PC Computer choice (early 2013)

TaoTeJared

No don't be silly Spraynpray........ As a Dell U2711 owner, I can vouch for their quality, but they don't come cheap. I think I paid around $1000 for mine on its own, and that was after doing a lot of searching! I think Teo has found himself one heck of a good deal.

That is good to hear about the monitor - I was on the fence on it.  It was marked down from 1000 to 850 as they released a new 27" led version that did have 120% of the color gamut but I figured 110% was good enough.  

Yous guys play with more expensive toys than I do!

When you sit in front of it every day - it's no longer a toy but another tool.  

TaoTeJared

@ Studio460 - mSATA SSD is useless if you get a regular SSD.  It just helps boot faster.  With photography you are either faster SSD or slower rpm drive.  Nothing really between.  

Lenovo updated their site about a year ago with the options you see.  They have been the same for about that long as well.  The premium screens are somewhat close to apple's retina displays - basically more resolution screens.  

Here is a link to how various CPUs perform against each other.  It was a huge help in looking at systems as well as how much slower laptop CPUs were.   I always knew they were not the same, just never saw by how much!

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

studio460

I made a few errors (the above price included the dock and DVD drive):

The Lenovo 12.5" ThinkPad X230 with a 3.6GHz, quad-core i7-3520M processor, upgraded IPS display, with 4GB RAM, 16GB SSD, and 500GB HDD is $1,107. The product weighs under three pounds (with the smallest battery), and has a nice "rubberized-feel" exterior case. A 16GB (8GB x2 DIMM) memory upgrade from Crucial is only $81.99. So, the total price (as most would configure), before shipping and sales tax, is:

ThinkPad X230 w/16GB RAM $1,189

I'll probably order one of these later today. All I'll need to add is an ExpressCard/54 CF reader, and my dream will be complete--I'll be able to take a CF card from my D3s or D800, and insert it directly into my laptop!

studio460

Not sure I understand you, Tao. Yes, the 16GB SSD is so small, its only utility is as a cache. Searching the Lenovo forums, I found that I can buy a larger, after-market mSATA SSD (a 256GB mSATA SSD from Crucial is $223), replace the Lenovo-installed 16GB SSD, and copy a bootable disk image to the 256GB SSD. The Lenovo primary 2.5" x 7mm HDD is a 500GB 7,200 RPM drive (which should be pretty fast?).

studio460

Well, the ThinkPad X230 it is!

The only problem? Both the 54mm Delkin and SIIG-branded ExpressCard/54 CF adapters are out of production. Lexar still sells one, but it's the 34mm form-factor (which I believe, extends beyond the slot, whereas a 54mm adapter will sit flush in the ExpressCard slot). I could only find two (un-branded) 54mm CF adapters on Ebay. Those were the ONLY two I could find (only $8 each) on Ebay, Amazon, NewEgg, and the entire rest of the Internet!

jonnyapple

I don't know if you guys saw/care, but there is a new technology on the radar for SSDs. The researchers incorporate microscopic heating elements in the fabrication of the devices to occasionally flash anneal (no relation to flash memory, but fitting) the defects created by write cycles. Their experimental devices are now at least an order of magnitude more write cycles than current tech is rated for and still kicking.

What it could mean for the future is much simpler SSD controllers that don't have to worry about distributed wear, as well as being able to use SSD memory as virtual (non-volatile) RAM. They claim the extra power used is insignificant.

PB_PM

Sounds like a good step in the right direction. The limited life cycle of SSD's has been somewhat of a detractor for heavy use scenarios, such as long term OS, scratch disk, or more importantly server use. If they have found a way to increase the usable read, write cycle that would be good news indeed. Although SSD's currently have an advantage in sustained power use, idle HHD's still use less power, so that is a hurdle that needs to be overcome yet.

studio460

I thought SSD write cycles were fairly high . . . in the millions? I'm still waiting for the holographic memory cubes which Texas Instruments, and others, announced in the early 1990s.

PB_PM

IIRC each sector can handle 1 million cycles, under ideal conditions. An OS disk could reach that limit very quickly in some sectors (a few years). If you actually look at the read/write cycles of an OS disk, you'll see why it could be an issue. Most tech savy people would never run into the issue, due to upgrade fever, but typical home users who keep computers for 5 years or more could.

In addition, just like conventional hard drives sectors can corrupt or die over time, so there is no guarantee. Of course, once a sector reaches 1 million cycles it isn't totally lost, it just becomes read only. The highest read/write cycle count tends to be in premium SSD's, so don't expect that kind of performance from current consumer (budget) models.  In some ways SSD's are a step back in time, since they have more in common with floppy disks than hard drives (form factor aside).

TaoTeJared

Congrats on the new system!  

(Nothing of the below makes a difference in choices of what you got.)  

Not sure I understand you, Tao. Yes, the 16GB SSD is so small, its only utility is as a cache. Searching the Lenovo forums, I found that I can buy a larger, after-market mSATA SSD (a 256GB mSATA SSD from Crucial is $223), replace the Lenovo-installed 16GB SSD, and copy a bootable disk image to the 256GB SSD. The Lenovo primary 2.5" x 7mm HDD is a 500GB 7,200 RPM drive (which should be pretty fast?).

It's not the same as a SSD - it caches boot and a few other things - from what I understand it is bios/software controlled.  Basically it is the same as attaching a SD drive to a desktop and setting it as a boot device.  For instance on my old Netbook I used a 16gb SD card installed as a boot cache.  Works well with slower drives.  If you replace it with a standard SSD it becomes an entirely different use.  

The only problem? Both the 54mm Delkin and SIIG-branded ExpressCard/54 CF adapters are out of production. Lexar still sells one, but it's the 34mm form-factor (which I believe, extends beyond the slot, whereas a 54mm adapter will sit flush in the ExpressCard slot). I could only find two (un-branded) 54mm CF adapters on Ebay. Those were the ONLY two I could find (only $8 each) on Ebay, Amazon, NewEgg, and the entire rest of the Internet!

I'm guessing the reason is because they are much slower than USB 2.0 devices.  With USB 3.o why would you want to wait 4-5 times longer to download files?

Ironheart

Studio460,

It's actually about 5000 p/e cycles, but the driver spreads them out across the entire device. I'm not sure why you are so keen on the express card 54 reader, as it is pretty outdated tech. An external cf reader with USB3 seem way better and gives the flexibility to be used on any system

studio460

I thought PCIe ExpressCard throughput was comparable at 2.5 Gbit/s, 5Gbit/s in full-duplex?

PB_PM

That is the theoretical performance, except for the fact that most ExpressCard slots don't run directly off the PCIe bus, but rather through USB.

studio460

According to ThinkPad X230 owners posting on notebookreview.com, apparently the ThinkPad X230's slot is PCIe 1x-compliant. However, I don't know if the CF adapter I happened to buy is PCIe-compliant, or if it will revert to USB 2.0 mode.

PB_PM

PCIe 1x's max speed is 250MB/s, so a USB3 device would be faster, in theory. The issue is that unless you are using a SSD or RAID array, the drive wouldn't be able to write the data fast enough take full advantage of it anyway.

studio460

Yes, 500MB/s in full-duplex, though I don't know if that's possible in one direction  (i.e., ingesting a CF card), or only a bi-directional spec (which I'm assuming it is). Well, if they're comparable, real-world, I'll take the convenience of not having to carry around an adapter.

PB_PM

PCIe 1x (both 1.0 and 1.0a) have a max 250MB/s, period from what I've read anyway. The reads would not be bi-directional, while read/write operations would be. So in real world terms, USB3 (400MB/s real world operation) is faster for copying data from one source to another.

adamz

@studio - You want be able to hand the new iMac on the wall as is no longer VESA compatible

TaoTeJared

PCIe 1x (both 1.0 and 1.0a) have a max 250MB/s, period from what I've read anyway. The reads would not be bi-directional, while read/write operations would be. So in real world terms, USB3 (400MB/s real world operation) is faster for copying data from one source to another.

+1

Don't forget your CF card can't be read that fast either.  Basically there is "theoretical performance" or what I like to call, "utter marketing BS" and then real world performance which seems to be always 25% of what the theoretical performance is.   Either way - I just try to remove bottle necks rather than add them - USB 3.0 readers do just that.

Swame_sp

An off-topic, my view on the 13" mbp 2010 model. I'm a computer savvy person using them for about 10-12 years now.

Coming to my whining, this mac gets really slow when I use aperture and top it off with HDR, it just eats up RAM like crazy. I can't have Aperture open for long time. 

May be my next laptop could be windows. I use Win-7 at work and OS x as a personal machine. At work it's not RAM intensive work but sometimes IE crashes (ok, I've to use IE for work related stuff). So I could still stay Windows are still in that crash mode. I hope Win-8 comes out good and save MS's face.

When I was about buy the mac (couple of years ago), people said this is a computer that will stay with you for years to come... which is not the case. Many a times, aperture and browsers (Chrome and Firefox) has crashed. Couple of positives on mac - > no virus, people think it's cool to have one (which I don't care about).

How do you guys keep up with having a desktop and laptop, sharing images between them?

Sorry to trigger the mac vs pc discussion again. Feels good now after venting out... 

spraynpray

Apparently it is no longer true to say no viruses on a Mac?  The guys at the local PC repair business say they get about one virus per month on theirs.

PB_PM

There have been no viruses for a Mac OS since the mid 1990's. There have been some minor Trojans in recent years,  and some spyware, but that's all. In most cases the issue is cross platform utilities, like Flash and Java that have been the source of the problem.

spraynpray

Right, I see what you mean.  Does it matter though whether the virus gets in via something other than the OS?  It is still infected isn't it?

studio460

Adam: Wow! That's really too bad! IMO, there's no slicker installation than a pretty unibody iMac hanging from the wall with a zero-footprint. Note that I had to order a special VESA adapter from Apple to mount my 2008 iMac.

PB_PM

Right, I see what you mean.  Does it matter though whether the virus gets in via something other than the OS?  It is still infected isn't it?

Yes, but it there is a little more to it than that. Like Vista and Windows 7, Mac OS requires admin authorization (admin user name and password) to install software. The only known Trojans to work around there were JAVA based, and easily fixed by updating or disabling JAVA.