I posted something similar a while back here, but that thread is kinda dead now. And with the release of Tom's Core2 article, i thought i might get some more widespread responses. Anyway, i am planning to upgrade my current workstation for a new one. Here are my current specs:

Pentium 4 3.73 GHz @ 1066 MHz FSB
ASUS P5AD2-E Premium i925XE
Enermax Noisetaker 500W
2Gb Corsair XMS2 DDR2 711 Mhz
ATi FireGL V7100 256Mb PCIe
4 x Maxtor 250Gb 7200rpm
SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS

Now, before i post the two system specs i am considering, let me say what i use my workstation for. This will be my home workstation, in addition to being a general use home computer, it needs to be a killer gaming rig, as i am a gamer; and it needs to serve as a DCC (digital content creation) workstation. I am a digital animator, graphic artist, 3D modeler, texture creator, and video editor. I need MAXIMUM performance when rendering video (from both 3D animation programs and video editing programs). I can't be waiting 8 hours for something to render when it could take 4 hours if i had a different system. Here are some of the programs i commonly use:

For DCC and video editing (many of these are used daily):
Discreet 3D Studio MAX 8 (CAN be multithreaded)
NewTek Lightwave 8.5 (CAN be multithreaded)
Alias Maya 6 (CAN be multithreaded)
Adobe After Effects 6.5 (CAN be multithreaded)
Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5 (CAN be multithreaded)
Roxio Media Creator 8
Adobe Encore DVD 1.5
Adobe Photoshop CS
Adobe ImageReady CS
Corel Paint Shop Pro X
Ahead Nero 7

In addition i also use everyday programs like IE, Firefox, Bittorrent, MS office, Windows media player, you know the common role stuff. I'll also be using this rig as my gaming PC. I'm not a heavy FPS player, i play mostly games like:

Civilization 4
Galactic Civilizations 2
Homeworld 2
Nexus
SW battlefront2
SW empire at war
Earth 2160
Command and Conquer
Age of Empires
etc...

So this machine must be best optimized for DCC and video editing, AND be a gaming powerhouse. So that brings me back to which is best for me? A conroe system? Or a dual Woodcrest system? Let's assume for the time being money is NOT an issue.

Here are the two candidates i am considering (note these specs have changed since my origional post):

Woodcrest based:
Intel Xeon 5140 (2.33Ghz 1333MHz FSB)
Intel Xeon 5140 (2.33Ghz 1333MHz FSB)
ASUS DSBF-D/SAS Intel 5000p chipset motherboard
4 GB (4 x 1 GB) Kingston DDR2 667MHz FB-DIMMs
Thermaltake ToughPower ATX/EPS12V 650W PSU
ATi Radeon X1900XTX PCIe
Creative Soundblaster X-Fi PCI
Western Digital Raptor SATA 150 GB (System Drive)

Conroe Based:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 (2.66GHz 1066MHz FSB)
ASUS P5WDG2-WS Intel 975X chipset motherboard
4 GB (4 x 1 GB) Corsair XMS2 DDR2 675Mhz SDRAM
Thermaltake ToughPower ATX/EPS12V 650W PSU
ATi Radeon X1900XTX PCIe
Creative Soundblaster X-Fi PCI
Western Digital Raptor SATA 150 GB (System Drive)

At the moment i am leaning toward the Dual Woodcrest system because it will give me maximum benifit in my DCC programs (esp those than can be multithreaded), while still performing as well in gaming. Another thing to keep in mind is that this workstation MUST last at least 2 years WITHOUT being upgraded and WITHOUT being replaced. Meaning i can't come back in 6 months or a year and change parts around or processors. It has to last in it's current configuration.

So, pros? cons? opinions? concerns? suggestions?





P.S.
No flaming please!
I'm not considering AMD solutions (please no AMD suggestions).

For your needs I'd definitley go for the 51xx. It will get you two quad core sockets next year. Core 2 is more for enthusiasts. All wkstas SHOULD be 51xx. Photoshop CS will fly with 4 cores. It is multithreaded. Maya will thank you also. Have you thought about X64? Native solutions should start coming out soon as MS moves all server products to X64.

If you work from home it will pay for itself pretty quick. Doubling my cores did wonders for me.

Well i've thought about X64, but i was afraid of driver issues, esp with things like my printer/scanner, old FFB joystick, etc... etc... I was also under the impression that some software, games especially, might not run under X64?

And yes, i do work from home, that's why i can't afford spending excess time on 16 hour renders that could take less.

I used X64 for awhile, drivers weren't the problem at the time. My HP printer loaded right up Logitech Wireless works great and every game I tried played well except for one which had a launcher problem not a "game" problem. I went back to XP because there was no IE7 which is a nightmare. FF was chewing up all my RAM and IE32 crashed every 10 minutes while IE 64 was 10% faster but HAD NO PLUGINS or TOOLBARs.

You'd be OK now as IE7 Beta 3 works great. MS is putting more emphasis on X64 now so by mid next year, they may stop promoting X86. it will save them manuf costs and push others to start moving faster to mainstream X64.

I used X64 for awhile, drivers weren't the problem at the time. My HP printer loaded right up Logitech Wireless works great and every game I tried played well except for one which had a launcher problem not a "game" problem. I went back to XP because there was no IE7 which is a nightmare. FF was chewing up all my RAM and IE32 crashed every 10 minutes while IE 64 was 10% faster but HAD NO PLUGINS or TOOLBARs.

You'd be OK now as IE7 Beta 3 works great. MS is putting more emphasis on X64 now so by mid next year, they may stop promoting X86. it will save them manuf costs and push others to start moving faster to mainstream X64.

While the X64 is a great processor especially for MP systems, Woodcrest outperforms X64 in DP systems and uses less power (especially under full load). But the X64 scaled much better than woodcrest if you are going to be using more than 2 processors. If you want to go to 4 processors (8 cores) then the X64 would be better, but for 2 processors, woodcrest is definitely your best bet, and the 4 cores will perform much better than the 2 cores on the conroe system for all of the multithreaded apps you will be using.

If you plan on using 4 GB of RAM I suggest going to a 64-bit version of XP or waiting until a 64-bit version of Vista comes out. With a 32-bit version of XP, your system won't be able to use all 4 GB (instead more like 3.2 - 3.6 GB). Also waiting for a 64-bit version of Vista will likely bring better driver support as it will likely become the most common platform in the future.

I used X64 for awhile, drivers weren't the problem at the time. My HP printer loaded right up Logitech Wireless works great and every game I tried played well except for one which had a launcher problem not a "game" problem. I went back to XP because there was no IE7 which is a nightmare. FF was chewing up all my RAM and IE32 crashed every 10 minutes while IE 64 was 10% faster but HAD NO PLUGINS or TOOLBARs.

You'd be OK now as IE7 Beta 3 works great. MS is putting more emphasis on X64 now so by mid next year, they may stop promoting X86. it will save them manuf costs and push others to start moving faster to mainstream X64.

While the X64 is a great processor especially for MP systems, Woodcrest outperforms X64 in DP systems and uses less power (especially under full load). But the X64 scaled much better than woodcrest if you are going to be using more than 2 processors. If you want to go to 4 processors (8 cores) then the X64 would be better, but for 2 processors, woodcrest is definitely your best bet, and the 4 cores will perform much better than the 2 cores on the conroe system for all of the multithreaded apps you will be using.


X64 is the name of the OS not the chip.

It's 3.25GB. I know. I have to go back to X64 or go to 2003 or lose .75 GB. I'm leaning towards 2003 Server, but i have a need for server. I would definitely go with X64 in his case even if he is getting less than 4GB.

Yea, I couldn't remember what the cut off point was for the RAM. In his case, Server 2003 wouldn't be a good choice because he wants to game and sound card support in server 2003 sucks. Very few companies offer drivers for 03 and the list of drivers 03 supports natively is really short. The same goes for graphics cards as well. I've heard of people using XP drivers to get cards to work but it can be glitchy or require modification. For a computer that will be used a work computer I wouldn't recommend this.

It's 3.25GB. I know. I have to go back to X64 or go to 2003 or lose .75 GB. I'm leaning towards 2003 Server, but i have a need for server. I would definitely go with X64 in his case even if he is getting less than 4GB.

Are you sure of the 3.25 figure, on XP pro?

It's 3.25GB. I know. I have to go back to X64 or go to 2003 or lose .75 GB. I'm leaning towards 2003 Server, but i have a need for server. I would definitely go with X64 in his case even if he is getting less than 4GB.

Are you sure of the 3.25 figure, on XP pro?

I'm looking at it right now. I tried Memory hole remapping HW and SW and it still says 3.25GB in the Computer properties but 4GB in BIOS and CPUz. I had heard it took some but I had hoped it wasn't that much. Addressability on X64 is like TBs, so it will see it all.

I used X64 for awhile, drivers weren't the problem at the time. My HP printer loaded right up Logitech Wireless works great and every game I tried played well except for one which had a launcher problem not a "game" problem. I went back to XP because there was no IE7 which is a nightmare. FF was chewing up all my RAM and IE32 crashed every 10 minutes while IE 64 was 10% faster but HAD NO PLUGINS or TOOLBARs.

You'd be OK now as IE7 Beta 3 works great. MS is putting more emphasis on X64 now so by mid next year, they may stop promoting X86. it will save them manuf costs and push others to start moving faster to mainstream X64.

While the X64 is a great processor especially for MP systems, Woodcrest outperforms X64 in DP systems and uses less power (especially under full load). But the X64 scaled much better than woodcrest if you are going to be using more than 2 processors. If you want to go to 4 processors (8 cores) then the X64 would be better, but for 2 processors, woodcrest is definitely your best bet, and the 4 cores will perform much better than the 2 cores on the conroe system for all of the multithreaded apps you will be using.


X64 is the name of the OS not the chip.

I am sure he got the point of the post. I meant Opteron.

It's the same kernel with different services. You can turn on DX and the drivers will work fine. MS posts those because they don't want people using too many different brands for server.