I7 3770K Ivy Bridge Vs. i7-3930K Sandy Bridge for Lightroom and Photoshop

Hello, I have learned so much from this forum and have a question for everyone. I am working on a custom computer build but I am not sure about the CPU. I was planning on an i7-3930K (3.2 GHz 12Mb Cache) Sandy Bridge with an ASUS P9X79 but after more research I am also considering an i7-3770K (3.5 GHz 8mb Cache) Ivy Bridge with an undetermined mobo. The 3930 has 6 cores and more cache but is a slower chip compared to the 3770K. I have read some articles that Lightroom prefers a faster chip and that the extra cores may not be of great benefit.
We primarily use Photoshop and Lightroom for image editing and do not do any video editing. We really do more work in Lightroom than Photoshop so designing the system for it would give us the most benefit. Our primary use of photoshop is batching if that helps with our usage of the system.
Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Also feel free to tell me I am over analyzing this and either chip would work great
Thanks in advance,
Jonathan

Jonathan,
For Lightroom and Photoshop the i7-3770K will do fine. It also is much more affordable than a i7-3930K on 2011 platform, but at the same time much more limited for the future, because of the limited PCI-e lanes on the 1155 platform. The Ivy Bridge has another distinct disadvantage, the Intel supplied thermal paste is lousy, so it runs very, very hot.
In another place, http://ppbm7.com/index.php/cooling?showall=&start=4 I said:
Warning: If you are considering a much better affordable system, based on the Ivy Bridge processor, be warned that the cooling paste Intel uses on the Ivy Bridge is no good, especially when overclocking. At stock speed the i7-3770K runs 11 degrees hotter than with Liquid Ultra cooling paste and at 4.6GHz even 20 degrees centigrade. However if you change the cooling paste, you also void the warranty.
To summarize: the 2011 platform has a better perspective for the future but at a price.

Similar Messages

I have dell xps it runs at 3840 x 2167 and bridge lightroom and photoshop are unusable as the type is so small if win is re scaled to a low res the products still use full res and you canot see text can you help!

I am about to buy the above products for home and a laptop I bought the high res laptop for editing photos and the photos look great on the display but I cannot use photo shop and lightroom
has any body had this problem and is there a simple fix that I have missed
taking the res down in the control panel reduces the res but does not effect the programme
by the way the dell xps is great
dave

Thanks for the info I know that there were problems with the high res
I am using the latest photoshop and bridge from the cloud but only using the trial copy at the
moment
I will look closer and try to scale it to a suitable level
thanks dave
Original message----
From : [email protected]
Date : 06/02/2015 - 00:39 (GMTST)
To : [email protected]
Subject : i have dell xps it runs at 3840 x 2167 and bridge lightroom and photoshop are unusable as the type is so small if win is re scaled to a low res the products still use full res and you canot see text can you help!
    i have dell xps it runs at 3840 x 2167 and bridge lightroom and photoshop are unusable as the type is so small if win is re scaled to a low res the products still use full res and you canot see text can you help!
    created by gener7 in Photoshop General Discussion - View the full discussion
There is that pitfall in buying HiDpi laptops for Windows.
Only Photoshop CC 2014 has the option to scale the UI 200% in order to make it usable on these hires screens.
CC and earlier does not have this and Adobe would have to retrofit them. Not likely with older products.
Gene
If the reply above answers your question, please take a moment to mark this answer as correct by visiting: https://forums.adobe.com/message/7167666#7167666 and clicking ‘Correct’ below the answer
Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page:
Please note that the Adobe Forums do not accept email attachments. If you want to embed an image in your message please visit the thread in the forum and click the camera icon: https://forums.adobe.com/message/7167666#7167666
To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at , click "Following" at the top right, & "Stop Following"
Start a new discussion in Photoshop General Discussion by email or at Adobe Community
For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1516624.

I've just downloaded trial versions of both lightroom and Photoshop and with it Bridge.. The output module seems to be missing from Bridge.. Is that just because its a trial version?

I thought i'd trial them first to see how stable they are [which isnt as good as I thought] and went to use the output section of Bridge only to find that its completely not there.
If its no longer part of the CC version, I'll stick to the version I have and not upgrade as its one of the main modules I use..

I've used contact sheets but preferred Bridge as it has the super-easy watermarking

Using root bridge as a fallback radius server for WPA and EAP

From reading the different documentation out there, it seems that one should be able to configure a root bridge as a fallback radius server in case a primary radius server were to be unreachable. Has anyone encountered this situation? And could they share the steps and configuration statements to apply the bridges (1310 or 1410) in order to make this happen?
Many Thanks and Regards,
Giles -

Yes, you have to first configure a root bridge as a fallback radius server in case a primary radius server were to be unreachable

Lightroom and Bridge

Ok, we all know there is great integration between Lightroom and Photoshop, as there should be. What about Bridge?
Or is Bridge being phased out even though it of course is integrated with almost all Adobe products?

Remember that Bridge is for folder browsing, like a glorified Finder or Explorer, and not for cataloguing. Lightroom is a catalogue and can record the location of pictures whether or not they are on drives connected to the computer. Bridge searches go through the file system, so chugging through all attached drives to find pictures, while LR searches its database. Those are big differences.
"Lightroom is better for images without a doubt. So in the eyes of someone who does graphic work, will Lightroom replace Bridge?"
No for graphic work, and that's Ian's point about the limited range of file types that LR handles. But in the eyes of someone who only does photographic work, Lightroom is likely to substantially replace Bridge, and in many cases totally. Quite often, continuing to use Bridge is because some people don't/can't get their head around working with a catalogue-based workflow, and/or they have a preference for working with folders. I might use Bridge to dig into metadata, but not for much else (I use iView/ExMedia catalogues for managing other file types).
John

Restore Ivy Bridge to Sandy Bridge MSI Z68A-GD55 G3

Hi,
I made the mistake that upgrade my BIOS to Ivy Bridge compatible one and I lost my all OC control over my motherboard. When I tried to back to version 23.7 BIOS that in the link http://msi.com/product/mb/Z68AGD55_G3.html#/?div=BIOS , I get the following error "rom file romid is not compatible with existing bios" with MSI Forum HQ USB Flashing Tool. Please help me, how can i go back to Sandy Bridge bios?

Quote from: Svet on 26-April-14, 18:33:22
it will help to flash back to the wanted bios
Sorry but I can't say I understand what you are saying :(

Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge Upgrade in 2012

PC World reports:
"We also know that Ivy Bridge will be compatible with the LGA 1155 socket--great news for Sandy Bridge owners, who may not need to buy an entirely new motherboard to upgrade."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/246688/processors_what_to_expect_from_cpus_in_2012.html
Does that mean I will be able to put an Ivy Bridge CPU into my W520?
(Ivy Bridge is rumoured to be realeased on on April 8, 2012)
W520 4270CTO i7-2820QM Quadro2000M 1920x1080 Display 16GB RAM 2x240GB Intel 510 SSDs (RAID 0) - BIOS 1.42 - PCMark7:4,568
Samsung Series 9 15-inch NP900X4C-A03US - PCMark7: 4674

ExJamJus wrote:
@JDay,
I am not sure if it applies for laptops but desktop CPU has BIOS whitelist. I came across threads that when customer tries to upgrade the CPU (even in the same series) the BIOS does not recognize the CPU after upgrading due to BIOS whitelist.
Thus I am not surprise if they have BIOS whitelist for CPU on the ThinkPads.
That happens when you try to stick a processor in a motherboard that shipped with a BIOS that was shipped with firmware intended for processors with less cores. Not a whitelist just the firmware freaking out because there were more cores than it was made to handle. This issue was very common when hexa-core Phenom II CPUs came out and could be fixed in all but a few cases (about 1% of motherboard models didn't have an update) by simply putting the old CPU back in and flashing to the newest BIOS firmware revision.
EDIT: If a BIOS update is required you can bet someone over at the MyDigitalLife forums will release a modified one, especially if it is requested. That is the same place you can find a non-whitelisted BIOS for most ThinkPad models.

Pavilion g6-1262sa CPU upgrade v2, Sandy Bridge = Ivy Bridge?

Hi, thanks to the Pavilion g6-1262sa maintenance and servicing manual and this magnificient forum I've recently found out that replacing my i3-2330m is possible with all sandy bridge processors up to i7-2620m.
Theese questions may sound silly but I continued my research and I've got couple more ideas to confront with reality.
I do realise that compatibility is not only matter of fitting the same socket but also bios installed on certain motherboard, however:
1. Do you think it would be possible to swap Sandy Bridge (2nd gen) i3-2330m for some Ivy Bridge (3rd gen) i5 -3210m?
2. Is the 32nm to 22nm manufacturing technology enough difference on it's own (even if the rest of architecture is the same) to prevent this from working?
3. Is bios of my g6 motherboard somehow identyfying installed processor? (if it's not on "the list" it will simply not run?" or is it only technical compatibility matter?
According to some statements which I found on some IT forums and sites (and some self researched facts):
Socket: both processors are compatible with BGA1023 socket. (at least that's what I found, if someone could confirm I would be grateful)
Architecture difference: "The 3rd generation is called "Ivy Bridge," and is basically a copy of Sandy Bridge manufactured on a smaller scale, or die. However, Intel also focused on beefing up the integrated graphics in this generation."
TDP: both are 35 W
Cores: both are 2 physical (4 Virtual - thanks to hyperthreading I guess?)
Power consumption: "the Ivy Bridge CPUs also use less power", "Ivy Bridge consumes a little less power; around 10w i think."
Temperature: i5 -3210m goes 5*C higher than i3-2330m - shouldn't do much difference
Looking forward to some replies, RacA
This question was solved.
View Solution.

It is not a technical (socket) incompatibility since as you likely know Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge are backward compatible on most desktop motherboards. However, HP has only implemented 2d gen Intel Core processor compatibility on the HM65 Express chipset which yours has. Motherboards that will support 3rd gen CPUs use the HM77 chipset. There is no other motherboard that will fit in your chassis.
Your analysis above, which was pretty good, left out the chipset, which you always have to think about when assessing upgrade possibilities:
http://www.cpu-upgrade.com/mb-Intel_%28chipsets%29/HM65_Express.html
The HM65 does support a couple 3rd gen CPUs but none of them is on HP's list for your model. You could try one of the ones listed in the link I gave but I think there is a very small chance they will work.
If this is "the Answer" please click "Accept as Solution" to help others find it.

Sandy Bridge Chipsets Defective!!

Intel has just announced it has a major (my words not Intel's) flaw in the current Sandy Bridge Chipset which is called.Intel 6 Cougar Point. I have seen two contradictory statements as to what boards are involved, but it just the motherboard and not the processor itself. Intel estimates that it will cost them around $700 million to correct this problem
"In some cases, the Serial-ATA (SATA) ports within the chipsets may degrade over time, potentially impacting the performance or functionality of SATA-linked devices such as hard disk drives and DVD-drives," the Intel statement read.
See Harm was right in discouraging using these chips!!

Good point, Scott. I'll put one RAID on the rear panel USB/eSATA combination connectors. I wasn't too worried about losing my system drive. I actually have two F4s and was planning to clone the C: drive after installing the OS, CS5 etc anyways.
For those who haven't looked it up, the problem is that the 3Gbps SATA connection may degrade over a long period of time until the bit error rate climbs and eventually the connected drive woudn't be seen. There's no reported danger of data loss or drive damage and the likelihood of a connection failing is linked to voltage, heat and throughput. In other words, the failure rate for video editors might be 15 or 20% over three years instead of the 5% figure that has been bandied about. The problem is apparently due to a "rogue transistor" or metal layer problem in the old tech SATAII connectors.
As far as a RAID card goes, I'm trying to keep it relatively simple for now as I anticipate upgrading to Ivy when it comes out and hope to get an Areca 1880 (or equivalent) at that time.

Sandy Bridge-E potential question

I am looking at a motherboard and CPU upgrade. How much more peformance do you expect from the Sandy Bridge-E series as compared to the i7-2600k? It looks as though the 4-core i7-3820 ($294) has limited overclock. However the 6-core i7-3930K ($583ish) is unlocked. Thoughts?
My system is working ok now, but I want more speed as I am beginning to work with 1080p 3D material. My current system is i7-860, evga p55 micro, 8gb, gtx 460. It performed relatively poorly on the ppbm.
Thanks

KineticFilm wrote:
I am looking at a motherboard and CPU upgrade. How much more peformance do you expect from the Sandy Bridge-E series as compared to the i7-2600k? It looks as though the 4-core i7-3820 ($294) has limited overclock. However the 6-core i7-3930K ($583ish) is unlocked. Thoughts?
Aren't those Sandy Bridge-E chips unobtanium until sometime in late November or are they available now? I didn't think Intel had them ready for release until later this year. Can you wait that long before you rebuild?
jas

Does the Macbook Pro 13" Early 2011 have Sandy Bridge?

I have the Early 2011 Macbook Pro 13" with an Intel i5 Processor. Some of my friends told me that only the Intel i7 Processor Macbook Pros have the new Sandy Bridge processor. Are they correct because the base model is the only Macbook Pro in the line to have an i5 Processor.

It is not stated in the specifications that either the i5 or i7 has a "Sandy Bridge", but they are the current intel processors, and will be followed by "Ivy Bridge" intel processors (assuming Apple sticks with intel for their processors). Knowing now that our macs have the second generation "Sandy Bridge" intel processors. More info: http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/03/intels-2nd-generation-core-processor-family-a nnounced-includes/. The first generation intel processors in the 13" MBP model prior to ours is called "Penryn".

Can I change the processor from a mac mini to a Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition Sandy Bridge-E 3.3GHz (3.9GHz Turbo) LGA 2011 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor BX80619i73960X

can i and how can i change it

Julio, do you have one of the rare Minis with a socket for the CPU?
Is it...
Note (1): 2nd generation Intel® Core™ i7 (Sandy Bridge-E) processors require a new Socket R (LGA2011) Motherboard.

Tapeless workflows and Sandy Bridge or other PC's: KISS or LOVE?

Tapeless workflows and Sandy Bridge or other PC's: KISS or LOVE?
Life used to be so simple when shooting video on a tape based camera. You shot your material, captured it for editing and stored your precious original footage on tape in a safe and dry place. Sure, it took time to capture, but the big advantage was that if you had a computer or drive failure, you would still have the original tape so everything could be recreated.
Now with tapeless workflows we have the significant advantage of much faster import of the original footage. Connect the flash card or disk drive to the computer over USB and copy the data to a HDD on the computer, ready for editing. The data on the flash card or disk drive can then be erased, so you can reuse it for more shots. But, like Johan Cruyff has said repeatedly, every advantage has its drawback. In this case it simply means that you no longer have the original material to fall back on, in case of computer or drive failures. That is a very unpleasant and insecure feeling.
The easy anwser to that problem is backups. Backup of the original media, backup of projects and backup of exports. This often means a bundle of externals for backup or NAS configurations. One thing is clear, it requires discipline to make regular backups and it costs time, as well as a number of disks. Four as a minimum: 1 for media, 1 for exports and at least 2 for projects. Note: This is excluding a backup drive for OS & programs.
There are different backup strategies in use. Some say backup daily and use one disk for monday, one for tuesday, and so on. Others say one disk for the first backup, the second for the second backup, then the first again for an incremental backup, etc. and once weekly a complete backup on a third disk. Whatever you choose, be aware that shelf live of a disk is far less than tape. There are horror stories everywhere about ball-bearings getting stuck after some time and without original tapes, you better be safe than sorry, so don't skimp on backups.
What is the relevancy of all this? I thought this was about Sandy Bridge and other PC's.
It is and let me try to explain.
Card based cameras are for the most part DSLR and AVCHD type cameras, and we all know how much muscle is required to edit that in a convenient way. Adobe suggests in the system requirements to use raid configurations for HD editing and practice has shown that raid arrays do give a significant performance boost and improve responsiveness, making for a nicer editing experience. The larger the project and the longer the time-line, the more a raid array will help maintain the responsiveness.
One thing you would not do is using a raid0 for projects, media and exports, even if you have backups. The simple reason is that the chance of disk failure multiplies by the number of disks in the raid0. Two disks double the chance of disk failure, three disks triple the chance, four disks quadruples the chance, etc.
Remember: Disaster always strikes when it is most inconvenient.
Imagine you have been working all day on a project, you decide to call it a day and to make your daily backup, but then the raid fails, before you made your backup. Gone is all of today's work. Then take into consideration the time and effort it takes to restore your backups to the state it was in yesterday. That does not make you happy.
Another thing to avoid is using a software or mobo based parity raid, for the simple reason that it is slooowww and puts a burden on the CPU, that you want to use for editing, not house keeping.
For temporary or easily recreated files, like the page-file, media cache, media cache database and preview files, it is very much advised to use a raid0. It makes everything a lot snappier and if disaster strikes, so what? These are easily recreated in a short time.
This was a general overview of what is required with tapeless workflows. Now let's get down to what this means in terms of system design.
Two approaches or train of thoughts
KISS: Keep it stupidly simple or LOVE: Laughing over video editing
The first one, the most economic one, is to use a system with 3 or 4 disks internally and 4 or more backup disks.
A typical disk setup can look like this:
This is a perfectly sensible approach if one does not have large or complex projects, long time-lines and is willing to take the risk of occasionally losing a whole days work, between backups. Many hobbyists and consumers fall in this category.
The KISS approach keeps it stupidly simple. The drawback is that there is no logical way to add more disks or storage. The discipline, diligence and effort required for regular backups make it far from a laughing matter. In fact it can quickly become a bore. Add to that the fact that the disk setup is simple but not very fast, so less suited for situations where lots of clips are involved, multi-cam is a regularly recurring situation or lots of video tracks are involved.
A number of video editors want more from their system than the occasional platonic KISS, they want to really LOVE their system, which lead to the other train of thought.
This is more costly than the KISS approach, but you all know a fiancée or wife is more costly and dear than the occasional kiss on the cheek by an old friend.
Let's start with a typical disk setup. It may look like this:
Two striking differences in comparison to the KISS approach:
1. Much easier disk organization and more disks and thus more space.
2. It requires a hardware raid controller, causing a higher investment cost. It is like an engagement ring. You don't get LOVE for free, one of the guiding principles of the oldest trade in the world.
These are easy statements to make, but what are the benefits or advantages, that you would fall in LOVE with such a system, and what are the drawbacks? Think back to Johan Cruyff's adage.
The only drawback is cost. The advantages are multiple, easier organization, more speed, more storage, snappier editing, no jerkiness, lesser requirements for regular backups and - this is the major benefit - hardly a chance of losing a day's work in case of a drive failure. Keep in mind that a parity raid keeps all your data intact in case of a drive failure, so lessens the need for up-to-date backups.
We all know, we get what we pay for: "If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. OTOH, if you pay money to monkeys, you get rich monkeys". But in this case you get what you pay for, a much better editing experience with a much easier workflow.
Using a parity raid (be it raid 3/5/6/30/50/60) you get security, ease of mind that you are protected against losing precious media, that you need not worry about the last time you made a backup, that the editing you did today may be lost and you save valuable time editing and a lot of aggravation because of a much more responsive system.
How does this all relate to Sandy Bridge and other PC's?
First of all, the price difference between a Sandy Bridge / P67 platform and an i7-950+ / X58 platform is very small. Of course the new architecture is slightly more expensive than the older one, but the differences are small, almost not worth talking about.
So what are the differences? Look below:
The first thing to keep in mind is that the Sandy Bridge is the successor of the i7-8xx CPU and as such it is much more evolutionary than revolutionary. The CPU power has increased significantly over the i7-8xx due to new architecture and a smaller production process (32 nm), but in essence all the capabilities have remained unchanged. Same memory, same PCI-e lanes, same version, same L3 cache and no support for dedicated raid controllers.
It is great that the processor performs much better than the older i7-8xx CPU's, almost achieving the level of the i7-9xx range of processors, but is still limited:
The Sandy Bridge is unsuitable for anything more than a KISS system.
Why? Because it lacks the required PCI-e lanes to accomodate more than a 16 x PCI-e nVidia card with CUDA support to enable hardware MPE acceleration and the integrated graphics are not supported by CS5.
You may wonder if that is a bad thing. The plain and simple anser is NO. It is a great processor, it delivers great value for money, is a solid performer, but it has its limitations. Intel had a reason to position this CPU as a mid-level CPU, because that is what it is, a mid-level performer in comparison to what is to come.
The term mid-level performer may seem strange when compared to the old generation of i7-9xx CPU's, because they perform almost equally well, but keep in mind that there is a generation difference between them.
So what about the i7-9xx and X58 platform?
It still is going strong. About the same performance as a Sandy Bridge, with only the much more expensive hexa-cores clearly in the lead, both performance and price wise. The quad cores deliver about the same value for money. The main difference however is the platform that allows a dedicated raid controller to be installed, thus making it the platform of choice for those who want to go from a passing KISS to true LOVE.
And what lies ahead?
Sandy Bridge E on the Waimea platform (X68). Now that is revolutionary. More than double almost everything a processor can offer: double the cores, double the PCI-e lanes, triple the memory, more than double the L3 cache, increase the PCI-e support from 2.0 to 3.0, etc...
This is why Intel calls this a high-end CPU / platform.
So what now?
If you prefer a KISS approach, choose either a Sandy Bridge/P67 or an i7-950+/X58 platform.
If you wonder whether in the future you may need multi-cam more frequently, edit more complex projects and longer timelines or even progress to RED, look at KISS/LOVE solutions, meaning the i7-950+/X58.
If you can't have downtime, time pressure is high, delivery dates to clients are critical or you edit highly complex projects, lots of multi-cam situations or lengthy time-lines, choose a LOVE solution, an i7-950+/X58 platform.
If you have the time to wait till Q4/2011, Sandy Bridge E/Waimea looks to be worth the wait.
Hope this gives you some more insight into recent and future developments and helps you make wise investment decisions.

I'm upgrading from an AMD 3800+, cutting with Vegas 7 Pro. Usually shoot DSLR or HDV, sometimes P2, EX or RED. I have ridiculously cheap access to Macs, FCP/FCS, all kinds of software.
I've been agonizing over this for the last month, was originally hoping the UD7 mobo was the solution, read the read about the NF200/PCIe issue a few days ago, http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/non-linear-editing-pc/489424-i7-980x-now-wait-sandybridge-2.ht ml- and still decided to go for a 2600k.
My preference is to treat my video footage the same way as my digital imagery: I make (at least) duplicate back ups of everything before reformatting the cards, never delete the back ups, and only worry about the day-to-day stuff at night. Unless I'm rendering or involved in other long processes, in which case I'll back up the work in process the next day. If I am under a really really tight deadline I might back up as I go.
Yes, a RAID might make it easier, but I'm paranoid enough to prefer a slower, safer backup. You can always duplicate, and usually improve upon, a days work, but you can never get back original footage you lost. I have only ever had one hard drive die on me (a few enclosures crapped out, though)- it took a couple of (mostly unattended) hours to rectify. As a matter of act, I've had far more loss/damage from tapes than from hard drives.
I ordered the UD7, 2 F4s and 4 F3Rs, understanding I will probably want to upgrade to SBE when it comes out, or maybe next year. The 2600k/mobo/RAM will likely hold its value better than a 950/X58, likely because of the marketplace as much as merit.
The UD7 / RAID card issue is in it's early days, there may be a solution/mitigation. Probably not. But if I really really need a RAID card, then I probably really really need a 980, NAS, etc etc.
But Harm still rocks!

Intel Z68 Sandy Bridge chipset and SSD caching....

For those of us considering a move to the Sandy Bridge/Z68 platform, we will eventually need to sort out whether to take advantage of the chipset's ability to "improve" ONE hard drive with a smallish (64GB or less) SSD.
Results I have seen indicate read speeds considerably slower than an SSD drive alone but acceptably improved performance over a bare hard drive. It seems like a promising situation. Capacity of a TB hard drive with read speeds nicely bumped upwards.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/z68-express-lucidlogix-virtu-ssd-caching,2888.html
Question: If a user followed Harm's and other's suggestions in setting up a basic 3- or 4-drive computer, which drive should take the cheapo SSD?
Thoughts:
1) Assume the Z68 platform is loaded with all 16GB of memory that the four-slot Socket 1155 motherboard can typically accept. Would CS5 or 5.5 load enough program data into RAM to render placing the SSD on the OS drive for editing with Premiere minimally beneficial? Or would it simply make sense to put the SSD on the OS drive for so many other reasons that it's a no-brainer?
2) If it's a close call, which other drive should get the SSD? If I understand correctly, this hybrid drive won't write data all that much better. The improvement will primarily be on reads. And on that, random access reads, not sustained throughput. This is especially the case with cheaper 40GB-ish SSD's. (Some one please verify this.) Most Sandy Bridge users opting for the lower end, 20 PCI-e lanes platform won't be big-time power users. (You guys are waiting for the Socket 2011 platform.) Many of us will be getting our footage from DSLR or other AVCHD sources. AVCHD is so compressed that a single drive can supply more than enough layers for the Joe Blow amateur editor.
Unless we use Cineform NeoScene to lighten the load on the CPU, which will result in a much larger bitstream coming off the media drive for each layer, Would it make sense to help out a single drive in this situation? Or would it be universally better to set up a simple 2-disk RAID 0? Paying $65 for second drive and taking advantage of motherboard RAID 0 would seem to be a better solution if the media drive can't keep up.
For any situation, if the media drive(s) is already fast enough, would caching the media drive offer many benefits? I'm under the impression that feeding Premiere with footage is a sequential read situation, not a random access deal. Isn't the strength of an SSD in random access reads, and wouldn't the best usage be to place it on a disk that primarily is used by Premiere in random access data fetching?
3) Good grief. If it doesn't go on the OS or primary media drive supplying footage, where else? Projects disk? Scratch drive?
4) Might the most useful thing be to avoid setting up a RAID while getting some of the speed benefits a RAID 0 offers? Many casual users can build a straightforward computer but have never set up a RAID array, even a 2-disk RAID 0.
40GB SSD's are under $100 now. I suspect a lot of people will use this feature of the Z68, if the hybrid drive isn't hard to set up and is reliable. I'm curious how the Premiere crowd will make use of this feature, and will it make a palpable difference on a relatively simple editing rig? No Areca RAID cards and only 16GB memory. Nothing more than 3 or 4 single drives.

Frankly I don't see how an inexpensive SSD would help the "caching" for editing with Premiere CS5, since a typical 7200 rpm 1TB drive can perform substained writes at about 2x what a typical small SSD does.
Premiere CS5 continues to beg for lots of drives!
Jim
(one of the few "believers" in SSDs on this forum - and my "belief" is for OS and programs, not for input, media, caching, etc.)

Intel finds errors in Sandy Bridge chipset

I just saw this announcement that Intel has found design flaws in the new Sandy Bridge chipset and it looks like there will be a recall. I just bought a Satellite A660 with the i7-2630qm which has the Intel 6 series chipset in question. What a disappointment! I guess that's the risk you take when you buy new technology. I hope Toshiba will fix this for those who already have this processor. I was thinking about returning this model anyway and now I really want to get rid of it.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Thanks for the response, Jim, but I'd like to register my disappointment with Toshiba's decision. I *like* my new Satellite and I'd much prefer to get it fixed. I'd like to point out that a certain competitor (rhymes with 'bell') is offering a refund, replace, or repair three-option solution. Toshiba's one size fits all solution, which really only benefits Toshiba and not their customers, looks pretty poor by comparison. I hope Toshiba reconsiders.
Mike

I7 3770K Ivy Bridge Vs. i7-3930K Sandy Bridge for Lightroom and Photoshop

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for