Hi bo,
thanks for your advice. I updated my initial post.
I still don't see clearly with the drives. Are 3 SSDs ok? Am I better of with WD black and RAID?

Peter

Try a Dell Precision T7500 dual processor.   It can handle 192GB RAM and 5 HDDs.

Processor notes:
-don't bother with the 5502, 5504 is not much more expensive and has four cores (the 5502 has two cores).
-the 5520 and up have more goodness--hyperthreading, built in overclocking, more cache, etc.  But they cost a lot more.

buy minimum RAM and only one HDD from Dell.  I chose a 300GB Velociraptor as the system drive.  Then buy RAM and Disk from other sources.  You'll get what you want and it will be a lot cheaper.

The Precision 7500 is a workstation.  It makes all my other PCs, including my server, look flimsy.  There is a lot of built-in goodness that isn't really advertised.
The 7500 cost about US$3,000, 1TB WD Black drives are about $100 each, and RAM (this is ECC RAM) is about $430 for 12GB  (3x4GB).

Also, if you go Win7, go with the ultimate package--its not much more money than pro.

But there are some parts of APP that are done on only one core.  Like pano optimization, lens distortion, etc.  And these are not parallelled across multiple processor cores.

I think smartblend only uses one core, and if its not, the HDD access time is going to be the limiting factor.  So alowing smartblend to run on multiple cores may only help if APP uses multiple temp drives.

Last edited by hankkarl (2009-12-04 21:42:12)

My immediate though is that if you are stitching multi-gigapixel images, then 80GB is unlikely to be sufficient, id suggest a 256GB for the APP temp folder. Also why have you got a smartblend and an APP temp folder, as far as i was aware you set one folder for the whole program...

Also with the i7 and ddr3, you should probably go for tripple channel, which 16GB doesnt fit with, maybe up it to 24GB, then for smaller panos you can set aside some for a ramdisk, and for larger panos the stitching might go a little faster, and editing will definately go faster

like wjh32 said, I don't think 80gb is going to be enough temp space for 2400 images (if they are raw or tiff)

To me the mac pro is just a high end pc setup, so I wouldn't expect any significant performance increase over a similarly configured pc.

JohnM wrote:

klausesser: Which part of the process will the MacPro outperform the PC alternatives on ?  In your opinion, will the MacPro perform better when rendering with smartblend than powerful PC setups ?

I have access to one and might set it up for the rendering at nights, while doing the stitching on a PC at daytime. Is it likely that a Powerful MacPro might render 4 gig/1000 images panos in 16 hours ?

Hi John!

Thinking about a Mac Pro DP/8core with HT it´s two things:

1) it´s at least no more expensive than a comparable PC-configuration of the same class - more likely it´s less expensive.
2) the combination of hardware and OS coming from ONE hand avoids lots of non-compatible hardware/software issues.
3) dealing with big files and data in a "human-like" structured way is traditionally one of the advatanges of Mac OS.

I feel editing as well as rendering a 4 GPix very, very fast on the 8 core Mac Pro with 16GB and 4TB internal diskspace
of a friend.
So - given that the PC-side isn´t less expensive at comparable speed i always and definitely would prefer Macs to work with.
One or two interesting tools which needs Windows - why not: either i use a virtual machine with Windows parallel to OSX or i reboot starting a native 64bit Windows 7 on an own drive or partition. Then it´s a pure PC - with excellent hardware.

best, Klaus

Wow, a lot of discussion!

First, I'd like to address the Mac/PC issue. Not intending to start a flame war. The Mac is a very nice machine in terms of hardware and internal engineering. However it all depends on the price. In Europe the Mac is hugely overpriced. In Bulgaria - even more. In the same time, custom build PC are very cheap. I would NEVER get a brand PC, like Dell or IBM, for a workstation.

A computer similar to the one in the first post (sans the SSD drives, but the RAM is great OCZ or Corsair +power +case +optical drive +300gb raptor) can be assembled here for $1800 while a worse Mac (3Gigs of ram, video 120GT, etc) costs over $3300! Why on earth would ANYONE buy a Mac is beyond me. You can run OSX on almost any hardware, if you are so much in love with that OS. But I don't like it, it does not make me feel comfortable working under OSX. I much prefer W7.

Also, as I've always stated, for me it's better to get two very good workstations instead of one supercomputer. You can render panos on one of them and postprocess on the other with your colleague. Also, the higher you climb on the price curve, the less performance you gain, per dollar.

On topic, about the SSD drives - there are many different combinations possible. For example, I don't think you need a separate drive for windows swap: you should not have that much swapping with this amount of ram and even if you do, it won't require so much space. So I'd put the APP temp, windows temp and windows swap on the same drive. As well as the output folder - APP writes to the output folder only at the end of the process and it's a single file copy after all.

Also, let's put things in perspective - in 6 months we'll probably forget about all that crazy Smartblend HDD stress and RAM and CPU will become more important. In terms of price, it may be more prudent to make a RAID0 out of 2x1TB WD Black drives and use it for temp, imput and output (so you won't have copying from one physical disk to another), and get a single SSD for the OS+OS swap/temp. That'll give you plenty of space and you can always get a 2TB drive to back everything up from the RAID every day.

In regard of dual/triple channel memory - google for some benchmarks. There are no huge gains. Also, most of the current RAM chips on the market are sold in kits 4x4 or 3x4GB, so it's up to you - get more ram in dual channel or less in triple.

Sorry for not being clear - there are plenty of options!

#1
Intel X25M for OS + OS temp + OS swap + software
RAID of some kind (here we can branch the choices a lot!) of regular HDD for Input + Output + APP temp
That's the cheapest option, provides the most abundant storage space and also in the future you won't really need THAT fast HDD, as MagicBlend (or Smartblend2 or whatever) will not stress the HDD as much.

#2
Intel X25M for OS + OS temp + OS swap + software
Intel X25M for Input + APP temp + output
The main problem here is that 80 gigs probably won't hold 2500 images + enough space for Smartblend, so you may have to get several SSDs and RAID them for space and speed. You'll actually hit the SATA bus speed limit with that, hence the PCI-X SSD drives. We talked about those in another thread.

A variant is to use a SSD for APP temp + Output only and keep the Input on another drive. The idea is that the main work by Smartblend is done with intermediate files and not the Input images. Also, Output is better kept on the same drive as APP Temp, as you'll have faster transfer of the final rendered image from the APP Temp to Output folder. And you can also postprocess it quicker, because it's kept on a SSD drive.

In that case you can have a single drive for Input. Or maybe a RAID1 or RAID5, if you're aiming for safety. Or an external backup solution.

#3
Intel X25M for OS + OS temp + OS swap + software
300Gigs Velociraptor for APP Temp + output
Whatever for Input


Hope that helps. Still, it all depends on specific projects and the actual amount/volume of the images and work. I have no idea how much space a 2500-images-project may require.

And as I hint in #1, I'm not very keen on building a machine around a piece of software that's notoriously problematic AND it's being currently replaced! I'd rather save the money and wait or spend the money on other parts of the system. I don't know what kind of budget you're on, but I'm currently running on a very tight one, so I'd probably go with #1. It is better "future-proof" as well, at least for my needs. I can put the 2x1TB disks in external case for backup in the future if I decide to replace them with 4x512GB SSD drives next winter

It also depends on how this machine will fit in your workflow. Do you already have a central location for storing images? You say 2500 images per project - that's OK, but what about older projects? And what happens to the 2500 images after you stitch them? If you have a NAS or a similar solution, you may end up with just SSD and Velociraptor and pull the input from the NAS... I can go on for quite some time like this, so I'll stop now

Regarding MB, I know of only one currently with USB3 and SATA6:
http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=GcRyQQyzUldWVI52

And you can forget about more than 16GB of ram on a consumer-level motherboard like that.

Didn't Alexandre say that smartblend is not threaded?  Is it GPU enabled?  The real gains might be realized when using the multi band blender. 

Tangent:  Though I have noticed some ghosting w/ the multiband blender.  It might be a problem with the higher spatial frequency band filters.  ( Adelson and Burt, Multiresolution Spline paper from 83 )

Have you considered using a motherboard with the Intel Tylersberg chipset which allows for 24GB of unbuffered DIMMs or 96GB of ECC registered DIMMS.  DDR3 1333/ 1066/ 800 MHz.  A DDR3 DRAM DISK would probably blow SSD away if you were using three channels.  OH ... I forgot how much that would cost compared to a SSD drive ... better buy the SSD drive instead : )

Use SAS ( serially attached SCSI ) drives

I would really like to see a dual CPU core w/ an on chip GPU core that has a good coupling.  I am not sure what would happen to the pinout number if you tried to add another dedicated on chip memory interface for the on chip GPU.  Intel finally moved the memory controller to the CPU like AMD did earlier.

Last edited by Castillonis (2009-12-08 10:55:03)

Don't forget that smartblend will be (when, I don't know) replaced by smartblend2, which will use much less HDD ressources, and more RAM...

[bo] wrote:

Klaus, we're not talking "Maybe it´s 20% more expensive". This is about a Mac costing DOUBLE than a similar PC. At least over here.

Over here the price is not at all doubled. And: the price doesn´t tell everything - as we all might know.

[bo] wrote:

I see you're pushing Macs in each and every thread on hardware here - that's OK, we all have our preferences. I've sold and supported Macs for nearly 10 years, but each year the price difference with a custom-built PC became bigger and bigger and the performance became more and more similar.

"pushing"? don´t be funny, man . . . I just tell what i mean. And what´s my own experiences. Why should i "push" Macs? I don´t even have
shares from Apple . . .

[bo] wrote:

The fact is that for the price of a Mac I can get two great PCs and have two people work simultaneously and do double the work in the same time. Maybe it's different over there, in Germany, and I'm sure it's different in USA, where Macs are very cheap, but here (and in the UK - I've got some pals there that assemble machines) it's really a no-brainer.

Fine. That´s your point of view. Mine is different. So what!? Should i stop telling what i think?

[bo] wrote:

About the iMac - well let me tell you that costs 1800 EURO around here. And that's with only 4GB RAM and no SSD of course and some 4850 for video! For that price I can get you 8-core, SSD + 2x1TB HDD, 16 Gigs of ram, decent video and probably will still have some money left for an 22-inch Eizo S2231W! And that'll blow the Mac out of this planet in terms of GIGAPIXEL STITCHING - let's not forget what's the topic title!

I know you´re pushing PCs in each and every thread on hardware here . . .

It´s not in my interest to make up somebody´s mind. I´m just telling my thoughts and my own experiences.

best, Klaus

Last edited by klausesser (2009-12-08 14:19:49)

[bo] wrote:

... I see it the aim of the original poster is an every-day workstation, not some supercomputer with a super cost.

[bo] wrote:

... in terms of GIGAPIXEL STITCHING - let's not forget what's the topic title!

Hi bo,
thanks for always finding the way back to the topic.

I adjusted my initial post with filling in the word "windows".

I want to set up a new windows PC for just one task: to stitch gigapixel images


Thanks
Peter