Audio!
2nd graph down.
the dual 3.1GHz 16 core (32 with HT) system barely can beat the single 6 core (12 with HT)@ 4.5GHz
its a tie at 64 buffer and @ 32 buffer the single wins..
its as it has always been GHZ over core count 99% of the time..

over on my video site the single 6 core kills the dual 3.1 for adobe (and photoshop)
red 4K ties with the 4.5 single but for animation (still havent added it to the site) the Xeons are a good bit better..

for red 4k playback past 1.4 preview the dual Xeons are far more smooth when scubbing etc especially as you add layers/effects


Quote:
I also may have been a bit hasty to go to war with you and for that I am sorry. I will be the first to admit that I am a huge asshole.
LOL no more than i..

Scott
ADK
#53
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #53
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcschild View Post
2) the program ability to corerctly multi-thread.. since we are in the CUBASE thread any steiny user should remember when they said NO hyper-threading.. back many yrs ago and rightly so as with the original HT is was a disaster.. fast forward to today they still say it but are very wrong (ther is one minor exception)
I'm running out of popcorn...

I wonder if there's been any progress in Cubase 7/Nuendo 6 with regards to multi-threaded operation. It could just be marketing, but one could assume that because they're recommending the Xeon workstations that they might have worked on polishing multi-threading to take better advantage of more cores. Do we know anything about that yet?

Oh, and Scott, what's the "minor exception"?
#54
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #54
Lives for gear
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by undertone View Post
I'm running out of popcorn...

I wonder if there's been any progress in Cubase 7/Nuendo 6 with regards to multi-threaded operation. It could just be marketing, but one could assume that because they're recommending the Xeon workstations that they might have worked on polishing multi-threading to take better advantage of more cores. Do we know anything about that yet?

Oh, and Scott, what's the "minor exception"?
I'm guessing the ASIO guard will affect multi-threading positively. Especially at "low-latency" settings as most tracks won't actually be running at low latency any more... In my experience when running at higher latencies, extra cores/CPUs help.


In the days of my dual Opteron rig, running at 30ms of latency or more for mixing, I was seeing nearly a doubling of available power compared to having one CPU disabled. (It helped that you could run those Opterons at literally 100% CPU load without any audio glitches...)

Alistair
#55
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #55
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by undertone View Post
I'm running out of popcorn...

I wonder if there's been any progress in Cubase 7/Nuendo 6 with regards to multi-threaded operation. It could just be marketing, but one could assume that because they're recommending the Xeon workstations that they might have worked on polishing multi-threading to take better advantage of more cores. Do we know anything about that yet?
What progress where you expecting out of interest ?

The well documented earlier issues with mutli-threading had been addressed years ago. It was multi faceted and very complex as it involved arbitration issues at the hardware level of the earlier dual socket Xeons of the time that Steinberg were not fully aware which complicated things further, not to mention the larger synchronization delays that were inherent in OSX.

As Scott mentioned they are still holding the same line about Hyperthreading which is rediculous IMO, but that is/was simply to cover their arse with inherent issues with HT on OSX. Its all politics, they simply will not commit to acknowledging that there are variables cross platform, so its easier for them to make a blanket caveat.

I haven't tested a Dual socket for a while as the last few gens of single Hex and now single Octo are just so powerful that unless there is a requirement for more RAM , the single socket systems are a better fit for audio. Less logistics and arbitration navigating across dual sockets with core / cache synchronization, etc, exceptional performance at extreme low latencies when required.

The single E5-2687W is a monster , Cubase arbitrates as expected across the 16 threads , results scaled proportionally above the E5-1650 Hex , it is easily the fastest system I have been in front of across all the available benchmarks, both plugins and NI Kontakt sample based

On Windows running purely plugins there is not a huge variance between 032-256, I kid you not, where the higher buffers come into play more is with the larger VI/Sample based templates, and this is where ASIO Guard ( who the Hell names these things - I'll just call it the Hybrid Playback Engine from here on in ) will be of benefit on Windows as well , allowing you to say set and forget at 064/128 for the real time playing/over dubbing , all the way thru to final mix without touching the hardware buffer as the playback engine will be running 256/512.

One question that I need answered tho is will the Playback engine shift to the set hardware buffer as soon as a track is armed /monitored, if it does it will still be a bit of a juggling act if overdubbing late in the stage of the project.

What will be interesting for me is even with the Hybrid Playback Engine, how the Virtual Instrument performance compares between OSX v Windows. I suspect plugin performance will level out a fair bit as things started to at around 256 on the previous engine , but VI performance even at 512 was still miles apart.

Looking forward to putting it thru its paces.

I digress.

Back to HP.. :-)


#56
16th November 2012
Old 16th November 2012
  #56
Lives for gear
 
Roger Starr's Avatar
 

Cool knowledge here.

What would be a good priced and configured machine with Cubase running killing?

RGH
#57
17th November 2012
Old 17th November 2012
  #57
Lives for gear
 
beyarecords's Avatar
 

Workstation v Desktop. Hmmmm...

What price peace of mind? Hmmm.....Well for one, 'signal integrity, reliability, up-time, and scalability.' For two, technical support.

Some may find the following videos, on the subject of workstation v desktop and buffered v unbuffered memory, of interest.

Workstation vs Desktop

Buffered & unbuffered RAM
#58
19th November 2012
Old 19th November 2012
  #58
Lives for gear
 
zephonic's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcschild View Post
Hey Z,

nope the $700 difference is the single board Xeon (z420) to the Single desktop..
my guess $700 is for the onsite warranty/service..

single desktop vs dual board/single xeon (z820) was $5837 or more than double the price..

with that said IF i didnt do this for a living and i was to buy a name brand workstation system it would be HP. all day long over Dell and others..


Scott

OK.

You said something about this back then in the thread on the Steinberg forum, but what about those GPU's? I remember reading that pro-grade GPU's could cause conflicts with audio software/hardware, but memory is sketchy. Since Steinberg now officially endorses the HP Z series, I would assume that those kinks (if -indeed- any) have been worked out.
#59
19th November 2012
Old 19th November 2012
  #59
Lives for gear
 
beyarecords's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcschild View Post
...for red 4k playback past 1.4 preview the dual Xeons are far more smooth when scubbing etc especially as you add layers/effects
Even better when you add an Fusion-io ioFX drive. Add to that mix an Intel Xeon Phi Coprocessor, and 2013 is looking very interesting.

Many thanks in advance,
#60
19th November 2012
Old 19th November 2012
  #60
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zephonic View Post
OK.

You said something about this back then in the thread on the Steinberg forum, but what about those GPU's? I remember reading that pro-grade GPU's could cause conflicts with audio software/hardware, but memory is sketchy. Since Steinberg now officially endorses the HP Z series, I would assume that those kinks (if -indeed- any) have been worked out.
Hey Z,

depends on the card and set up.. if i were to buy an HP i would get the cheapest video crd they offered and replace it

most of the higher end cards have no issues with audio. we do a lot of cross platform systems now (audio and video) so there is a monster video card in there for video. (and yes they do maintain relative quietness)

in the past there have been issues with UADs and some cards or at times driver issues with nVidia or ATI depending on cards firmware and driver versions.. worse case a roll back to an older driver. thre have been a small handful over the yrs that flat out would not work with UADs but rarely without.

for video systems we always use nvidia as they are far more widely supported for Cuda type acceleration. on the other hand Quadros are a joke for the most part (only needed for Solid works). so a decent GTX card like 660-680. 670 being the sweet spot unless doing animation then 680.

Scott
ADK
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
UnMix Studio / Music Computers
7
stereobot / Music Computers
1
bassnote / Music Computers
11
Reag1502 / Music Computers
103

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.