-
PP, I have to disagree with that. I find it funny the way people think of each platform we had in the past. For example, lot of people say that X58 was an enthusiast platform, while P67/Z68 is mainstream. I actually like P67/Z68 way more than the X58, and personally I do not need extreme tweaking options that the X58 chipset provided in the BIOS. X79 is suppose to be the next enthusiast platform, hence the naming Sandy Bridge E (Enthusiast). X79 should provide the user with very similar tweaking options that X58 did, but with a few more twists here an there. You will also have 6-core processors, and high-performance memory controller, going from a dual-channel from the P67/Z68 to a quad-channel DDR3-1333MHz memory controller. Either way, i do not always look at the enthusiast category as the most tweakable platform , but also at its performance. From what I've heard, performance should be slightly higher than what X58 had on the six-core chips and the SB-E chips should have the same architecture as the current SB processors but without the integrated graphics portion, therefore providing almost the same possible overclocking potential if the cooling is right. Those CPUs should be higher TDP so more cooling will be needed to get the chips to run at what current SB chips are running at.
-
I know the specs and the proclaimed target audience, but just from looking back at it I seriously think it is more of a workstation type thing. Also, 1155 IS mainstream, just like my current 1156 was. Most all people like Sandy Bridge better because it out performs X58 in almost all areas, clocks higher, is cheaper, and cooler too.
Seriously though, who needs more than 8GB on an enthusiast platform? Workstation. I don't even get any higher scores in synthetic gaming benchmarks going from 4gb to 8gb. Who needs all that RAM bandwidth? Workstation. See what I'm getting at? I doubt seriously there will be a difference in 3dmark between 8gb and 64gb. Just in my eyes points to a different literal target audience while will be selling to the people who have more money than brains.
-
You got a great point once again. I agree with your views as well, though isn't enthusiast the best of the best? You might not see a performance difference in gaming with 64GB, but isn't a fast video editing or 3D system an enthusiast system if it shows a big performance increase in that area? It's like saying it is an enthusiast system if it performs excellent in games, but not an enthusiast system for Video. Sure it's a workstation, and its mainly oriented for that due to the amount of memory slots they have, though I would see it more of a workstation system if they would have left the SAS portion of the chipset as it was rumored earlier this year. You see where I'm getting at? Basically I look at an "enthusiast" as something that describes something that allows a certain type of person to see a big performance increase in some area. It doesn't matter if it is 3D, word processing, Gaming, music, or anything. Just my thoughts. I'd like to hear what you think.
-
I have to agree with peter on this one as i use photochop ALOT!!! and it loves its memory... and video encoding/transcoding/etc which also loves memory as well.
-
I suppose yall are right, but I don't think the motherboard manufacturers agree with you. This kit requires 8 slots and most of the enthusiast boards only have 4. I don't see an enthusiast as the same guys of "if it's more it's better" or that mentality. I've seen so called enthusiasts with the MARS 580 SLI, 990X system, and only 12GB of RAM, but it's Dominator GT. I don't use chopshop if any at all so I guess I know what you're saying, but I don't. Peter if you can show me CS5/4 hogging up all of your 16GB of RAM then I'll have to agree. If not, then I'll have to sit on my own opinion on this one. I still see a mass amount of RAM like that being used in a workstation area or server for cloud computing and VM usage. That or Hollywood 3D/CGI work. I just don't see those guys spending all this cash on a 6 core flashy machine when they can use that money to get an 8-12 core server loaded with RAM and Tesla.
My definition of a hardware enthusiast is a guy who wants the absolute best in gaming and benchmarking. Or just the guy who absolutely has to have the latest and greatest hardware with that flashy water cooling loop. If I had the money or means necessary, I would be one of these guys. Instead I'm a Mainstream enthusiast who likes to OC the crap out of his hardware =D
-
Hey PP, when I get home and things slow down for me a bit, I'll prove filling up 16GBs in CS5 is easy with just a partial project. So having a full project would eat up a lot more. i remember one of the reviewers at another site came to me regarding some After Effects tests because he got a 128GB memory review and he didn't have anything to test it with. I whooped together a 20 second video that at up about 111GB of memory in After Effects. Hard to believe but it's true. I'll show you when I have a little free time. I just feel like sleeping right now.
-
-
I will have to agree that having a lot of memory that a lot of programs take advantage of it. Corel Draw/Photo Paint is another programs that likes to have a lot of memory available as it puts your current project into memory first.
-
PP, When I get home today I'll take a screenshot of how the memory gets allocated with all that information within just seconds of a footage being played back on After Effects. The way I think After Effects works is that the effects that it renders gets put in uncompressed form to the memory. This way in case you make a slight change on the video, lets say brightness, then it will only re-render the brightness part of the video and not the other parts that you might have edited. If it would put the data to the hard drive uncompressed, that would hog down the PC's performance and it would take 10-100x longer to get something done, as now it only accesses the memory at a much higher bandwidth and is able to process that data right away.
So lets say you have a video with 20 layers. The video is a 30sec full HD 1920x1080 and an uncompressed rendered file would have a 35mb/s result. So 30sec * 35mb/s = 1050MB RAM. Now add those extra layers that get rendered separately (might not be 35mb/s file size), but lets say each of those layers uses about 10mb/s, then that would be 20 layers * 30 sec = equivalent to 600 sec * 10mb/s = 6000MB RAM. That's a total of 7050MBs of RAM. My idea of how After Effects works might not be correct or true, but that's the only way I can see it hogging up so much memory.
Give me a few hours to get home and take a screenshot.
-
The moment of truth... here we have After Effects running with about a 20 second video. If you can see only 3-4 seconds got rendered... it's the green bar above the timeline showing you which part got rendered. After you get to the part where your memory runs out, it starts cutting away from previous parts, so technically you would have to re-render to watch that part again.
Right click on the middle image and open the link to see it maximized.
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n..._available.jpg
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...2/ram_used.jpg
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n.../ram_freed.jpg
-
So question, and this was my point from the beginning. Who is going to spend all this money on custom SB-E parts and a (what would probably be) totally expensive 64GB kit to run programs like this? Besides free lancers or, you, most companies who do this kind of work will most likely buy from Dell or whoever. BUT you did prove my point that this would cater more to a workstation person more than an "enthusiast" of sorts.
All in all, my opinion was that this isn't exactly an enthusiast platform but to my eyes is more of a workstation workhorse or a poor mans super computer. This is probably the only platform I have thought this way about, but I just don't see any programs for the regular person or enthusiast to use this much coming out in this platforms lifetime.
