Bridge CS3 does not recognize your Wolfdale cpu properly?- It gives a warning message of incompatible cpu,
- Slide show hangs up,
- Performance problems,
UPDATE to version 2.1.1. [here]
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Adobe Bridge CS3 & 45nm Wolfdale
Bridge CS3 does not recognize your Wolfdale cpu properly?- It gives a warning message of incompatible cpu,
- Slide show hangs up,
- Performance problems,
UPDATE to version 2.1.1. [here]
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
Canon 864mm Lens
This photo was taken by kalimalang12 and it shows a 800mm lens for SLRThe idea is to mount a super mega tele-lens in an affordable way. (using compact cameras) One of the biggest built-it "zoom" available is the Canon S series and I got the S3 for the test, (you can use an S5 as well).
Canon offers an original 1,5x converter for the S series.
In the G series, canon offers a 2x converter. Those are recommended to be used as follow:
The point is that I am not easy to please and I know that Raynox quality is nothing wow... so lets keep on CANON and see how far can I go!What happens if we accidentally misuse it? :) Placing the big tele-2x on the wrong camera:
...resulting in a hardcore focal lengh of 800mm+The Tele-2x is the converter TC-DC58C made for Canon G7 (or G9). Meanwhile we need an adapter, in this case the LA-DC58H which is compatible with both Canon S3, S5 and "are made to be used" with the Tele-1,5x (TC-DC58B) but since its a 58mm mount, it is physically compatible and sits perfectly on the S3.
Price:
Adapter LA-DC58H= €20,0 on ebay (canon dont produce it anymore)
Tele 2,0x TC-DC58C = €135,0 (new is about €165,0)
Tele 1,5x TC-DC58B = €130,0 new
RANGE:
On the full frame photo bellow you can see a mine wooden structure captured at 0,9Km distance:
I guess you cant recognize the person, but still I was quite impressed with it. Though, no voyeur at 0,9Km! Sorry :) ...have to lower down my standards!!! :)Doubling the focal length:
Below you can compare the stock focal and the doubled one.
It actually represents a 1,91x of "magnification" and not 2,0x,(820mm final focal length). That makes a difference once we are at those high values. Maybe enough to recognize the man ;)
Rounding those numbers we got:
The feeling of shooting at 800mm is great. Thanks to the image stabilizer that makes it possible! Even just walking around the tripod makes the image shiver a loot so keep high speed shooting is highly recommended.400mm VS 800mm quality:
The test was shot at ISO80 and f/8.0 to assure the best quality available by the Canon S3.
Shooting at long distances, sharpness becomes really important to me. But even before I could dive into sharpness details, there is a major factor that seem to destroy all the images - the chromatic aberration which is huge!On this shot one can easily see that blowing up a native S3 photo will in fact produce better results than the 800mm.
CONCLUSION:
So I would definitely NOT recommend you to swap lens from different models :) Its now proved being not a better solution than Raynox.
If you really looking for an improve on your compact camera, buy certified material to ensure you at least the same quality as you're having now. The 1,5x tele lens for this Canon S3 might really be worth then! And as you can see its not that different in terms of field captured!
Anyway this lens works much better on my Canon G6, although at only 280mm (tests coming this summer)
Thursday, 16 July 2009
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
E6300 vs X6800 "5" Conclusion
I guess thats it!
As you will see, even with this system, there is extremely slow processes handling digital image/drawings. This is because all the software that I use is designed mostly for Single-Core. The thing is that on my old P4 both threads would be working at full power and now, in the dual-core technology, not even one cpu ever runs at 100% in any application Therefore I really miss the frequency of Intel P4 with the Hyper-threading technology that allows that great management!
Anyway:
The overall score of X6800 over E6300 is only 133%!!! A score that is directly proportional to its frequency speed achieved by overclocking. Now I really question the need of more cache memory in practical use, being WinRAR the only program that takes advantage of it!
My hope now goes to the plan B - Selling this one and buying the new E7500 at the exact same speed as this Extreme X6800, but with only 3mb of cache. It has a new architecture: "Wolfdale-3M", it consumes less voltage, therefore less heat and it can handle up to 75°C :) Hopefully it will reach 4Ghz+ and give a real bust to the crucial application as InDesign!
Leave you with some CPU-z of the processors that I have been talking about:
As you will see, even with this system, there is extremely slow processes handling digital image/drawings. This is because all the software that I use is designed mostly for Single-Core. The thing is that on my old P4 both threads would be working at full power and now, in the dual-core technology, not even one cpu ever runs at 100% in any application Therefore I really miss the frequency of Intel P4 with the Hyper-threading technology that allows that great management!
Anyway:
The overall score of X6800 over E6300 is only 133%!!! A score that is directly proportional to its frequency speed achieved by overclocking. Now I really question the need of more cache memory in practical use, being WinRAR the only program that takes advantage of it!
My hope now goes to the plan B - Selling this one and buying the new E7500 at the exact same speed as this Extreme X6800, but with only 3mb of cache. It has a new architecture: "Wolfdale-3M", it consumes less voltage, therefore less heat and it can handle up to 75°C :) Hopefully it will reach 4Ghz+ and give a real bust to the crucial application as InDesign!
Leave you with some CPU-z of the processors that I have been talking about:
E6300 vs X6800 "4" Benchmark
Are you an Architect or Designer?
This might be of high relevance for you!
Time to test it in all my daily routines:
First, testing how fast the applications start up:
I keep both processors so that you can see the difference:
Remember that E6300 cost me three yr ago 180€, and few months later the X6800 cost over 800€. Considering that price difference, the starting-up time performance is ridiculous!!! The old and cheap dual core still rocks!!! And I am sure that I am not bounded by the hard drive, LOL (which is capable of an average of 222Mb/s, and an access time of less then 5ms)
_______________________________________
And now having a close look at each application, starting by Windows XP SP3, and one of the things that I suffer with is rotating images:
In case you are considering to get a new camera with thousands of mega pixels, give it a second thought!!! A fact is, you never rotate only 10pictures ;)
_____________________________________
Photoshop is one of the application that I enjoy most working with. Its quick in most actions, so I decide to test the others situations:
On this one I am not asking more then what I had, but still, resizing images is boring!!!
Not to highlight the terrible score in opening large files!!!
__________________________________
All the wrinkles on my face are due to InDesign! Thats the crucial program that collects all the data produced by all other programs and where the final posters are composed:
Please make an effort and look closely to the first 2 tests:
6 seconds of waiting time to zoom in?!
8 seconds of waiting time to shift page?!
Of course that, after the you order the first action, the following ones have a better responce, but once you change page "accidentally" in high quality preview, its always a nightmare!!!
And, yes I do need to have it in "print preview" mode!
(...SO WHAT?!?!)
I need to see how the fucking shit is going to look like... OK!!! ;)
__________________________________
Oh! I hate this one as much as the previews one!
I simply want to shift page and it takes ages to perform my request:
Once again, only one core is used to perform those 2,5s of waiting time to "simply" shift a page. The use of two cores would make it an acceptable score, but still...
Anyway, it is better but way pre-historic value. And this is claimed to be a top 10 CPU on the market, according to Tomshardware in April 2009!!! Thanks mom for sending me Fluoxetine every month!!! Love you!!!
____________________________________
Oh, this one has been a struggle. The version 2.0 would refresh a brush action every 2seconds!!! Impossible to use!!!
This version is much better but having to wait 1 second between each action is making me not use it. Why doesn't it work in real time as in Photoshop? Nobody knows! Anyway, 2fps is a quite good improvement and I might give it a try more often but it is still very disappointing!
(even milking the X6800, did not pay back the cpu stress so I keep it at stock voltages @3,4ghz)
____________________________________
The most un-human software ever designed:
Maybe the publishing tool is suppose to be used once or twice in the end of your project but my InDesign is linked to PDF files that are automatic updated with the publishing tool in AutoCAD.
That means that every time I want to preview my final poster I have to wait (now) 2min:43sec!!! Still unacceptable!!!
____________________________________
Finally the only 2 applications that I use that profit of the multi-core capabilities of the cpu:
Of course any Quad-Core CPU would win on this benchmark since it depends on the number of cores available. Its rare that I use 3DS, so It is not worth having a more energy consumption CPU that only produces heat and requires a better cooling!
This might be of high relevance for you!
Time to test it in all my daily routines:
First, testing how fast the applications start up:
I keep both processors so that you can see the difference:
Remember that E6300 cost me three yr ago 180€, and few months later the X6800 cost over 800€. Considering that price difference, the starting-up time performance is ridiculous!!! The old and cheap dual core still rocks!!! And I am sure that I am not bounded by the hard drive, LOL (which is capable of an average of 222Mb/s, and an access time of less then 5ms)_______________________________________
And now having a close look at each application, starting by Windows XP SP3, and one of the things that I suffer with is rotating images:
In case you are considering to get a new camera with thousands of mega pixels, give it a second thought!!! A fact is, you never rotate only 10pictures ;)_____________________________________
Photoshop is one of the application that I enjoy most working with. Its quick in most actions, so I decide to test the others situations:
On this one I am not asking more then what I had, but still, resizing images is boring!!!Not to highlight the terrible score in opening large files!!!
__________________________________
All the wrinkles on my face are due to InDesign! Thats the crucial program that collects all the data produced by all other programs and where the final posters are composed:
Please make an effort and look closely to the first 2 tests:6 seconds of waiting time to zoom in?!
8 seconds of waiting time to shift page?!
Of course that, after the you order the first action, the following ones have a better responce, but once you change page "accidentally" in high quality preview, its always a nightmare!!!
And, yes I do need to have it in "print preview" mode!
(...SO WHAT?!?!)
I need to see how the fucking shit is going to look like... OK!!! ;)
__________________________________
Oh! I hate this one as much as the previews one!
I simply want to shift page and it takes ages to perform my request:
Once again, only one core is used to perform those 2,5s of waiting time to "simply" shift a page. The use of two cores would make it an acceptable score, but still...Anyway, it is better but way pre-historic value. And this is claimed to be a top 10 CPU on the market, according to Tomshardware in April 2009!!! Thanks mom for sending me Fluoxetine every month!!! Love you!!!
____________________________________
Oh, this one has been a struggle. The version 2.0 would refresh a brush action every 2seconds!!! Impossible to use!!!
This version is much better but having to wait 1 second between each action is making me not use it. Why doesn't it work in real time as in Photoshop? Nobody knows! Anyway, 2fps is a quite good improvement and I might give it a try more often but it is still very disappointing!(even milking the X6800, did not pay back the cpu stress so I keep it at stock voltages @3,4ghz)
____________________________________
The most un-human software ever designed:
Maybe the publishing tool is suppose to be used once or twice in the end of your project but my InDesign is linked to PDF files that are automatic updated with the publishing tool in AutoCAD.That means that every time I want to preview my final poster I have to wait (now) 2min:43sec!!! Still unacceptable!!!
____________________________________
Finally the only 2 applications that I use that profit of the multi-core capabilities of the cpu:
Of course any Quad-Core CPU would win on this benchmark since it depends on the number of cores available. Its rare that I use 3DS, so It is not worth having a more energy consumption CPU that only produces heat and requires a better cooling!Saturday, 4 July 2009
E6300 vs X6800 "3" Overclock
Overclocking the X6800 was a nightmare, or actually a daymare, because in Svalbard there is no night :) hehehe what a nice joke! pffff
It has an unlocked multiplier that can be set from 6x to 20x. This means that you can change it from its native 11x to 12x and you get a 3,2ghz (12 x 266mhz = 3,2ghz). The value "266mhz" is the internal bus of the processor. These processors have 4 bus lines and this results in a FSB of 1066mhz. (266mhz x4 = 1066mhz)
Very simple! Now you just have to know the limits of your components and know "what is limiting what": For example if you find that your motherboard has a FSB limit of 1200mhz, that means your processor cannot have a bus over 300mhz. (1200mhz/4 = 300mhz). And in this situation your are definitely bounded to the limit of your motherboard.
And just to add some useful info on how to overclock:
Normally I start increasing the BUS in 10mhz increments until the system does not boot-up anymore and then lower one increment and thats it! Simple!
The problem with this X6800 is that it needs more power to go anything above its stock values. Then, in order to go beyond, I had to increase power. So, up the vcore 0.05v until it becomes stable again, (within the 1.350v limit suggested by Intel). If you reach the voltage limit and it is still unstable, then lower the BUS in 5mhz increments until it boots again.
Well, not so simple... sometimes even withing the bounded limits there is another factor that limits the maths - the temperature. Temperature tends to be quite linear on increase of BUS frequency but it raises exponentially if you increase voltage. Something that we dont want to do since we are cooling on air and like our machine to produce ZERO noise!!!
To test stability and temperature I use:
1 - PRIME95 to torture the CPU.
2 - Any other program to monitor temperature. For example RealTemp v3.0 seem pretty good. (not compatible with P4) In this case it cannot go over 60°C (suggested by intel) Check out the Tj max of your processor here and update this value on RealTemp program. This is a factor that will tune up your reading to be precise! For the X6800 is [75].
3 - I use a copper Zalman heat-sink with the fan at its minimum rotations/sec. Zero noise addicted! :)
After a couple of tests I realize that having a free multiplier is not as fantastic as it sound. As you increase the multiplier, you have to lower the FSB, so..... whats the point?!?! Well, it makes sense if you feed in more power on the CPU but, that is not my goal! I want it safe, nice and clean! :)
Here you can see the differences of maximum overclock on Air (indoors), that I manage on my old CPU and on my new one:
Sadly, very sadly... I gave up after one day of overclocking it and the maximum that I could squeeze, was those miserable 3,4Ghz. :( Even my old CPU could run a faster internal BUS speed. Very disappointing!!!!!!
If I switch to its native 11x multiplier, the maximum BUS that I could reach was 310mhz. Giving the same 3,4Ghz..... Miserable!!! (310x11=3400)
Of course that the higher the BUS speed, the higher the FSB, as follow:
4 lines of 310mhz BUS = 1240mhz of FSB (4x310=1240)
4 lines of 340mhz of BUS = 1360mhz of FSB (4x340=1360)
Thats why I prefer to run the same speed at a higher FSB. Offering a greater bandwidth to the CPU!
Actually this would only be needed once both processors work at full power. Something that never in my regular tasks:
I have no relevant applications that profit of multi-core! Do you? Then this blogg is not for you!
It has an unlocked multiplier that can be set from 6x to 20x. This means that you can change it from its native 11x to 12x and you get a 3,2ghz (12 x 266mhz = 3,2ghz). The value "266mhz" is the internal bus of the processor. These processors have 4 bus lines and this results in a FSB of 1066mhz. (266mhz x4 = 1066mhz)
Very simple! Now you just have to know the limits of your components and know "what is limiting what": For example if you find that your motherboard has a FSB limit of 1200mhz, that means your processor cannot have a bus over 300mhz. (1200mhz/4 = 300mhz). And in this situation your are definitely bounded to the limit of your motherboard.
And just to add some useful info on how to overclock:
Normally I start increasing the BUS in 10mhz increments until the system does not boot-up anymore and then lower one increment and thats it! Simple!
The problem with this X6800 is that it needs more power to go anything above its stock values. Then, in order to go beyond, I had to increase power. So, up the vcore 0.05v until it becomes stable again, (within the 1.350v limit suggested by Intel). If you reach the voltage limit and it is still unstable, then lower the BUS in 5mhz increments until it boots again.
Well, not so simple... sometimes even withing the bounded limits there is another factor that limits the maths - the temperature. Temperature tends to be quite linear on increase of BUS frequency but it raises exponentially if you increase voltage. Something that we dont want to do since we are cooling on air and like our machine to produce ZERO noise!!!
To test stability and temperature I use:
1 - PRIME95 to torture the CPU.
2 - Any other program to monitor temperature. For example RealTemp v3.0 seem pretty good. (not compatible with P4) In this case it cannot go over 60°C (suggested by intel) Check out the Tj max of your processor here and update this value on RealTemp program. This is a factor that will tune up your reading to be precise! For the X6800 is [75].
3 - I use a copper Zalman heat-sink with the fan at its minimum rotations/sec. Zero noise addicted! :)
After a couple of tests I realize that having a free multiplier is not as fantastic as it sound. As you increase the multiplier, you have to lower the FSB, so..... whats the point?!?! Well, it makes sense if you feed in more power on the CPU but, that is not my goal! I want it safe, nice and clean! :)
Here you can see the differences of maximum overclock on Air (indoors), that I manage on my old CPU and on my new one:
Sadly, very sadly... I gave up after one day of overclocking it and the maximum that I could squeeze, was those miserable 3,4Ghz. :( Even my old CPU could run a faster internal BUS speed. Very disappointing!!!!!!If I switch to its native 11x multiplier, the maximum BUS that I could reach was 310mhz. Giving the same 3,4Ghz..... Miserable!!! (310x11=3400)
Of course that the higher the BUS speed, the higher the FSB, as follow:
4 lines of 310mhz BUS = 1240mhz of FSB (4x310=1240)
4 lines of 340mhz of BUS = 1360mhz of FSB (4x340=1360)
Thats why I prefer to run the same speed at a higher FSB. Offering a greater bandwidth to the CPU!
Actually this would only be needed once both processors work at full power. Something that never in my regular tasks:
I have no relevant applications that profit of multi-core! Do you? Then this blogg is not for you!
E6300 vs X6800 "2" downclock
First I downclocked the X6800 to 2,6ghz in order to compare its performance with my current system.
Considering that it has 4mb of Cache L2, it should perform better but there was actually a lost in performance of about -1 or -2% in all tested applications:
...which means that more cache does not directly increase performance!
The only application that it showed better performance was WinRAR:
...in a rather unusual attempt of compacting 1 file of 730mb! I never do that so, more cache is not relevant for me.
Considering that it has 4mb of Cache L2, it should perform better but there was actually a lost in performance of about -1 or -2% in all tested applications:
...which means that more cache does not directly increase performance!The only application that it showed better performance was WinRAR:
...in a rather unusual attempt of compacting 1 file of 730mb! I never do that so, more cache is not relevant for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
