Slashdot Mirror
Building The Broadcast Box
Mortin writes "The folks at Icrontic have a neat article up titled "The Broadcast Box." They unleashed a room full of designers to build an affordable system, and this 24-page article shows what they came up with, along with benchmarks, design specs, and cost analysis."
Database error of some sort.
It worked for me, here is the text of the article.
Introduction
The power to create. Creative souls toil away inside the walls of the design department or I the dark confines of an edit suite in a television station. As the production manager I often see the graphic designers leaning back in their chairs staring at their monitors. When questioned I usually get the response..."rendering". I'm often told there's a need for a second or third computer so they can do other work while one system is busy rendering. In the broadcast environment rendering usually means 1-4 hour waits for finished elements. If waiting for one system to finish a piece for use in commercial or promotion it can be hell when there are deadlines to meet. Time is money. Waiting is frustration. Hardware should not dictate creativity.
People often assume that I work with immensely powerful computing power in the television production world. Sometimes I do and those computers can come with price tags that the computer itself couldn't work out. Professional 2D/3D workstations are thought of as expensive and in today's market of shrinking profit margins the saying that you have to spend money to make money takes a back seat come capital request time.
So we here at Icrontic set out to build a bigger, better, badder workstation on a home PC budget.
The question of "what is the best" is not easily answered. Determining what is the best for your needs and expectations is a matter of knowing what your demands are and learning how to fulfill them. What is expected from the PC workstation? Do you want fast renders? Do you want to easily manipulate complex 3D scenes or drawings? Do you need the fastest processor, biggest video card, the most RAM or the fastest hard drives?
Can you do more for less?
That's what every manager wants to hear especially when assembling the yearly departmental budget. I'm in a unique position in my professional life and it allows a look at this problem from many sides; financial, user and builder. I wear one hat as the department manager. I wear a second hat as an active writer/producer/director who works daily with the department on television commercial projects. I wear a third hat as PR manager and a hardware reviewer for Icrontic. It means that I have no one to complain to but myself when it comes to the equipment not being fast enough. It also leaves me frustrated that the IT people dictate that I have to buy overpriced workstations when I know I can build two or even three systems for the same price.
So I unleashed a room full of designers on an affordable system we put together. (The image reminded me of a commercial, now a decade or three old, that features a gorilla doing his best to destroy a piece of luggage.) The designers are rooted in the MAC world and if a PC is required it has to be the hugely expensive and well-known order off the web workstations. (I'm not going to point fingers) Even the art director's personal home system is a three to four thousand USD dual 1.7 GHz Xeon workstation with an nVidia Quadro card.
Did we do it?
Simple answer? There isn't one. What looks good on paper may not perform well in reality. Benchmarks give some information but not the complete experience. More isn't necessarily better.
The best is a matter of debate but the smart consumer knows a lot about what they expect, a little about how it may work together and enough to choose the right combination of hardware. The following pages are just that; a guide to determine your expectations, answers to how it all works and a little bit of knowledge to make the right choices. Armed with this information you can more easily navigate the world of what's best for you through the ever-changing landscape of computer technology.
As a professional editor, I've seen the industry's focus shift radically over the past ten years. When I got out of college, broadcast and post houses all wanted the same thing: single-use boxes with live output for on-air or linear editing. However, as uncompressed non-linear editing made disk-based editing an online option, the needs of broadcast and post diverged. Or did they?
I train compositors on occasion at TV stations and I'm constantly surprised how many render-heavy tools they use in spite of the time constraints. It seems they want [need] the same capabilities and tool sets a post house might need, but with the ability to make quick changes and themed templates.
Today, people ask for [demand actully] collaborative tools. Even one-man-band outfits are becomming frustrated with turnkey systems with proprietary file formats and incompatible toolsets.
Manifesto: Editors demand open systems with portable project files, open media formats.
I work on an sgi Octane right now, but once we go HD, we're looking at something as simple and cheap as a beefy Final Cut Pro system. Right now we have an Avid offline and a Jaleo online which takl to each other with 1970's era EDLs. Even all-Avid facilities don't yet have the kind of transperancy and portability that we really need.
With a low powered FCP offline and a more powerful setup in the other room, you can swap whole projects back and forth [theoretically] with no information loss.
Of course, we'll just hack the splash screen in ResEdit so our high-fallutin' clients don't notice the drop in prestige...
The System
The broadcast box:
AMD 2100+ Thoroughbred Processor
ABIT AT7 motherboard
Matrox Parhelia 512 triple head video card
2 x 512 MB Micron PC2100 RAM
Sony 52x CD
LG 32x10x40x CDRW
40 GB Maxtor ATA133 Hard Drive
60 GB Maxtor ATA133 Hard Drive
2 x Samsung 950p 19" Monitors
USB Keyboard and Logitech USB wireless Optical Mouse
Globalwin CAK4-76T HSF
AMK SX1000 modded PC case (window, fans, cables, loom)
Enermax 465 Watt FC PSU
Windows XP Professional
Digital Doc5
The price tag came in just over $3500 Canadian or approximately $2200 USD.* That's 70% less than the well known pre-configured workstations priced out initially. It may still be expensive for family use but it had to do a little more. The crucial step in choosing a system is determining what is expected of it. If it is there to surf the Internet, write the occasional school essay and send/receive e-mail then a very economically priced computer can be built.
It's just that e-mail was the last of the concerns in a workstation.
*prices including monitors and OS as of September 1, 02 currency converted from CND to USD. Source: www.atic.ca
Choosing Chips Pt. 1
At AMD we deliver the kind of smart, essential semiconductor-based products and platforms that work best to meet your needs.
Today, Intel is behind everything from the fastest processor in the world to the cables that power high-speed Internet.
Choosing chips.
Choosing a system does begin with the processor as it determines choice of RAM and motherboard. This may lead to price differences that greatly affect the end product performance especially where a budget is concerned.
Choosing a processor used to be as simple as the most MHz for your money then add the other components to fit the budget. Intel has exploited public perception by raising the MHz bar ever higher. The question remains; is more...better?
AMD or INTEL: which to choose? These two companies play a rival game akin to David and Goliath where Intel's market share and marketing capital seemingly overwhelm AMD. Meanwhile AMD is the enthusiast's choice and many of these enthusiasts vehemently defend AMD for performance and where the smart money is. It's a lively discussion on whether the tables have turned and if INTEL is on the defense while AMD is on the offense. One cannot ignore the fact that the balance of power is shifting with AMD clawing away at INTEL market share. Why AMD is gaining chips away at the very foundation of INTEL claims that faster is better.
"The introduction of the highest-performing PC processor in the world is a victory for application performance and a resounding defeat for the 'megahertz myth,'" said Ed Ellett, vice president of marketing for AMD's Computation Products Group. "As the performance leader, the AMD Athlon XP processor 2600+ reigns as the superior choice and delivers outstanding application performance for richer, high-powered digital computing."
The chip wars float around catch phrases to attract consumer attention. The most common is the megahertz or gigahertz rating. The buying public believes more is better. INTEL proudly trumpets this fact and AMD challenges it squarely. In side by side comparisons between INTEL and AMD processors the difference in the performance line between the two can be very thin. To some the choice is quite simple but if it's not then you need to know a little bit about what is coming to market and why to at least help in the decision process between models of processors.
The latest advancement is the recent move from 0.18-micron technology to 0.13-micron technology by both INTEL and AMD.
What's a micron and how big is it?
A micron is pretty darn small. There are twenty-five thousand four hundred microns to one inch. A human hair can be anywhere from about 40 to 300 microns wide. A powerful microscope is needed to see an object that is one micron wide. An object that is one micron wide is smaller than most bacteria. That's how small a micron is.
AMD and INTEL have reduced processor manufacturing to the 0.13-micron scale. That means the smallest circuit in the processor is only 13 microns wide. It's not like you could use your soldering iron to fix a broken connection. This is pretty close to the nanotechnology scale that is so often bantered around in the science fiction shows we watch.
Why is smaller better? Processor chips are etched onto wafers of silicon. If the overall size of the chip is reduced then more chips can be etched onto a single wafer of silicon. This increase in the number of chips per wafer reduces the cost of manufacture which, we hope, will be passed on to the consumer.
Processor manufacturers aim for a balance between reducing size and increasing processor capability. If a 0.18-micron processor is made using 0.13-micron technology then the overall space taken up by the circuitry is reduced. Let's put this on a scale that is easier to visualize. If a home theater system is shrunk in size by 50% and the bulky 33" TV is replaced by a flat panel TV then there would be a lot of room left over in that wall unit of yours for more stuff. You may choose to buy a smaller wall unit or cram more "stuff" into it. Perhaps a compromise could be reached between adding more "stuff" and reducing the size of the wall unit.
Processor manufactures do the same striving to reduce the overall size but still pack on more "stuff".
Choosing Chips Pt. 2
Good things in small packages.
Smaller is better and the additional "stuff" is notably an increase in L2 Cache. This may be a term that is familiar but not quite understood. Cache is small, fast memory located on the CPU. CPU Cache holds the most recently accessed code or data. This SRAM is accessed much faster than your main system memory because it's located right on the processor core. Processor manufacturers started to increase the amount of L2 Cache due to demands that software was making on the CPU. Manufacturers are also looking to increase the speed of this cache. The more data or code the L2 cache can contain and the faster it can process should mean an increase in system performance.
Voltage x resistance = bad.
The more that is packed onto a processor and the more it can do takes electrical power or voltage. This simply translates into an increase in thermal heat as MHz and technology increases. Reducing the scale or die size of the processor reduces the required voltage for the processor to properly function. An electrical signal traveling through a circuit meets resistance along the pathways. This resistance becomes heat similar to heat friction when you vigorously rub your hands together. If the distance the signal needs to traverse is reduced then the signal requires less energy to get around and thus encounters less resistance. Less voltage and less resistance equal less heat.
If the die size has been reduced then why the increase in heat as MHz increases? Quite simply no matter how small an engine is made it will get hotter as it runs faster. An important point to note is that faster processors do require more voltage at certain stages but they always generate more heat as the MHz climbs. By building processors on a smaller scale the heat curve has effectively been "bumped down" from previous, larger processor dies. AMD has also engineered other design and manufacturing tweaks to assist in the challenge of reducing thermal output and increasing speed. We all know heat is the enemy of any processor. Heat is a hot subject of discussion. Consider the following equation.
(Faster + voltage) = temperature - (fans x dBA)
This equation was just made up for this article but it states that faster requires more voltage and where temperature is the variable the number of fans or dBA of those fans must increase to provide balance to the equation in an air-cooled system. The faster you want to go means you need more cooling which could mean more fans to provide that cooling and thus more noise. There are solutions later on in this article.
Get on the bus.
The Front Side Bus speed is the MHz rating at which data is transferred to and from the processor to the rest of the system. Theoretically higher the FSB results in a faster processor. The goal is to maximize the processor speed to perform tasks quickly and efficiently. Currently the Front Side Bus with AMD processors it is at 266 MHz with speculation that AMD has a 333 MHz FSB processor in the works.
Lastly is the inner working of the processor circuitry. This cannot be easily explained but it is safe to say that each of the rivals in the chip wars are constantly developing, refining and perfecting their processors to crunch numbers faster and in greater gulps.
Now you know everything....not a chance.
This little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing when it comes to determining which processor is better. A consumer may come to the conclusion that INTEL processors are faster than AMD processors on the details that were just explained that:
The higher the MHz the better
The higher Front Side Bus Speed the better
The more L2 Cache the better
The lower the voltage the better
INTEL
AMD
Processor Frequency
2.8 GHz
2600+ (2.133GHz)
Thermal Design Power
68.4W
62 W
Bus Speed
533 MHz
133MHz (266MHz DDR)
Core Voltage
1.50 V
1.65 V
L1Cache Size
8K
128K
L2 Cache Size
512K
256K
L2 Cache Speed
2.53 GHz
2.13 GHz
Die Size
0.13 micron
0.13 micron
It's easy to see that assumptions may lead a consumer to believe that the INTEL product is a better processor. These basics may have some validity on paper but not so in the real world. Why the lesson on MHz, die size, bus speeds and cache? The lesson is not which processor is better. The lesson is to not make performance assumptions based in the belief that bigger numbers are better.
Choosing Chips Pt. 3
It's easy to see that assumptions may lead a consumer to believe that the INTEL product is a better processor. These basics may have some validity on paper but not so in the real world. Why the lesson on MHz, die size, bus speeds and cache? The lesson is not which processor is better. The lesson is to not make performance assumptions based in the belief that bigger numbers are better.
AMD has changed the fact that more MHz means better. As mentioned previously, side by side processor comparisons between INTEL and AMD chips prove this. The 64-dollar question is why?
By using a layman's analogy once again, an INTEL CPU "engine" may run at a higher RPM (MHz) but it doesn't have the equivalent torque to match the high RPM (MHz). An AMD processor may run at a lower megahertz but it does have better torque. This is an incredibly simplified explanation but it gives the needed broad brush strokes. AMD technology on how the processor is "geared" allows their processors to rival and, in some cases, surpass INTEL processors that are clocked at a much higher frequency.
So how does a consumer decide upon which processor? It's safe to say that the majority of PC buyers only care that it works and works fast enough for their needs. The average consumer either doesn't understand or could care less about Front Side Bus Speed, how many transistors there are, or how small a die is. A lot of PC buyers also do not realize that there is another choice beyond what is widely and visibly available on store shelves. AMD vs. INTEL marketing and product awareness is another topic altogether and best left alone lest we travel down another long road.
To berate a point, AMD has shown that in today's marketplace GHz is not the defining mark of a processor. The important piece to the education puzzle is how each of these processors compares in benchmark tests especially introducing the performance to cost side of the equation. There are many comparisons that pit the AMD processor against rival INTEL in the never-ending battle of who's the best. Read a couple of these reviews and they will show in the multitude of benchmark tests that these processors trade off pole positions. In one test AMD may edge out INTEL and in another INTEL may come out ahead. In most the difference between the two is a matter of seconds, frames, or a handful of points. In real world "everyday" performance there would be an almost unnoticeable difference in most applications when comparing similar processors.
Bar graphs may show who's ahead but it's important to look at the physical numbers before making a decision. Ask yourself who's ahead and by how much and in what particular application. A 2.8 GHz INTEL processor may achieve more frames per second than an AMD 2600+ in Quake but without insult, the difference is small and most likely unnoticed by the user actually playing the game unless their goal is boasting rights.
That being said what would be another deciding factor? The AMD processor is priced far more competitively than the INTEL processor which means there's more money left over to pocket or spend on more RAM, a better video card or another hard drive.
Processor Prices*
AMD
INTEL
Athlon XP 2600+ (2.13 GHz)
$300
Pentium 4 2.8 GHz
$537
Athlon XP 2400+ (2 GHz)
$200
Pentium 4 2.53 GHz
$240
Athlon XP 2200+ (1.8 GHz)
$146
Pentium 4 2.4 GHz
$206
Athlon XP 2100+ (1.73 GHz)
$112
Pentium 4 2.2 GHz
$202
Athlon XP 2000+ (1.67 GHz)
$59
Pentium 4 2.0 GHz
$161
Athlon XP 1900+ (1.6 GHz)
$78
Pentium 4 1.9 GHz
$154
Athlon XP 1800+ (1.53 GHz)
$64
Pentium 4 1.8 GHz
$139
Athlon XP 1700+ (1.47 GHz)
$59
Pentium 4 1.7 GHz
$125
Athlon XP 1600+ (1.43 GHz)
$52
Pentium 4 1.6 GHz
$117
Athlon XP 1500+ (1.4 GHz)
$53
Pentium 4 1.5 GHz
$102
*Prices in USD from www.pricewatch.com August 31, 02 Socket A/478 processors.
But you may think GHz to GHz again and wonder why you are paying $200 for an AMD 2400+ (2 GHz) when for another $6 more the 2.6 GHz Intel processor is available. A buyer may think that $6 for another point four GHz may be better. But that's just not the case. Read a review or three and there will be a performance picture that will form. Combine the performance/price analysis with your expectations and then the answer should be clearer.
The final scoff any nay-sayer of AMD product may volunteer is that of stability. Many consumers state the reason for choosing INTEL is due to the perception that INTEL systems are more stable and require less driver updates and tweaking. This may have been the case years ago but is completely false at present. Any system can be properly set up and IF LEFT ALONE will or should continue to operate as intended. AMD systems are stable. If a consumer purchases a pre-configured AMD system from a reputable source they are going to have the same "stability" experience as if they purchased a pre-configured INTEL system. Large pre-configured PC suppliers go to great lengths to ensure that all of the components as sold work reliably with each other right out of the box. Intel is also the dominant force with far more processors per PC than AMD. Software and hardware developers would choose to align and optimize their product with the processor product that is in more homes and businesses. It's a marketing move. If a consumer chooses to build the computer from individually purchased components then they run the same risk of hardware conflicts and problems regardless of processor choice.
Which processor is better? Which truck is better, Chevy or Ford? I don't think an overall clear-cut winner can be crowned but when trying to build a powerful system within a budget we think of ourselves as smart shoppers by getting the most with AMD.
The Mother of all Boards
The mother of all boards
Selecting an AMD based system has other advantages. AMD based motherboards offer a wider range of motherboard configuration options than rival INTEL based motherboards. Which AMD driven motherboard is a matter of the requirements mixed with a dash of personal experience, a pinch of recommendations from friends, a paragraph or twenty from the forums and a page or four or sixty of research.
I admit I've had a preference for ABIT product. I've grown to rely on ABIT for their stability and flexibility. They offer a wide range of choices to suit almost any need. The ABIT AT7 was supplied to us for this system which proved to be really good...and really bad.
CPU
Supports AMD-K7 Athlon
Supports AMD-K7 Duron Socket A 200 MHz FSB Processors
Chipset
VIA KT333 / VIA VT8233A
Supports Ultra DMA 33/66/100/133 IDE protocol
Supports Advanced Configuration and Power Management Interface (ACPI)
Accelerated Graphics Port connector supports AGP 2X(3.3V)and 4X(1.5V)mode (Sideband) device
Supports 200/266/333 MHz (100/133/166MHz Double Data Rate) Memory Bus Setting
Ultra DMA 133/ RAID
High Point HPT374 IDE Controller
Ultra DMA 133MB/sec data transfer rate
RAID 0 (striping mode for boosting performance)
RAID 1 (mirroring mode for data security)
RAID 0 + 1(striping and mirroring)
Memory
Four 184-pin DIMM sockets support PC1600/PC2100/PC2700 DDR DRAM modules
Supports DDR333 unbuffered DRAMs up to 2GB and registered DRAMs up to 3GB
Supports 6 banks up to 3GB DRAMs for unbuffered DDR200/266 modules
Supports 8 banks up to 3.5GB DRAMs for registered DDR200/266 modules
Audio
Realtek ALC650 (AC-Link)
Supports 6CH DAC for AC3 5.1 CH purpose
Professional digital audio interface supporting 24-bit SPDIF OUT
Card Reader (Optional)
Supports Memory card (MS or SD) Interface
Supports SONY Memory Stick Interface/ SD Memory Card Interface
Supports Compact Flash ROM Interface
System BIOS
SoftMenu III Technology to set CPU parameters
Supports Plug-and-Play (PNP)
Supports Advanced Configuration Power Interface (ACPI)
Supports Desktop Management Interface (DMI)
Write-Protect Anti-Virus function by AWARD BIOS
LAN
On board Realtek 8100B single chip Ethernet controller interface
10/100Mb Operation
User friendly driver included
Multi I/O Functions
2 Channels of Bus Master IDE Ports supporting up to 4 Ultra DMA 33/66/100/133 devices
4 Channels of Bus Master IDE Ports supporting up to 8 Ultra DMA 33/66/100/133 (RAID 0/1/1+0) devices
4 USB 1.1 Connectors
On board VIA VT6202 USB 2.0 header for four extra USB channels
Three 1394a fully compliant cable ports at 100/200/400 megabits per second
Audio connector (Line-in, Center/Sub, Surround Spk , Front Spk , Mic-in)
Miscellaneous
ATX form factor
1 AGP 1.5v slot, 3 PCI slots
Hardware monitoring - Including Fan speeds, Voltages, System environment temperature
Motherboard Pros & Cons
Pros and Cons
It boils down to a few obvious reasons why this board made the top of the list. The AT7 has the capacity to support an obscene amount of hard drive space. When working in broadcast design with uncompressed video it's going to be needed. External storage solutions of any substance are extremely expensive. The AT7 could feasibly run eight 160 Gigabyte drives off the highpoint controller. That's over a terabyte of hard drive space which is almost 1000 hours of video at DVD quality. As I said before...it's an obscene amount of hard drive space. Data integrity is of a concern but a mirrored array can be easily set up. As a rule, in a professional work environment, projects should and are backed up to external media as completed.
The AT7 has 4 USB headers which is becoming commonplace but is always of benefit. The AT7 also features USB 2.0 support and it's good to have technology that looks forward anticipating options rather than falling quickly into obsolescence.
Two built-in 1394a (FireWire) ports were of great value. Shoving large files (400-800 MB) around a network can be excruciatingly slow. A quick solution was to transfer data to an external FireWire drive and then walk the drive from system to system as it was required and that isn't too often. It's a reusable and fast conduit for large file transfer between the graphic workstations and the edit suite, MAC or PC. It's true. Not every business is perfect and the IT folks just haven't got around to connecting the graphic design workstations with the non-linear suites on their own large bandwidth network.
The AT7 came with other onboard features that presented a cost effective solution compared to purchasing 3rd party PCI cards and these include surprisingly good 6 Channel sound and NIC.
There is only one caution with the AT7 and one issue.
The AT7 does not have parallel or serial ports on the back plane. It is a legacy free motherboard. If there is a need to attach these types of peripherals then the AT7 will disappoint.
The issue with the AT7 was of questionable support of the new AMD Thoroughbred processors. The AT7 wasn't totally compatible with this new series of processors. It was extremely unstable with any amount or combination of DIMMS of Registered ECC ram. Unbuffered RAM in any amount or combination would eventually generate a HARDWARE MALFUNCTION blue screen. This occurred every 3-5 hours for no apparent reason. It is hoped that a future BIOS will fix this or future AT7 boards have been tweaked at the assembly plant.
Please note that a 1900+ Palomino processor functioned beautifully with 4 DIMMS of 256 MB PC2100 memory in either Registered ECC or unbuffered sampling. The AT7 test system chugged magnificently through render after render without a problem. I hope ABIT is focused on the concerns pointed out and will hopefully have a solution soon.
A Clear Choice
If you have the power to do more then you have the power to create more. The final product is then not limited in look and feel by the hardware.
This comment comes from the art director and makes me cringe as powerful hardware costs powerful bucks. Complex 2D and 3D work has a tendency to eat video cards for breakfast. A fast gaming card usually does not have the supporting features and will quickly expose its shortcomings under a task especially in 3D design. Enter a powerful Matrox Parhelia at a significantly less than powerful cost.
A clear choice
The background on the Matrox Parhelia 512 comes from Icrontic's initial review.
The Parhelia-512 is the world's first 512-bit Graphics Processing Unit packed with 256 MB DDR on board. A 256-bit memory interface shoveling out a hefty 17.6 GB/s 275 MHz memory bandwidth.
Matrox is well known for their world class DualHead dual monitor support and now they have taken it one step further by adding a third monitor. The third monitor opens up a new era of gaming that Matrox has dubbed Surround Gaming. How are they going to do this and maintain frame rates AND take gaming environments to the next level? Matrox created a Quad Vertex Shader Array made up of four 128-bit vertex shader engines. Add the highest quality trilinear and anistropic filtering through their 64 Super Sample Texture Filtering. Matrox also boasts that their 36-Stage Shader Array is the most complex rendering engine ever built. Smooth it all out with 16x Fragment Antialiasing (FAA-16x).
SURROUND GAMING obviously wasn't a priority in a video card for broadcast design. It wouldn't be productive for the designers to be fragging away in Quake instead of doing their work. But they still did anyway. The term used was "research" but I didn't believe that for a minute. Below Softimage XSI occupies two monitors and the third is available for Illustrator. This is very handy for changing any textures inside Softimage.
Another phrase floating about the Matrox offices these days is SURROUND DESIGN. In the past PC monitors got larger as graphic designers needed more elbow room to work. Then came two monitors providing space to place and there isn't a system in the author's design department that isn't dual monitor. If it's single monitor then it's for e-mail and that's because that hardware hasn't been replaced yet.
Then in came the Parhelia sporting triple monitors and the designers looked at me as if I was nuts. Sebastian MacDougal of Matrox explains:
Matrox Parhelia and Surround Design are enjoying a lot of support from design focused Independent Software Vendors (ISV's) who agree that the more you can see, the more productive you will become. The ability to either spread a project across three displays or having the ability to place various windows strategically across your desktop for better organization is something that workstation users have been asking for, for years. However, in the past it required using multiple cards which drastically reduced performance, and unless you are using Parhelia, this is still the case with competing graphics solutions today. But perhaps the most substantial benefit for the ISV's that we work so closely with is that Surround Design, in most cases, requires no direct intervention at the SW level in order to get it to work, meaning it is very easy for most ISV's to support and the advantages are enormous. To give you an idea, with the current 1.01 driver, Parhelia and Surround Design is optimized for: Softimage|XSI , 3ds max, AutoCAD and Microstation, with many other applications to follow shortly. At Siggraph 2002 in San Antonio Texas, the reception on the part of attendees to Parhelia and Surround Design was tremendous and it is completely understandable. An interesting analogy is how designing on one monitor is similar to a horse with blinders, having three displays just opens things up and allows you to be more productive.
Initially the designers didn't know what to do with the third monitor but in time they began using the extra display each in their own way. Due to the fact that the system had sufficient power and resources they could work in two or three programs simultaneously. For example After Effects is much easier to work in over two monitors and, thus, the third monitor allowed for Photoshop or Illustrator to remain open and easily accessible to adjust or create any elements for use within the After Effects project. The Parhelia has the memory size and graphics processing power to allow for smooth interaction with these programs. Combine this with the strength of the CPU and available system RAM and many a designer were kept happy.
How a user may work with three monitors is up to them but a third desktop enables a user to work within a program that is better suited for two monitors AND keep access to other tools without having to minimize or hide the main program. For example Adobe After Effects stays open in two monitors and Photoshop remains accessible on the third. Pictures above speak louder than words.
One of the Parhelia's strong selling features is, what Matrox has termed, GigaColor. This feature and its benefits were expanded upon in Icrontic's first review.
Dig around and there's a feature that most may not pay attention to but for the 2D/3D graphics professional and even the home user it will mean stunning images right to the desktop. Matrox hung the term 10-bit GigaColor on it. To you and me it is 10-bit video technology and it runs through a very speedy dual integrated 400 MHz 10-bit RAMDAC. That leaves the competition many MHz back. 10-bit technology is the same technology that allows for precise picture control in home theatre DVD players. 10-bit technology can partially be found in high-end video cards that cost thousands of dollars.
The difference is that Parhelia-512 delivers 10-bit technology through the entire card.
It must be told that 10-bit GigaColor still remains a bit of a mystery though it has been literally beaten into my ears by the kind folks over at Matrox. 10-bit GigaColor provides for an increase in the shades of any given color from the standard of 256 to 1024. The color palette leaps up from 16.7 million to 1 billion. This is a benefit when acquiring images such as through the use of a scanner where image control will be to a greater precision at time of capture. A greater range of the shades of a color is available thus greater control over what is kept or discarded is possible. This would primarily benefit print and magazine pre-press artists.
But sadly we people in television deal in comparatively grainy and low rest images and the benefits of GigaColor didn't jump out and bite us on the nose. For the record the designers did notice the desktop appeared "more saturated and colorful" when it was pointed out to them. You have to understand that designers work with what they have. Technology is not such a big deal. They care about what they can do with it rather than what it has "under the hood". Though we would be much more satisfied if the rest of the computer system moved to 10-bit color base but that would mean new technology for
There is good news on the horizon about GigaColor according to Matrox.
Upcoming OS's from Microsoft (i.e. Longhorn) will include support for greater than 8-bit per color channel precision at the desktop level, which is why you are seeing more and more companies include support for higher precision color depths. But of course, we were the first and are the first shipping product to offer that functionality, and as we make our own boards you know you'll get the right components for sustained image quality
The designers were quick to adapt to the flexibility the Parhelia offered and enjoyed working in an environment that produced clear, crisp images to the desktop. The only drawback is each of them would like a Parhelia of their own and 3 digital flat panels. That means a few more dollars added to this year's capital purchase forms. More paperwork....just what I enjoy.
Keeping Cool
Keeping your cool.
There has been criticism towards AMD processors for running "too hot" comparatively to INTEL processors. (Please note that the 2.8 GHz INTEL processor runs hotter than the AMD 2600+) Many enthusiasts have clamped, bolted, hung or clipped every type of copper or aluminum heatsink to the processor in order to combat the excess thermal heat. Sitting on these metal monsters can be screaming fans generating massive airflow to keep the processor "on ice" as game play heats up.
Keeping processors cool during normal operation is a matter of a few good choices, a bit of computer know-how and the right cooling configuration. Overclocking is a different story as the processor is subjected to increases in voltage and MHz resulting in above spec stress.
Two background articles that may assist in the theory and configuration of an efficiently cooled computer are Case Cooling Tweaks Part 1 and Case Cooling Tweaks Part 2.
There have been dozen or so heatsinks that have been planted onto to my processors over the years and there is one that still remains my favorite.
GlobalWin's WKB-38 has been a heatsink of personal choice. The WBK38 allowed for the mounting of a large diameter, low dBA fan. It blew a whopping 55.1 CFM at a very tolerable 36 dBA. In a properly vented case this remained a quiet and highly efficient heatsink/fan combination and still does.
Why the trip down memory lane? If it works then don't knock it and there hasn't been a heatsink that has enticed me to finally retire the "good ol' WBK38".
GlobalWin offered up their new CAK4-76T for the test system to see if they could sway me to the higher efficiency of copper. The CAK4-76T has a built-in temperature sensor to speed regulate the 70 x 70 x 15 mm fan. At 30 degrees Celsius the minimum airflow is 23.1 CFM at 24.7 dBA and at 38 degrees Celsius the maximum airflow is 36 CFM at 35 dBA. Compared to the WBK38/92 mm. fan combination it was similar in noise level but came up 20 CFM short.
Fan( Per Fan )
Sensor Temperature
30C
38C
Operation Voltage
DC 10.2 ~ 13.8 V
Rated Voltage
DC 12V
Input Current
0.2A MAX.
0.28A MAX.
Input Power
2.4W MAX.
3.36W MAX.
Bearing System
One Ball One Sleeve Bearing
Fan Speed(RPM)
3000±15 %
4500±15 %
Max. Air Delivery(CFM)
23.1± 15 %
36± 15 %
Noise Level
24.7± 2dBA
35± 2dBA
Fan Safety
UL Approved
Fan with RPM signal output
Yes
Heatsink
Dimension
70 x 66 x 40 mm
Material
COPPER 1100
Weight
595g. (1lb. 5oz.)
Mounting Kit
Retention Clip
Steel SK7 ( Quality Material Clip )
Thermal Interface
High thermal conductive interface
Material
GW101/GW103
Connector
Molex 2510 / 2695 3Pin
The CAK4-76T comes packaged with the necessary mounting hardware for either INTEL or AMD processors. It is important to note that the cooling requirement of this PC system was to control temperature and keep noise to a tolerable level. 30 dBA is similar in noise level to whispering and more often than not the average RPM of the CAK4-76T fan was 3300 RPM which puts it less than 30 dBA and that is extremely quiet.
GlobalWin has improved their clip mechanisms and the CAK4 was able to be attached with little effort and a small flat blade screwdriver would be handy. A further improvement would have been to make a three socket ear clip instead of the single socket ear design. I have to say that, for everyday use, the CAK4-76T may find a permanent home. It's quiet and efficient for a workstation.
The heatsink is also just another player in the heat game. As the Case Cooling Tweaks articles point out the correct choice of a PC case and additional fan modifications can help win the battle against heat and noise.
On the case
Breaking out of the beige box...the right way.
AMK Computers came to the table with the SX1000 and set up a workstation case that delivers looks, cooling efficiency and a few other treats. The base SX1000 case comes standard with
Space 4 drives in a removable bay
Space for a zip and floppy in a removable bay.
fan mounts (two front-two rear)
space for 4 external 5.25 inch drives
locking access panel
locking front drive cover
To this AMK added:
A side window with 2 more fans
A top blowhole
VBLOCK sound dampening material
Cable Loom
Rounded cables
Digital Doc 5
Enermax 465 PSU (FC)
Fan filters
The neon lights were thrown in for this article just to make the case look better. I think they add a few MHz here and there due to the fact the case "looks" faster.
Seven fans plus the two Enermax PSU fans and heatsink fan may seem like a lot and loud. Quite the opposite as all the case fans were kept to ADDA 25 CFM/ 25 dBA specifications and regulated by the Digital Doc 5 fan controller. When the fans were not needed they were shut off. Only two fans, the top exhaust blowhole fan and one of the rear exhaust fans, were kept constantly running. (In addition to the PSU and heatsink fans). The two always on fans provided continual airflow yet emitted a minimum of noise. Again the computer in non-stress applications or when not rendering ran at below 30 dBA...less than a normal whisper.
The heatsink is warmed by the processor as the system was stressed. The fin design of the CAK4-76T allowed for the tips of the Digital Doc 5 thermistors to be inserted between the fins. This did not block airflow but this configuration allowed the Digital Doc 5 to directly read the temperature of the heatsink. Fans were turned on or off in a preset order to compensate for the increases or decreases in temperature. A "full roar" my cat was louder.
The last cooling tweak was to apply the WPCRSET tweak to enable the CPU halt command. This halts the processor and allows it to drop 5-10 degrees Celsius off pre-tweak levels. Besides updating the drivers the WPCRSET tweak was the only software OS "hack" if it could be called that.
In order to test this configuration a SOFTIMAGE project followed by an After Effects project were rendered out. The Softimage render took approximately 50 minutes (the first flat peak) and the After Effects render (the second peak) took 10 minutes. The following graph shows the temperatures never exceeded 46 degrees Celsius (23.5 C room temperature) which is only a 10-12 degree Celsius increase over base line temperature. That's a very satisfactory result especially with a system that operates through a range of 25-35 dBA.
The neon lights are available as an option and it was rather humorous watching designers and other employees wander by, stop, and back up to take a second look. Most came in and peered into the side window of the PC and said the word "cool" a lot. It is true that these people know of nothing other than the "beige box". They asked "why the window?" The answer was "why not?"
Computers can become very dusty even in apparently clean offices. Filters are the solution to greatly cut down on the amount of dust that collects and clogs a PC after months of use. Filters do reduce airflow but they are worth it. A picture is worth a thousand words and this was the result of only 3 weeks of operation. The fans these filters covered were also not spinning at all times. This dust was the result of what was sucked into the case (or tried to be) from the airflow generated by the back plate and PSU fan. The filter on the left is clean and the one on the right...ugh.
The plethora of benchmark programs can be important when determining what does what task faster or better. These are specific assessments of individual functions. For this article it was decided to add a few more of what is our assessment of real world tests. It was also thought important to show how a change in one particular component could affect end results. It is hoped that the result of these tests will help you assess priorities in system configuration to match the priorities in system expectations.
121.5MB/sec vs DV's 3.7? This simply isn't a fair comparison.
DV is a compressed NTSC, natively around 22MB/sec.
So, if the gods that created DV compression can do similar with HDTV, we're talking about a 6xdecrease in size. 120/6 = 20MB/sec.
Interestingly, that number puts us right back to having the same hardware that is currently used to edit uncompressed NTSC.
Perhaps the Video Toaster NT and its competitors will come up with a scheme to use the yet-to-be-named HDTV compression schemes via a standard firewire port? That sure would be spiffy.