Super Computer!!??

[Darren]

Sorry, I agree with DanTheBanjoman,

No offense Dan, but mind your own damn business, the reason I posted this was to get a yes or no answer from everyone, (Kinda like what Trickson there did.) not for some guy to give me his input, and opinion on what "I" choose to do with my "Canadian" money..

Well, when you ask a forum for advice it automatically becomes their business, you cannot ask for other peoples opinions and not expect them to express it.

The reason I don't already have a nicer system, is because the one I have runs fine, but it crashes, and freezes because i'm running huge programs like AutoCAD 2009, World of Warcraft, crysis, and tons of other home designing programs.

If your current system crashes then evidentlly it doesn't run fine.

i'm running huge programs like AutoCAD 2009, World of Warcraft, crysis, and tons of other home designing programs. I also like to have music running in the background, talk on msn, download huge files, and cruise the internet at the same time.

Nothing special. My system is no super computer plays high end games too, COD: World at war at 50-70 FPS @ 1440x900 4x AA 16 AF, GRID 40-65 FPS @1400x900 4x AA, etc. I oh I play with music in the background, Skype, MSN, antivirus etc as well. Your list of games/software nothing special, any cheap dual-core ranging from £30-70 would handle those games and next year's games with little effort. I'm not sure about Auto CAD's requirement I'm sure a cheap Quad Q6600 or Phenom 9950 for £130-150 would be overkill for CAD, coupled with 8 GBs of PC6400 DDR2 ram for £100 and you're sorted. My point is all the hardware which I mentioned is cheap and is over kill for both high end gaming and CAD work. Asking for a server type specification for doing "regular tasks" isn't wise and because of the nature of the hardware you're asking your going to be stuck with an operating system which may not support the games you intend on playing the applications you run in the background, lack of driver support might make those crashes you're getting on your current rig look like paradise.

This computer will be extremely fast today, tomorrow, and for a very long time, that means I won't have to upgrade it.

It doesn't work like that. Technology is never stationary, just because you build a server it doesn't mean it will have any longevity in comparison to a regular desktop, especially if you are running regular applications. Like a few people have said already there is more chance of the Intel's i7 or amd's Phenom II's performing just as well, maybe better than your server in normal every day applications and games.

Just because somebody has made 6,000 posts on a website, and is a senor moderator pretty much just proves that you know how to use a little thing called "Google".

He probably has 6,000 posts because he spends a lot of time helping people like you who ask for advice but do not take it. Actually why don't you take your own advice and use "Google".

 

[Dia01]

You've gotten a bit of a hammering mate, but I agree go the Intel i7 and a buy some decent hardware to go with. Any which way though, good luck.

 

[Deleted member 3]

I should bring this up now because it could have a major impact on your decision. "Workstation" operating systems (Windows XP/Windows Vista) are limited to two sockets. If you want more than two sockets, you'll have to get Windows Server 2003 (Standard Edition or better) or Windows Server 2008 (any edition).

Except Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition, Windows Server does not have 3D graphic support. That is, you can't even install a FireGL or Quadro (it'll be running off of default Microsoft display drivers). Because AutoCAD is a priority for you, bigger is not better.

If you're thinking Linux or some other OS then don't mind me.


Windows Server Standard usually goes for around $700 USD w/ 5 CAL packaged as OEM. Vista/XP obviously go for much less.

Windows server has no limitation on 3D acceleration. That goes for 2003 and 2008. You can install basically anything tou can install on XP/Vista. On the other hand, if you want a quad socket system, XP/Vista won't use more than two.

I probably shouldn't be saying this, but you can "try out" 2008 for 8 months before you need to reinstall. This is basically enough to use it for free. MS licensing isn't that bad

Either way, apart from a few programs that specifically check for your Windows version (mainly firewalls, antivirus and the likes) there is no software limit to what you can run.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Windows server has no limitation on 3D acceleration.

NVIDIA (GeForce) and AMD (Fire and Radeon) disagrees. Windows Server 2003 (non-x64 Edition) and Windows Server 2008 drivers are available for Quadro cards only. So, you go with quad-socket, Quadro is about your only option for graphics cards.


Personally, I'd get Windows Vista x64 on a dual-socket system and call it good. It keeps your options open for video cards.

 

[Deleted member 3]

NVIDIA (GeForce) and AMD (Fire and Radeon) disagrees. Windows Server 2003 (non-x64 Edition) and Windows Server 2008 drivers are available for Quadro cards only. So, you go with quad-socket, Quadro is about your only option for graphics cards.


Personally, I'd get Windows Vista x64 on a dual-socket system and call it good. It keeps your options open for video cards.

Server 2003 uses the same drivers as XP and 2000. 2008 uses the same drivers as Vista. I run 2008 at home with my 8800, I've used 2003 for years on various systems and various cards, never had issues with any drivers.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Then consider yourself lucky.

 

[Deleted member 3]

Then consider yourself lucky.

It's not a matter of luck, it's how it works.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

For you, maybe. NVIDIA has explicitly stated to me that only Server 2003 x64 Edition has GeForce drivers because it is the only Server OS that has 3D Acceleration support (probably preserved from the merger of XP x64 and Server 2003). If you got legacy drivers to work with it, more power to you. Just don't expect NVIDIA to lift a finger to help. So...buyer beware on Server.

 

[Deleted member 3]

For you, maybe. NVIDIA has explicitly stated to me that only Server 2003 x64 Edition has GeForce drivers because it is the only Server OS that has 3D Acceleration support (probably preserved from the merger of XP x64 and Server 2003). If you got legacy drivers to work with it, more power to you. Just don't expect NVIDIA to lift a finger to help. So...buyer beware on Server.

All server editions have full 3D acceleration support, I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. You don't require any legacy or modified drivers, any version you download from nvidia.com or amd.com work fine.
Any feature found in XP/Vista can be enabled in the server editions, including Aero, superfetch, happy sidebars, themes, etc. They are essentially the same OS's.

 

[_jM]

lol@this thread

All i can say bro, is its your dream..so follow it. If you need advice then we(TPU) will try our best to help.

But i also agree with dan on the i7's, or if you want a server based mobo and can wait till early 2009 go with the dual i7 boards. Im sure that will be more than enough for ya. Good Luck

 

[Darren]

NVIDIA (GeForce) and AMD (Fire and Radeon) disagrees. Windows Server 2003 (non-x64 Edition) and Windows Server 2008 drivers are available for Quadro cards only. So, you go with quad-socket, Quadro is about your only option for graphics cards.


Personally, I'd get Windows Vista x64 on a dual-socket system and call it good. It keeps your options open for video cards.

I've got two friends using Server 2008, one is using an ATI 4850 and the other is using an ATI 3850.

PS.

lol. I think the threadstarter has realised how expensive this upgade may be, I dont think he is going to return lol

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from.

NVIDIA. I phoned them up some time ago inquiring about the GeForce 8500 GT and why they listed drivers exclusively for Server 2003 x64 Edition and that was her answer: Server 2003 does not have 3D acceleration support so they don't publish drivers for it.

Here's a KB Article they wrote on it:

Microsoft Windows Server 2003 is positioned as an enterprise server operating system. Because of this, Microsoft has disabled hardware 3d acceleration from the operating system. To re-enable this, go into your Display Properties -> click on the Settings tab -> click on the Advanced button -> click on the Troubleshoot tab -> move the slider all the way to "Full" -> click on the OK button to confirm this change.



If you would like to run multimedia applications, it is recommended that you install Windows XP Professional or Home instead of Windows Server 2003. As an alternative you can use a dual boot configuration so that you can have one operating system for your multimedia applications entirely separate from Microsoft Windows Server 2003. Due to this positioning NVIDIA does not support accelerated graphics in Windows Server 2003.

I do believe this stance changed in Server 2008 but only for Quadro cards.

 

[Mussels]

NVIDIA. I phoned them up some time ago inquiring about the GeForce 8500 GT and why they listed drivers exclusively for Server 2003 x64 Edition and that was her answer: Server 2003 does not have 3D acceleration support so they don't publish drivers for it.

Here's a KB Article they wrote on it:


I do believe this stance changed in Server 2008 but only for Quadro cards.

the server OS's disable hardware acceleration by default. you can just go into DXdiag and turn it on, if its disabled.

In this case, nvidia is definately wrong... lots of people here on TPU are gaming on these OS's, i hardly think they'd make it up.

 

[Deleted member 3]

NVIDIA. I phoned them up some time ago inquiring about the GeForce 8500 GT and why they listed drivers exclusively for Server 2003 x64 Edition and that was her answer: Server 2003 does not have 3D acceleration support so they don't publish drivers for it.

Here's a KB Article they wrote on it:


I do believe this stance changed in Server 2008 but only for Quadro cards.

Then the kind lady was wrong or just gave you an answer to get rid of you. The fact that NV doesn't list it as supported doesn't change anything to the fact that Microsoft in no way limits the way you use their server OS's. If you really don't want to take my word for it download a trial of any edition and install it.

Also, if you just read the linky you gave yourself you'd see that it's just disabled by default, it's a setting. You can enable it, it's not hidden or anything.

 

[btarunr]

i'm running huge programs like AutoCAD 2009, World of Warcraft, crysis, and tons of other home designing programs. I also like to have music running in the background, talk on msn, download huge files, and cruise the internet at the same time. Not to mention, that I am now running four monitors, off of two computers, and a laptop through a network.

IMHO, you really don't need a quad-socket machine for that. Realistically my lowly Phenom would be comfortable with all of those, unless you're talking about WoW, Crysis, CAD and misc. all running at the same time. Even then an i7 sounds sufficient.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I will repeat:
"NVIDIA does not support accelerated graphics in Windows Server 2003."

If you work around it by installing other drivers, that's your own ordeal. The statement above still stands. And no, she wasn't trying to get rid of me. Everything NVIDIA has published on the subject collaborates her story. If you want to install an NVIDIA graphics card on Windows Server 2003 and NVIDIA support it, you must get Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition. Call them up yourself if you wish.

 

[Mussels]

I will repeat:
"NVIDIA does not support accelerated graphics in Windows Server 2003."

If you work around it by installing other drivers, that's your own ordeal. The statement above still stands. And no, she wasn't trying to get rid of me. Everything NVIDIA has published on the subject collaborates her story. If you want to install an NVIDIA graphics card on Windows Server 2003 and NVIDIA support it, you must get Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition. Call them up yourself if you wish.

or, you can just enable it in DXdiag and install a driver anyway... we're telling you that while they dont 'support' it, it works just damned fine. i even did it once, a year or two ago.

 

[Deleted member 3]

I will repeat:
"NVIDIA does not support accelerated graphics in Windows Server 2003."

If you work around it by installing other drivers, that's your own ordeal. The statement above still stands. And no, she wasn't trying to get rid of me. Everything NVIDIA has published on the subject collaborates her story. If you want to install an NVIDIA graphics card on Windows Server 2003 and NVIDIA support it, you must get Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition. Call them up yourself if you wish.

The fact that Nvidia won't support it doesn't mean you "work around" something or that it doesn't work. It works fine, you double click the driver package (downloaded from nvidia.com), click next a few times and you're done. Nvidia not supporting it means they can tell you to piss off when you have problems, their supportdesk isn't trained with Windows servers. It has nothing to do with it working or not.
In fact, NV is nice enough to write the KB article you linked to, which explains how to enable it. So they basically say "it works, but don't bug us about it".

Besides, you were claiming the other way around, Windows servers not supporting 3D graphics. Which they clearly do.

 

[blobster21]

+1 Dan

nvidia position on 2003 driver support is clearly dumb, since 2003 server and xp are one and the same architecture

 

[CDdude55]

If your that rich, a Core i7 965 and maybe OC it to a good speed, with a 4870 X2(or maybe 2), that should be well for what you need to do.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Besides, you were claiming the other way around, Windows servers not supporting 3D graphics. Which they clearly do.

Not out of the box. You have to enable it. Microsoft doesn't want you putting 3D graphics cards in there and graphic card manufacturers don't want you to bug them about it. I said they don't support it and they don't support it. You can do it otherwise should you choose to but don't expect anything from them. That includes stable drivers. The only reason why XP/Vista drivers work is because their architecture is similar, as stated. Just because they work doesn't mean they support it because they don't. If the next release of drivers, for instance, doesn't work on Server 2003, they won't care. Why should they? They don't support it.

I'm done with that topic.

 

[DrPepper]

if he's won the lottery or money isn't a problem, I personally would do the same thing just to learn about it if I had the money. Anyway if your properly serious why not a dual socket board with a couple xeons or core 2's vista ultimate and a couple of 4870X2's although there would be crossfire issues.

 

[Disparia]

Heh, I think we get it by now

Now if only I could get a rebate from nVidia or ATI as I've never used their support (and can't if I use an unsupported OS).

 

[fryup]

IMHO, you really don't need a quad-socket machine for that. Realistically my lowly Phenom would be comfortable with all of those, unless you're talking about WoW, Crysis, CAD and misc. all running at the same time. Even then an i7 sounds sufficient.

Have to strongly agree with that, not to put a dampener on your plan, if you really want to build this super computer then your obviously more than free to so. however i run all those programs as well, imo autocad is not a huge program( a pretty simple one actually), i also run 3ds max, photshop,illustrator and video editing and my system copes with it all without a problem.
i'd have thought you could build an absolutley badass comp with all the latest cpu/ram/mobo/ duel gpu etc that could easily cope with all your programs for a couple of grand £.
but as i said dont take this as criticism for your plan, just that i dont know how your ever gonna be using even half of its power and by the time programs come out that would use it, the hardware needed for running it will be far more affordable.