Another Home Brew- Intel Core i7 PC Build

Scott_Quier

Jeff has posted his build photos for his killer computer so I figured I should do the same.

But first, do you know how long it takes to open three Canon 50D RAW files in LR 2.3, apply some global adjustments, and then open them all up in Photoshop CS3 when you have an AMD 4600+ running at something like 1.8GHz and a whopping 2GB of RAM ... and running WinXP SP2 (32-bit)? Me neither - I gave up after more than just a few minutes as a lost cause. Now you know why I spent the money on this machine.

I'm lucky in that I didn't have to start from scratch like Jeff did. I already had a pair of 500GB drives, a good and well ventilated case, a Lightscribe compatible DVD/CD RW drive, yada yada yada. All I needed to get was a new MBO, a processor, and some memory. In fact, I already had a copy of WinXP 64-bit laying around the house - the result of a failed attempt a couple of years ago.

So here's what I have

1. First the MBO (link) and the heatsink (link for that as well). For video, I have an old WinFast 7600 GT (125MB, series 7 Nvidia card) driving a pair of monitors. The MBO will host 4 video cards (see the blue and orange card slots?), running in tandem to drive a single monitor if you just have to get the fastest video update possible - hhhmmmm that's not me - I'm doing just fine.


2. Can't mount the heat sink without some thermal transfer compound. A recent review (don't ask me where) indicated that this is one of the best - beating out arctic silver 5 (who knew?)


3. As you can see, surfaces weren't very flat. So, inspected both the CPU and the heatsink with the sharp edge of a razor knife blade and I determined they were both a bit convex - not a good thing. A little wet/dry sanding (starting with 220, then 320, then 400, and finishing with 600 grit - some people go as far as 2000 grit - that's just overkill) on the heatsink and it's now just a little concave. It mates well with the CPU now (ooop, sorry no picture of that).


4. Here's the heat sink attached to the MBO. For a sense of scale, understand that the MBO is 12.0" x 9.6" (the edge nearest camera is the 12" side). Is that a monster heatsink or what?


5. Gotta have some memory - in this case, only 6GB


6. And now it's installed


7. Put that 120mm x 120mm x 25mm fan on the heatsink and things just look outta control


8. This is a picture of the OEM heatsink. According to all the tests, this think has a bit of trouble keeping the temperature of the CPU below something like 45 degrees (C). My monster is clipping right along at about 37 or 38 and the CPU fan is spinning a nice quite 1250RPM.


9. Same thing, but against the size for the CPU integrated heatsink. You can see that the OEM heatsink is only going to come into contact with about 60% of the CPU. Not so good for thermal conductivity where you want as much contact as you can get.


10. And this is the cool thing. I grabbed this shot while exporting 41 full-sized, full-quality JPGs from LR2.3 (the JPG files ranged in size from 2.8MB to 14.0MB. Oh and here's the cool thing - those 41 JPG files took exactly 1.833 minutes (that's 1m50s) to generate - hardly enough time to get up and get a stretch. So, at stock settings (nothing over-clocked yet), this amounts to about 1 every 2.68 seconds - actual measurements and not quite as fast as Jeff is getting out of his.


No pictures of the case - it's nothing special and has been in use for at least a year, maybe two so definitely not cutting edge. It's got two 120x120x25 case fans, one in front and one in back, that are speed controlled by the MBO to keep the air moving through the box. Oh, and there's a fan on the power supply (D'oh). And, it's quiet - the chassis fans are running at approx 1450 RPM.

I did have one snafu - the first MBO I received would not recognize all the memory. In fact, it would only see the memory in the first slot. So, an RMA and 12 days later .... it's all working soooo nicely!

Some ask the build vs. buy question. The return (cost savings) on building over buying isn't what it used to be, but it's still very much worth the effort. And for those that are hesitant .... I'm of the firm opinion that if one can consistantly put a round peg in the round hole on a regular basis (pull out your child's Fisher Price toys to check) then building a computer from parts should not be a big deal. A little research, a little talking/networking to get valid opinions and it's easy street all the way!

Was the upgrade worth the expense and time - oh, yeah!

Scott_Quier

Window 7 Results
I got a full, legal copy of the Windows 7 RC 1 and installed it and LR 2.3 on disk I have laying around. Copied over some 50 DNG files and did an export to full quality JPG (just like above).

Taking a look at file creation times, I got an average of 1.9 seconds per JPG, files ranging in size from 5.5MB to 13.5MB.

It might make a difference - the LR version I installed on Win7 is the 64-bit version and that on WinXP-64 is the 32-bit version.

Moogle Pepper

Scott...

What the heck kind of heatsink is that?! Miniature skyscrapers?! I sure hope it is on secure, cause that's a lot of weight for that corner of the MB. Whew!

Although that is a pretty nice rig you got there!

Scott_Quier

Moogle Pepper wrote:

Scott...

What the heck kind of heatsink is that?! Miniature skyscrapers?! I sure hope it is on secure, cause that's a lot of weight for that corner of the MB. Whew!

Although that is a pretty nice rig you got there!

In image #1, do you see the black thing directly below the heatsink? That is on the back side of the MB and there's 4 screw posts that bolt that thing down to the MB. Then, you mount the bottom two bars on the screw posts. Now, put the heatsink on top of the CPU, pass that first black bar across the top of the heatsink contact plate and screw that thing down tight to the first two black bars with spring loaded screws. Believe it or not, the MB doesn't bend at all - plus the heatsink isn't has heavy as it appears.

jeffreaux2

Very nice Scott.....and your photography here looks great as well!!

One question?
-What version of Photoshop are you using?

-In Photoshops preferences, how much of that 6g of memory did it detect?

Okay that was two questions, since Im on a roll...

-How much of the detected memory is photoshop setting aside for itself?

I dont remember the exact #, but mine had detected and allocated considerably less than 12 gigs....maybe because I only had 6 gigs installed when I installed the Adobe Creative Suite. I think, though , that it was around 3.7 gigs or so.

Think I should remove/reinstall PS with all 6 sticks in?

Scott_Quier

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Very nice Scott.....and your photography here looks great as well!!

One question?
-What version of Photoshop are you using?

CS3

jeffreaux2 wrote:

-In Photoshops preferences, how much of that 6g of memory did it detect?

I have 6GB of memory. Photoshop sees 3255MB of that. And, here's why --- Photoshop is a 32-bit application and there isn't a 64-bit version yet available.

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Okay that was two questions, since Im on a roll...

-How much of the detected memory is photoshop setting aside for itself?

1790MB. I may change that later as there's lots of memoy above 3.2G left over for the O/S. I'll have to do some research - I know I read discussion about this on DGrin - just have to find them.

jeffreaux2 wrote:

I dont remember the exact #, but mine had detected and allocated considerably less than 12 gigs....maybe because I only had 6 gigs installed when I installed the Adobe Creative Suite. I think, though , that it was around 3.7 gigs or so.

Think I should remove/reinstall PS with all 6 sticks in?

NO.

Scott_Quier

Scott_Quier wrote:

I got a full, legal copy of the Windows 7 RC 1 and installed it and LR 2.3 on disk I have laying around. Copied over some 50 DNG files and did an export to full quality JPG (just like above).

Taking a look at file creation times, I got an average of 1.9 seconds per JPG, files ranging in size from 5.5MB to 13.5MB.

It might make a difference - the LR version I installed on Win7 is the 64-bit version and that on WinXP-64 is the 32-bit version.

I just installed LR 64-bit on the WinXP-64 partion and ran the JPG export exercise for 100 images. Total time from when the first was generated to when the last was generated was exactly 200 seconds. Not a significant deviation/difference from from the timings attained on Win7.

Moogle Pepper

I think your heat sink choice is cooler than Jeff's. Well no pun intended.

jeffreaux2

Scott_Quier wrote:

CS3I have 6GB of memory. Photoshop sees 3255MB of that. And, here's why --- Photoshop is a 32-bit application and there isn't a 64-bit version yet available.1790MB. I may change that later as there's lots of memoy above 3.2G left over for the O/S. I'll have to do some research - I know I read discussion about this on DGrin - just have to find them.
NO.

I seem to remember reading...somewhere?....that you could indeed go in there and "make" photoshop use more memory......but I am getting older and maybe that was just a dream. I allocated all that it detected, but left the page filing stuff alone for now as I still have another drive to install and allocate for that later. If you figure my "dream" out...Im all ears!

FWIW, when I bought my last pc....and it was a screamer in its day....I installed Adobe Premier on it for video editing. It ran REALLY clunky. I eventually bought the Premiere Elements version....and have used this for years as a video editor and slideshow creator.....but....it took a LONG time fine tuning the settings to get it to not run clunky...buggy....unstable.....and even so...it has always run slowish. NOW....though...on the core i7 I have installed Premiere ProCS3 and played with it a bit...with all it's bells/whistles on.....and it runs like buttah ....very very smooth and responsive. Now.....where did I put that book on how to even use premiere pro? Its much less intuitive than the E version!!!


I may skip altogether on Adobe for video and slideshows. There are other editors out there that are more friendly with assorted formats.

Hopefully I can give you some accurate export timings once I get mine back together. I certainly want to compare it apples to apples with my old system.....if only to justify the expense in my own mind!

jeffreaux2

Moogle Pepper wrote:

I think your heat sink choice is cooler than Jeff's. Well no pun intended.

We have identical heat sinks......thanks to Scott for sending me to read a great review on the megahalems. Only the fan is different....as it actually ships fanless.

Moogle Pepper

jeffreaux2 wrote:

We have identical heat sinks......thanks to Scott for sending me to read a great review on the megahalems. Only the fan is different....as it actually ships fanless.

:uhoh

haha! Well.. umm.... I saw the fan on your heat sink, but not the heat sink. My bad.

Scott_Quier

jeffreaux2 wrote:

I seem to remember reading...somewhere?....that you could indeed go in there and "make" photoshop use more memory......but I am getting older and maybe that was just a dream. I allocated all that it detected, but left the page filing stuff alone for now as I still have another drive to install and allocate for that later. If you figure my "dream" out...Im all ears!

Jeff ... Check out this page Optimize performance of Photoshop CS3 on Windows XP and Vista for more information - lots of info there. The discussion about setting up memory is about 1/2 way down the page. I guess I'm going to go home this afternoon and do some tweaking!:D