• This forum is the machine-generated translation of www.cad3d.it/forum1 - the Italian design community. Several terms are not translated correctly.

workstation manufacturers

  • Thread starter Thread starter gil
  • Start date Start date

gil

Guest
Bye!
I wanted to look at some workstation configurations and understand the cost.
I was very attentive to the computer world, but today I would not distinguish a ram ddr2 counter from a ddr3. Therefore I preferred to rely on a great producer who might cost a little more but at least I'm sure that what he sells is not a prototype.

the only manufacturer found selling workstations designed for graphics is by its precision series.
I didn't travail anything of acer, asus, thosiba etcc.
Can you tell me where I can look? mine is just a curiosity, a "giro" cognitive, but we say that the only house should stay around 1'000 euros.
 
gil said:
from the site Lean You don't understand a dry fig! :
What do they keep him doing a site? ?
Click to expand...
It was better when it was called ibm... an exceptional site. . swipe, visually disappointing, without frizzi, lazzi, banner, toolbar... You wondered who was the creative in depressive crisis that had done it... but then you found yourself in 4-click-4 on the page you were looking for, just like you expected, just where you were looking for it... It wasn't a case.

sites so nobody does them anymore. live facial and meline various...:frown:
 
Oldwarper said:
It was better when it was called ibm... an exceptional site. . swipe, visually disappointing, without frizzi, lazzi, banner, toolbar... You wondered who was the creative in depressive crisis that had done it... but then you found yourself in 4-click-4 on the page you were looking for, just like you expected, just where you were looking for it... It wasn't a case.

sites so nobody does them anymore. live facial and meline various...:frown:
Click to expand...
the page in Italian is troubled, in the Swiss one (French) there is a wonder (it was the first I consulted, it comes out by default).
have wronged several links on the Italian page.
 
Mike1967 said:
the page in Italian is troubled, in the Swiss one (French) there is a wonder (it was the first I consulted, it comes out by default).
have wronged several links on the Italian page.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the very old site of ibm, that of the "golden times" as the travelstars were not Hitachi, the printers did not recognize and the computers did not read... and os/2 you still lived in software solutions...:frown:
 
I wondered, many workstations use xeon processors. However the cost of these is comparable to those of an i7 core. Although the xeon series should be top-end.
So, in practice, what is the difference between these two processors?
for a graphic workstation without big pretenses which should be used?
 
gil said:
I wondered, many workstations use xeon processors. However the cost of these is comparable to those of an i7 core. Although the xeon series should be top-end.
So, in practice, what is the difference between these two processors?
for a graphic workstation without big pretenses which should be used?
Click to expand...
I would say a fast i7 without doubt (2700 or 2600), maybe the difference in the graphics card (quadro 2000 or 4000).

the xeon series has greater cache (small increase in performance and stability if you make calculation) and greater availability (especially in the future) of versions to more than 4 physical cores (also here the flexibility is for those who make intensive use of the cpu for calculation fem/cfd or rendering).
 
relaunch by placing this question (if the section mod can break the thread): Do you think there are significant advantages for a calculation workstation from the transition to a dual-channel ram (1155) to a tri-channel (1366) or quad channel (2011)? or is it better to invest (for example) in a greater quantity of ram?
 
I just looked at this doubt. the series precision t3500 bases the processor intel core i3, discreet, but not excellent.
a possible upgrade includes only xeon series processors and not the possibility to put an i5 or i7.

other manufacturers, instead, propose these last processors in their workstations. at the end the cost is very similar. So I wonder, is it better than a xeon or an i7 to make graphics?


sure that xeon being studied for servers does not lack functions that instead has i7?
 
the xeon at the limit has 0.1-0,2ghz less (you don't notice), it costs more, but for all the time it is higher than the i7 (no core available, stability, cache, ...).

depends also on what you mean by graphics: 3d graphics (directx? opengl?) with high number of frames per second? 3d graphics (directx? opengl?) with low fps number but very large assemblies? rendering 2d? table 2d?
 
as written on another topic my mid-range notebook with i7 is clearly faster than the ws with xeon 5xxx of not even a year, which in fact I resended.

xeon is still based on old architecture, i7 sandybridge is much faster. tried on the skin.

rendering of the same file with hypershot:
ws with xeon 5xxx and fx1800 picture: 6 hours
nb with i7 and gt540m: 3 hours
 
delysid, good information.

the use I think of the workstation is eclectic enough, that is:

1) on the 2d I do very simple stuff, no photoshop, high resolution photo editing.
2) 3d design of assemblies (for me big are 5'000 parts, I'm in comfortable)
3) make photorealistics (only pictures, discreet level, so nothing phantasmic)
4) make photorealistic video of short duration 3-6 minutes (basic level, even here I will not make who knows)
 

Forum statistics

Threads
44,997
Messages
339,767
Members
4
Latest member
ibt

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 70 (members: 0, guests: 70)
Back
Top