Single, Dual or Quad for Sage??

[DUSTYBOOTS_TR]

I'm ready to purchase hardware primarily for Sage apps., but wish to be able to multitask photo processing etc.. while handling the associated HD data I/O without too much drag. What hardware config(s) do you suggest? If a dual core or even a fast single is better in this case, i would like to know. I am trying to keep the overall cost of the hardware under $700.00 (if possible). i'm not sure if i'll have XP, or be stuck with Vista. The question of graphics card vs. extender is also relevant.
..

[evilpenguin]

Dual-core is really the way to go, i'd recommend anything in the intel C2D E6XXX series. Getting a single these days is just crazy and quad is only if you plan on doing *a lot* stuff on the PC while Sage is running (hardcore video encoding, 3D games, etc., not Office/Picasa type stuff).

As for the rest of the system, its all about expansion. Plenty of SATA (4-6), 1-2 PCI for compatibility, and then a few PCI-e slots.

Do you plan on watching Sage on this machine or just using it to record and getting an extender for viewing?

[Djc208]

Originally Posted by evilpenguin

Dual-core is really the way to go, i'd recommend anything in the intel C2D E6XXX series. Getting a single these days is just crazy and quad is only if you plan on doing *a lot* stuff on the PC while Sage is running (hardcore video encoding, 3D games, etc., not Office/Picasa type stuff).

You're hard pressed to even find a single core CPU in a desktop anymore any of the newer Intel C2D chips are great, even the newer Pentium series, which slots below the E4xxx series is a good budget buy.

If you are just going to record with the machine then how powerful a processor you get is really dependant on what other tasks you want it to do. Otherwise just recording/commercial skipping/and streaming to an extender requires almost no real CPU power, my 3000+ single core handles it fine, and I playback too, but that's about all I do with it, and it's just enough.

If you plan on HD playback I'd go for the fastest clock speed you can get in either the E4xxx series or the E6xxx series as playback isn't multi-threaded so speed counts.

If you want to use the computer as a computer then I'd use an extender on your TV, it's too awkward to use a computer from the couch for actual work, plus it's quieter, smaller, and less complicated to set up.

[CollinR]

Q6600 = $250

You can easily clock them to 3.0 and I have seen 3.2 but just using stock math.


2.4 ghz * 4 = 9600 cycles for $250 = ~ 3 cents per cycle

Compared to lets say the very popular E6600 = $230

2.4ghz * 2 = 4800 cycles for $230 = ~ 5 cents per cycle


For me it's Celeron D or Q6600 now.

Celeron D 347 numbers, I wouldn't suggest it for you.

2.8ghz * 1 = 2800 cycles for $47 = ~ 2 cents


Use a nice motherboard and OC the Q6600 to 3.0 and you numbers get even better.

$250/12000= 2 cents

[rlvogel322]

I think price/performance wise I would go with an Intel e8400 instead of an e6600. I've seen prices that are very good with that CPU and it has great OC potential if you would want to increase the speed.

Like EP said, if the PC will be used for other things, not just HTPC, than I would go with a Quad. The Q6600 is a great chip or you could wait until the Q9450 comes out at the end of the month. Also, if you're planning on doing commercial proccessing, compressing and other things with the HTPC you might benefit from starting with a Quad. I am doing all of those things now with an e6600 @ 3.6Ghz. The HTPC is getting the Q6700 I have in my everyday PC when the Q9450 comes out.

From my personal experience, using an extender instead of the PC to watch TV is much easier. No StreamZap, video and sound drivers to mess with. Plus the extender is around the same price as a decent GPU.

I know most MBs will have Gigabit a ethernet port but it's important to verify that if you'll be streaming lots of HD content to other places.