The Broadcast Box
Supplied by 2cooltek
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 Short-Media 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 Short-Media. 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.
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.
The big picture
The majority of PC consumers buy pre-built systems
based on assumptions and budget. Today’s PC consumer has more information at
hand to select or build a PC that is better suited for their needs. Choosing
or configuring the particular components is often based on how much, how fast
and how big can it get while staying within a budget. The MHz rating of the
processor is often the first consideration in this equation. The PC consumer
looks for simple answers. Compromises are often made in order to divert budget
to obtain a faster processor. The trap is the assumption that more megahertz
is better could short-change other components in a system and the consumer ends
up frustrated by a lack of desired performance to suit their needs.
The goal of this article was to build a PC, on
an acceptable home buyer’s budget, to function as a workstation capable of taking
on 2D and 3D jobs in a broadcast television station. The hopeful conclusion
will be to teach you that what you expect from the PC is the first question
that must be answered before choosing the parts.
Defining broadcast industry standard in a PC
has some grey area depending on where it is in the production chain. Broadcast
video has to meet a set of parameters that can only be measured by a video waveform
monitor. Expect to shovel out approximately $4000 USD to add this option for
home use.
This PC will be used to output work that will
eventually find its way to a non-linear editing system that assembles and outputs
it to tape. While the display image is extremely important for the graphic designer
it is the finished file itself that is eventually transferred to a format for
playback to air. The video card will not be used to output a signal that will
be recorded or used straight to air.
The work produced is either a completed piece
or a collection of elements that are to be used in a completed piece. These
elements may be produced solely or through the combination of 2D and 3D software
applications such as Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe After Effects
and Softimage. For example, Photoshop files may be used as name supers or background
elements. On a larger scale, After Effects may be employed to composite Photoshop,
Illustrator and Softimage elements plus internally generated elements and effects
to build a complex timeline that is rendered producing a finished piece or pieces.
A waveform monitor is referenced at certain stages to ensure the output does
not exceed acceptable levels.
The PC workstation needed to be the right balance
of components that have the power to manipulate complicated 2D and 3D applications
real time then render at an acceptable rate. Image quality was important to
display sharp, true images. This combination would be easy to obtain if money
was no object…
But money is the object.
Is it possible to build a workstation on a budget
then have it stand up against a room full of graphic designers? Broadcast production
requires expensive specialty hardware but technology is making some leaps and
bounds at the consumer level. Is it possible for the home PC buyer to have an
affordable system that stands up to professional expectations?
As the old saying goes time is money and in the
time it took to click a mouse a few times the price tag of a popular retail
pre-configured workstation rocketed up to just over $11,000 Canadian or nearly
$7,000 USD! That’s not a typical home PC buyer’s budget. Dude…we didn’t have
to get one!
So this is what we got.
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 32×10x40x 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
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”.
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 Freqency | 2.8 GHz | 2600+ (2.133 Ghz) |
| Thermal Design Power | 68.4 W | 62 W |
| Bus Speed | 533 MHz | 133 MHz (266 MHz DDR) |
| Core Voltage | 1.5 V | 1.65 V |
| L1 Cache 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.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
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 /Athlon XP Socket A
200/266MHz FSB Processors - 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
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.
|
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 Short-Media’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 1.01 driver, Parhelia and Surround Design with emphasis on: Softimage|XSI , 3ds max, AutoCAD and Microstation, with many other applications to follow. 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 Short-Media’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 …well…everything.
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 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 |
30°C | 38°C |
|
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 | 535 g. |
|
| 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.
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.
The test system.
- AMD 2100+ Thoroughbred Core Processor
- AMD 1900+ Palomino Core Processor
- ABIT AT7 motherboard
- Matrox Parhelia 512 triple head
video card in single head mode* 1.01.69 beta driver - 2 x 512 MB Micron PC2100 RAM
- Sony 52x CD
- LG 32×10x40x CDRW
- 16 x DVD (not included in pricing)
- 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 build
2600 updated - Digital Doc5
*dual and triple monitors enabled for Adobe After
Effects and Softimage benchmarks only.
Programs used:
- Sisoft
Sandra 2002 - ZD
Media Business Winstone 2001 - ZD
Media Content Creation Winstone 2001 - MadOnion
3DMark 2001 SE - Quake
III Arena - Passmark
Performance - Commanche
4 - Serious
Sam: the Second Encounter - GL
Excess - Drone
Z - SpecviewPerf 7.0
- PS Bench
- Adobe Photoshop 7.0
- Adobe After Effects 5.5
- SoftimageXSI 2.0.1
- MediaCleaner Pro 5
The above benchmark programs are publicly available.
For more about Ziff Davis and the etesting labs program go
here.
|
Adobe® After Effects® 5.5 software delivers a
set of tools to produce motion graphics and visual effects for film, video,
multimedia, and the Web whether working in a 2D or 3D compositing environment.
After Affects is a main creative program and works in concert with Adobe Photoshop,
Illustrator, Softimage and a Media100 non-linear edit suite.
A user interacts with Adobe After Effects through
the GUI and produces finished work by rendering a project to the hard drive.
The amount of effects and elements that After Effects can do is far too lengthy
to summarize accurately but guaranteed it is extensive in its palette of tools.
Therefore After Effects can make a myriad of simultaneous different demands
on the CPU/GPU/RAM systems. To demonstrate the benefits of different hardware
components a real world After Effects projects consisting of compressed and
uncompressed video, EPS, internally generated and PICT text elements, transitions,
size scaling, shadows, and treatments was chosen as the test project. Benchmark
programs may examine individual demands on a system but in the real world this
may not be the case and it is important to measure the results of simultaneous
varied demands as well as one specific measurement task. It may not be a standardized
test but it shows what to expect from a project that encompasses a lot of different
tasks simultaneously.
|
After Effects primarily uses the processor, video
card and ram while a user is working within a composition window and timeline.
Adjustments to a project are displayed in real time in the composition window.
The faster each of the individual hardware subsystems are the smoother the interaction
and the faster the composition window will be redrawn.
When After Effects renders or builds the finished
timeline it is the processor, ram and hard drive that determine speed as the
video card is more or less bypassed. After effects will call to the disk for
information for the processor to calculate a finished frame and then return
that frame to the disk for storage. This process repeats for as many frames
that are within the timeline. Remember that any video is a series of still frames
and After Effects builds each single frame and “glues” it to the next to finally
end up with a playable movie or, conversely, a sequence of files.
Ram is an important consideration with Adobe
After Effects. It will function effectively with only 512 MB of ram but more
ram is better. Adobe recommends using the following formula to calculate the
amount of ram it needs to preview a composition.
[(height x width x (bit depth/8) x frame rate x (resolution) 2) / 1024] / 1024 = MB/sec.
The variables for height, width, frame rate,
and resolution depend on the composition setting. Always use the maximum expectations
to determine a base of RAM requirement. For example a preview of 10 seconds
in NTSC broadcast format would plug into the equation thusly:
[ (640 x 480 x (32 / 
x 30 x (1)2) / 1024 ] / 1024 = 35 MB/sec.
One then should come to the conclusion that 350
MB of available RAM would be needed to preview 10 seconds worth of an After
Effects timeline.
That couldn’t be more wrong.
How much RAM is needed is dictated by the information
in the picture and the compression codec used. For example; 30 seconds of a
640×480 white page will take up much less RAM than a video of a stock car race.
That’s because more information must be stored about the color changes during
moving video. A white page is just that…white…and the program will figure
out quite quickly that it can save time by repeating the same information about
pixel color instead of storing unique information about each one. How much required
RAM depends on the variety of color, how often each pixel changes and the particular
compression codec used. This will be the only time where a strong recommendation
is made. Get at least 1 GB of RAM to make the After Effects experience more
enjoyable. Get more RAM if it is expected that there will be a need for longer
previews or work in D1, HDTV or widescreen format.
There will be two benchmark measurements to identify
the benefits of different processor components. The the bars on the left feature
a small jump in AMD processor speed to demonstrate how more CPU horsepower will
speed up the CPU/GPU/RAM dependent RAM PREVIEW. THe bars on the right demonstrate
a small increase of CPU horsepower and its effect on rendering speed. This should
help determine if the increase you are considering is worth it.
The results do show the greatest impact in each
of the two major functions of After Effects. A small increase in CPU does have
a big affect on rendering speed but not in real time ram preview. When designing
a system on a budget it is important to identify what is expected and, if budget
restrictions require a choice, then the desired balance between expectations
must be sought to satisfy favor user interactivity or speed of rendering. Also
anticipate that longer RAM previews or larger format previews require more ram.
You can literally watch the ram fill. Just leave task manager open and watch
the page file usage creep up. The goal in making purchasing choices is to work
backwards from what you expect in the end result.
|
SOFTIMAGE®|XSI v.2.0 is an incredibly powerful
3D tool that has the capacity to bring virtually any system to its knees especially
if raytracing, radiosity or photon-mapping is used to a large extent. If this
is the case then there definitely will be a loud scream of anguish coming from
a solitary PC system. Softimage projects can become so system intensive that
100 finished frames can take an insane amount of time to render. In order to
increase rendering speed many computers are equipped with specialty hardware
and are tied into render farms in the single-minded task of rendering a single
scene.
That’s enough of the fire and brimstone about
complex 3D rendering. Softimage works on somewhat similar principle to After
Effects. A faster and more powerful video card will translate to a smoother
interface where complex scenes can be manipulated in real time. Note that Softimage
does not have an interface to real-time preview a finished frame as unlike After
Effects. Users can manipulate objects in a choice of views from wire frame mode
to simulated real-time shading mode. In order to look at a finished frame a
user must render the frame to disk which bypasses the GPU. A faster processor
will result in the faster render. The amount of RAM is not as great an issue
as the user is working frame by frame and the graphics card is doing the bulk
of the work while working within the GUI.
|
This is a most basic overview and there are specialty
hardware components that can enhance the speed and interactivity of complex
3D scenes and programs. The designers working on the test system use Softimage
on a less complex level to provide enhancements and elements to commercials,
promos and station ID elements. Though their work is quite complex to some it
a far cry from that of special effects in major film productions.
Speeding up Softimage requires thinking on the
same two levels as After Effects. The Softimage GUI can display very complex
and varied effects but it does so in simulated mode. Displaying the finished
rendered product in real time is beyond the capacity of most video cards. But
there needs to be the hardware features on the video card to accommodate for
smooth manipulation of 3D objects and the proper display of simulated effects.
Softimage, AutoCAD and various other 3D programs need to access those hardware
features in order to function and display the image properly. Don’t think that
a fast gaming card comes with these physical hardware features or have those
that are onboard…unlocked. Remember that last word as it comes to make sense
later.
It is quite true that a fast gaming card will
be a poor performer in Softimage if it works at all. Conversely a workstation
class video card may make for an enjoyable user experience in a complex 3D application
but will deliver lower frame rates in games. It is safe to say that different
applications require different hardware tools.
Softimage, by default, is designed for a single
monitor interface yet the layout can be customized for dual and even triple
monitors. It was most interesting to hear the comments made when the designers
started to spread their workspace out to the second monitor and then to the
third. Since Softimage bypasses the video card in the render process there was
no performance loss.
A simple animation of 100 frames in length was
rendered out with two different processors. As rendering in Softimage relies
upon the processor most…then the faster the processor should result in a faster
render. The animation data is as follows:
You may ask if this is any good? Just for laughs
I let the art director take the project to his dual Xeon 1.8 GHz nVidia Quadro
driven power box and he did beat the time by a full 10 minutes. He also beat
the price by a full $3000 (cost of purchase of art director’s system vs. article
test system). Somehow I’ll wait the 10 minutes and keep the 3 grand in my
pocket. A single Xeon 450 with a Quadro card takes over 3 hours. Those numbers
are completely unofficial but it lets you see the range of performance.
Before the benchmark
Benchmarks are a yardstick we use to measure
performance. Not one benchmark stands above the rest as the defacto tool. Benchmarks
are useful to identify major peformance problems in a system. They can also
be used to identify the impact of hardware changes on overall system peformance.
This is very useful especially when combined with the software expectations.
A faster processor may deliver faster renders but not help with a smooth GUI.
A better video card may deliver a smoother interface but won’t help if long
ram previews are required. The performance enthusiast and overclocking crowd
are edging each other by a handful of points or frames. Remember this as you
look at graphs and charts. Don’t look at just “who’s in front” but also by how
much both in points/frames and cost.
3D Mark 2001 SE
The granddaddy of benchmarking tools measuring
how effectively a system runs 3D graphic applications. Moving from the 1900+
to the 2100+ showed only a small increase in peformance. This isn’t critical
for workstation applications but may be the goal of gamers to squeeze every
frame per second gain from their systems.
Sisoft Sandra
Small increases in processor speed appear to
have the greatest impact in Sandra’s multimedia benchmark.
GL Excess
Quake III Arena
Serious Sam the Second Encounter
Business Winstone and Content Creation
Code Creatures
Commanche 4
DroneZ high quality.
SpecviewPerf 7.0
This benchmark really tests OPENGL performance
and it is important to note that there is a large discrpency between our results
and the results from Matrox on their test system. We are investigating this.
(Our system scored much lower)
PS Bench
We added a new benchmark to our tests. PS Bench
looks at 21 individual tests in Photoshop 7.0 and the results can be looked
at individually or as a cumulative score. There are three levels to PS Bench;
basic, intermediate and advanced. This test shows the results of the intermediate
tests.
Media Cleaner Pro
Three tests were conducted to compress a 651
MB 640×480 NTSC Quicktime file. The larger the file the more good a faster
processor is going to do you.
Who’s in the driver’s seat?
If you were to be put into the driver’s seat
of a race car would you be able to win a race against a professional driver
in the exact same car? Probably not given the fact you don’t know how to properly
drive a race car.
Computer hardware is just that…hardware…and
it can’t do anything without being told how to do it. While hardware itself
does go through advancement cycles as new technology emerges into mainstream
it isn’t worth much if it doesn’t work or work well. Driving the consumer PC
market forward are games. Gaming video cards have fallen into 3-month product
cycles with new versions being announced before the prior has even hit store
shelves.
A comment from Mark Randall of Serious
Magic in a TechReport
article piqued interest to look beyond the hardware for performance.
| The problem isn’t the hardware, it’s the software drivers. In fact, the speed could be dramatically increased with revised software drivers. However, no manufacturer has presently made this aspect of driver performance a priority. The first card manufacturer to address this issue would deliver the following benefits to their users: |
Mr. Randall goes on to state that software drivers,
properly addressed, could increase render time, record game play in real time,
capture motion images off the desktop or even stream video out to the internet
directly from the video card.
Drivers can indeed be a problem. Ask anyone who’s
experienced a Blue Screen of Death (BSOD). The $64 question is about the driver
itself. Are we, the persistent purchaser of PC parts, being cheated out of performance
that could be ours without a hardware upgrade?
A graphics card is built on the power of the
Graphics Processing Unit (GPU). This is a processor chip and it doesn’t make
financial sense to reinvent the chip each time a new video card is released.
This is the same for CPUs. The AMD Thunderbird chip scaled all the way up the
1.4 GHz before the Palomino core took over till 1.77 GHz and now the Thoroughbred
core extends the range past 2 GHz. The same can be said for INTEL PII, PIII
and PIV architecture.
The point is that features are either locked
or unlocked on some graphic cards and the differences between adjacent levels
of product may be very subtle; as subtle as a fresh set of tires and a tweak
to a spoiler setting may make the difference between winning and losing the
race.
If all the hardware is available then how visually
enjoyable or complex that game may be, how fast a render is or if the card can
support the software itself may come down to what features are hidden. Case
in point; in the early stages of this article Matrox was developing and refining
drivers for the Parhelia with such software applications like Softimage. Use
the official 2.31 drivers with the Parhelia and Softimage won’t recognize the
card as an OPENGL card and won’t access those OPENGL features and not perform
as expected. One or two driver revisions later and Softimage is happy.
But it isn’t as easy as that. Between the software
and associated drivers and the hardware is the Application Programming Interface
(API) layer. Hardware and software speak two different languages and they need
some way to properly communicate with each other. Explaining the API is a fairly
complex matter but think of computer hardware as your body. The software resides
in your head as a desire to do something like walk, talk, run, jump, or eat.
Between that “software” thought of wanting to walk across a room to pick up
an apple and take a bite out if it and the mechanical act of actually doing
it is a series of “hidden” instructions that “just happen”. You don’t really
think about activating individual muscles to tighten and loosen on that incredibly
precarious journey of balance as you stride across a room. You don’t actively
plan and coordinate in 3D space the relation of the apple to you or to your
hand and then calculate placement and pressure required to take a bite. These
things you just…do.
The API acts in a similar fashion taking what
the software wants to do and translating it to the hardware to do it and then
returning the result back to the software to display. The most recognizable
examples of API layers would be Microsoft’s DirectX and OPENGL but other software
can have its own proprietary API layer is with ADOBE and their programs. DirectX
and OPENGL take interesting approaches to 3D graphics and each has their inherit
advantages and disadvantages and they can be more than just coding issues….they
can be political. For a far superior explanation I suggest a visit to www.jakeworld.org
to read an article by guru game programmer Jake Simpson and his article on Graphical
API History.
Drivers are much more complicated that one might
think. They can be a proverbial house of cards. Each game, application, tool,
player and so on interacts with the video card in a subtly different way. Drivers
are initially designed to work with everything but may not work to their fullest
potential. That’s where optimization begins and the people who build drivers
begin the task of figuring out what enhancements or tweaks can be made to their
drivers in order to gain performance and stability. This must be done one program
at a time and there is an extensive list of programs. Just think of how many
games there are then begin the task of trial and error to get the best performance
out of each individual game.
It isn’t as simple as taking those individual
driver enhancements and putting them into one set of drivers. A “tweak” in one
enhancement can cause another tweak to turn into a problem and fixing that problem
can create four others. Drivers are a balancing act between performance, stability
and cost. It’s almost an unobtainable triangle. Achieving performance and stability
takes an unlimited pot of R&D money. Achieving great performance may cause instability.
Achieving stability may cost performance.
And around it goes.
So hardware manufacturers strive to achieve balance
by designing their product to fit a niche purpose. It would take too much time,
effort and money to build the fastest, most stable gaming/workstation/single
monitor/dual monitor/triple monitor/multimedia/digitize/output video card. It
can be done but the cost of the product would be 10 times an unacceptably high
price.
Manufacturers In the video card market choose
where their priorities are based on what market they want to capture. Gaming
cards and their drivers are optimized for games with lesser emphasis on workstation
applications. Workstation video cards are optimized for the reverse. Let’s face
it. There’s more money to be made in gaming cards than the workstation cards.
If, for the most part, the hardware can support
significant performance improvements then is it the fault of the API, software
or drivers and are we being cheated? This brings us back around to Stephan Schaem,
Chief Technology Officer of Serious
Magic.
|
In some cases, card manufacturers have chosen to differentiate their ‘consumer’ vs. ‘professional’ cards by introducing essentially identical cards with different firmware and software drivers. The manufacturer’s state that the additional cost of the pro product goes to fund development of advanced driver features that are particularly useful in production environments. The issue that Serious Magic has focused on is a different one. It’s a significant issue in PC graphics card performance but we don’t believe it was an intentional omission.
In a nutshell, here’s the issue. While |
And don’t tell me there’s a difference between
drivers. Here is an example of the same system benchmarked the same way except
for the change in video card drivers.
Speed! I need more speed Scotty!
What does the future hold? Processors, graphic
cards and RAM are edging upwards in speed and bandwidth. The 3GHz mark is within
reach for both AMD and Intel. Matrox opens up a huge 17.6 GB/s pipe with the
Parhelia and DDR ram is bumping up the performance ladder as seen in the table.
| Memory name |
Type name |
Clock speed |
Voltage | DDR clock speed |
Data Bus & Bandwidth |
| PC100 | 100MHz | 3.3v | |||
| PC133 | 133MHz | 3.3v | 64-bit, 1.05B/s | ||
| PC1600 | DDR200 | 100MHz | 2.5v | 200MHz | 64-bit, 1.6GB/s |
| PC2100 | DDR266 | 133MHz | 2.5v | 266MHz | 64-bit, 2.1GB/s |
| PC2700 | DDR333 | 166MHz | 2.5v | 333MHz | 64-bit, 2.7GB/s |
| PC3200 | DDR400 | 200MHz | 2.5v | 400MHz | 64-bit, 3.2GB/s |
| PC4200 | DDR533 | 266MHz | 2.5v | 533MHz | 64-bit, 4.2GB/s |
Today’s ultra-powerful CPUs, GPUs and RAM are
tied to a proverbial boat anchor. It’s the motherboard with its inherent latency
and bottleneck problems. Further to that is the I/O rate of the hard disk
or how fast data can be lifted from or stored to the platters.
A way to increase After Effects render speed
is to increase disk speed and this is accomplished by moving to a SCSI disk
array. Unfortunately in the restrictions of a home buyer’s budget it would
push the cost above an acceptable level. SCSI disks have a greater throughput
of data than IDE disks. ULTRA160 SCSI disks deliver a maximum 160 MB/s and
the newer UTLRA320 SCSI deliver 320 MB/s. The less expensive IDE drives can
move data at a maximum of 100 MB/s (ATA100) or 133 MB/s (ATA133). We all know
that actual performance with either SCSI or IDE is significantly less than
theoretical boasts. Any of these disks in an array can further enhance performance
with SCSI arrays reaching upwards of a theoretical 500 MB/s. Processors can
handle a greater amount of data in After Effects but must “wait around” for
the data to exchange with the hard drive.
CPU, GPU, Ram and hard drives work through
the motherboard and therein lay the bottleneck. CPU, GPU and RAM may be able
to accept and shovel out information with great speed and in huge gulps but
the problem is that the pathway between components is relatively small and
not nearly as fast. It’s like trying to drain or fill a swimming pool with
a garden hose. A solution is to get a heck of a lot more garden hoses or a
bigger hose.
Both AMD and INTEL are backing solutions and
each in their own way. AMD brings HyperTransport with a bigger hose and INTEL
counters with the many hose analogy for PCI-Express, formerly known as 3GIO.
INTEL also is deep into it with Infiniband. Infiniband is more of an “outside
of the box” solution providing for reliability, availability, scalability
and performance gains between data centers, such as server disk arrays. It
isn’t paramount to this article but worth mentioning as it will have an impact
on how fast two systems can talk to each other. Both AMD and INTEL have the
same goal to increase the amount and speed at which data moves through a system
or device.
Chipset? Who’s got the chipset?
AMD HyperTransport Technology-Based
System Architecture should be thought of on two levels; within the specific
component and between components. In other words HyperTransport technology,
when applied to a component such as a processor, can raise the bar on how fast
it can complete an operation or how much it can process at any given time. HyperTransport,
when applied to the pathway between components, increases the amount of data
(bandwidth) and reduces the time for it to get around (latency). HyperTransport
allows for the pool to drain or fill faster due to a very much larger hose.
HyperTransport promises some pretty
hefty improvements to loosen the noose on bottleneck I/O problems. HyperTransport
technology is used to provide high-performance interconnects between integrated
circuits that comprise the system’s core. Peripheral device interconnect is
provided by existing industry standard busses such as USB, IEEE-1394, IDE, SCSI,
Serial ATA, etc. In other words AMD is aiming to provide a large bandwidth,
high speed platform. AMD makes the HyperTransport technology available and leaves
the rest up to the other manufacturers. This may mean a bigger, better, badder
motherboard.
HyperTransport Technology
HyperTransport technology is an advanced high-speed, high-performance, point-to-point link for integrated circuits. HyperTransport provides a universal connection that is designed to reduce the number of buses within the system, provide a high-performance link for embedded applications, and enable highly scalable multiprocessing systems. It was developed to enable the chips inside of PCs, networking and communications devices to communicate with each other up to 48 times faster than with existing technologies.
Compared with existing system interconnects that provide bandwidth up to 266MB/sec, HyperTransport technology’s peak bandwidth of 12.8GB/sec represents better than a 40-fold increase in potential data throughput. HyperTransport technology provides an extremely fast connection that complements externally visible bus standards like the Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI), as well as emerging technologies like InfiniBand. HyperTransport technology is the connection that is designed to provide the bandwidth that the new InfiniBand standard requires to communicate with memory and system components inside of next-generation servers and devices that may power the backbone infrastructure of the telecom industry. HyperTransport technology is targeted at the networking, telecommunications, computer and high performance embedded applications and any application in which high speed, low latency and scalability is necessary.
The AMD-8000 (HyperTransport) series of chipset
components stack up to some large numbers promising a peak throughput of 12.8
GB/s.
AGP 8X doubles the bandwidth moving peak transfer
rate up to the 2.1 GB/s notch.
PCI-X (not to be confused with PCI-Express) significantly
improves data transfer rates from 100 and 133 MB/s all the way up to nearly
1 GB/s peak data transfer.
USB 2.0 allows for connecting exterior USB peripherals
to access the system via a 450 MB/s pipeline.
It’s a very simplified explanation but it means
that PC systems have the potential to make rather large performance jumps in
the relatively near future. HyperTransport technology is a reality as evident
by nVidia’s nForce chip but don’t expect full featured HyperTransport motherboards
to find their way onto store shelves for some time to come.
More on Hypertransport technonology can be found
at the website and
in an AMD white
paper.
All aboard the Express!
|
|
INTEL stands behind PCI-Express and Infiniband.
The performance gains have been staked even higher than HyperTransport with
an initial offering of 2.5 GB/s/direction up to a projected advance to 10 GB/s/direction
and beyond. It appears that PCI-Express is initially designed to “fit into the
existing box” and Infiniband is designed for improved connectivity “out of the
box” such as connecting server data centers.
PCI Express architecture is described as a
high-speed, general purpose serial I/O interconnect that provides the bandwidth
for current and future applications. After reading about PCI-Express it
is almost impossibly difficult to sum up this technology into a single sentence
but the PR team managed to do so with a collection of words that commits to
nothing yet sounds exciting. Nonetheless, PCI-Express has the same goal as AMD
with one major difference. PCI-Express has been designed to fit with present
technology. It also partners well with Infiniband.
HyperTransport is a new chipset entirely thus,
as an example, a brand new motherboard would be required. It is up to motherboard
manufacturers but in order to satisfy consumer demand there may come a time
where motherboards may feature a PCI-Express port as an option to add PCI-Express
components. This may happen at the relative same time that HyperTransport motherboards
enter the marketplace. It’s debatable to which is the best approach. Is bolting
on new technology to enhance current the better route or is it best to start
from an entirely next-gen platform?
A further question arises about data transfer
to and from the hard drive platters. To get faster data transfer the disk needs
to spin faster or the data algorithm has to be more compact or a combination
of both. There comes a limit to how small the data can be made. Seagate explains;
| Today, as the magnetic particles that make up recorded data on a hard disk drive become ever smaller, we are approaching a point where the data bearing particles are so small that random atomic level vibrations present in all materials at room temperature can cause the bits to spontaneously flip their magnetic orientation, effectively erasing the recorded data. Magnetic recording scientists and engineers have calculated that this so called “superparamagnetic effect” may become a serious technology issue for new products in only two or three years. |
But as soon as it is said that
it can’t be done’
|
Seagate has decided to use a HAMR to cram more and more bits of information per square inch into hard disc drives, pushing the limits of magnetic recording even further beyond what was ever thought possible. The Company today demonstrated its revolutionary Heat Assisted Magnetic Recording (HAMR) technology, which records data magnetically on high-stability media using laser thermal assistance. |
HAMR, combined with self-ordered magnetic arrays
of iron-platinum particles, is expected to break through the so-called superparamagnetic
limit of magnetic recording by more than a factor of 100 to ultimately deliver
storage densities as great as 50 terabits per square inch. This will provide
the capability for people to store the entire printed contents of the Library
of Congress on a single disc drive in their notebook computers.
Hard drive space has increased at a phenomenal
rate over the last 5 years. It used to be that 270 MB was considered a big disk
and now 80, 100, and 120 GB drives are commonplace. (270 MB is less than one
percent the size of a 120 GB hard drive.) Space increases and falling prices
keep the consumer happy but what happens when the consumer turns their attention
away from processor speed and disk space?
PCI Express and HyperTransport bring the promise
of faster productivity on the computers that we work with today. This will buy
time until hard drives become something more than they are and perhaps less
integral to the real time operation of a system. Fitting the multitude of software
and hardware architecture together into a coherent working solution may take
time but it is on the horizon and we’ll witness some form of its arrival sooner
than later.
And where will it stop? Will we expect real time
renders or projects rendered faster than real time? In whatever form it happens
to finally evolve into next generation technology could make today’s super fast
PC the 486 of tomorrow.
More on PCISIG can be found at their website
and this FAQ.
Also look to the other white
paper on 3GIO. Infiniband information can be at the website
and in the FAQ.
Conclusion
Workstation class PCs were always thought of
as very expensive and powerful beasts affordable to only those with deep pockets.
Everyday a new piece of hardware comes onto store shelves and if properly picked
can make for some formidable computing power at very affordable prices. You
don’t need the best of the best hardware to do the work. Perhaps that diamond
tipped, gold plated shovel isn’t needed in the garden when a plain old spade
will do the job just as well.
I commend those who waded though this. PC configuration
is like a jigsaw puzzle; you need a few pieces of information to begin to see
the big picture. After this you may be left with the question of what would
we recommend? Our test system tackled the workload of a professional broadcast
design department and performed well and even better than some existing systems.
We thoroughly enjoyed the extra display that the Parhelia brought to the work
environment. Remember that a workstation is not designed to be a competitive
gaming computer even though the designers had to be told on several occasions
to do work instead of playing Quake. The AMD processors made a few INTEL loyalists
reconsider. All of them were like curious children when we broke from the “beige
box” syndrome. Those that knew the price of professional 2D/3D workstations
said…”it cost what?” If you are building from the ground up or just adding
on…determine what you want first. If it is workstation graphic power then
balance the GPU-CPU equation as a little more money invested in one or the other
may deliver better results in the end.
Begin with the end. Getting more from a workstation,
gaming or home multimedia PC is a matter of answering the questions of what
is expected from the computer. Define your goals and get your hands dirty with
a little research then you’ll end up with a PC that is better suited to your
tasks and, perhaps, your pocketbook. We built a system that made many users
very happy. It also made my budget very happy as well. It is amazing the creative
power that’s available in computer hardware today.
In closing I’m reminded of an old saying. Give
a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for
life. In other words; if I tell you what’s best now you’ll have the best for
a day but if I teach you how to choose what’s best for you then you’ll have
the best for life.
Short-Media extends their appreciation to the good
people at ABIT, AMD, Matrox, GlobalWin and an ever-faithful AMK Computers for
their assistance and involvement with this article.
Personal Opinion
The use of benchmarks, charts, graphs and a lot
of technical talk are valuable in the price vs. performance equation but it
all comes down to how a computer system “feels”. Marketing surveys may show
results such as 9 out of 10 users thought it was fast but what happens if you
are the 1 out of 10?
Our test system surprised us. Perhaps we were
rooted in a MAC design world for too long or caught with our pants down for
keeping up with technology. The home PC enthusiast most likely upgrades more
times in a year than an office does in 5 years. In unofficial comparisons our
test system beat our single and dual processor G4’s and nipped at the heals
of a dual XEON Quadro system.
We didnt’ set out to build a gaming machine but
we were able to play games and not worry about being blown up when our computer
couldn’t keep up. Softimage and After Effects are what interested us the most.
Fast renders and an easy interface would make our head spin. The Matrox Parhelia
brought great amounts of real estate and a great image quality but a few problems.
Softimage is not the most well-behaved program at the best of times. It was
cranky to begin with and within a few driver tweaks Matrox engineers had it
under control. There are still a couple of bugs but they are getting harder
to find and most wouldn’t stumble across them. Softimage did have some very
minor display problems with the second and third display but these should be
gone with the release of the 1.01 drivers. The other problem wasn’t the fault
of Matrox but more us. Our cabinetry was configured for dual monitors and not
for three. Nevertheless the Parhelia functions extremely well in single, dual
or triple head mode. A lot of people hadn’t heard of AMD, ABIT or GlobalWin
and didn’t know there was so many choices and options. They definitely marvelled
at the AMK case.
We thought it couldn’t be done on a budget. It’s
simply amazing the sheer computing power available at our fingertips. Immediately
half the computers that were twice the price…were made obsolete.
Sure there were the doubtful who mocked and stood
firmly by their convictions…as the familiar sound of the MACs crashing echoed
down the hallway.
