#1  
Old 28-10-2020, 03:53 PM
cwjohn (Chris)
Registered User

cwjohn is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 57
QHY600 Computer processing specs

Hi

I am looking at ordering a QHY600 but I will need a new computer for acquisition and processing.

Obviously I will need reasonable processing power like an i7 with plenty of internal RAM.

Does an upspec GPU add any benefit?

What is the recommended hard disk size?

What are the key determinants that will mean I will not be disappointed with performance?

Many thanks in advance
Chris
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 28-10-2020, 04:19 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 16,411
I am getting one as well. File sizes unbinned at 122mb. So if you take shorter exposures than you would with CCD, say 5 minutes instead of 10 minutes, then say 6 hours of total exposure is going to be 87gb. Plus darks, plus flats, plus flat darks and you are looking at something like 100gb for one complete image plus saved processing versions.

I would imagine ideally you need a large SSD for processing and saving temporarily and then transfer all the data to a large HDD. SSD's are faster.

Lots of RAM is always good.

If you are using a longer focal length scope you probably will be running the camera 2x2 binned. Now the files are a lot smaller.

So a large SSD, lots of RAM, i7 processor and a large HDD (cold be an external drive.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 28-10-2020, 04:47 PM
jwoody's Avatar
jwoody (Jeremy)
Registered User

jwoody is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ormeau Hills, Australia
Posts: 330
What spec computer do you currently have? Maybe there is an upgrade path there rather than buying new? If you happen to be on AM4 (AMD) you may have some upgrade possibilities there.

Jeremy
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 28-10-2020, 04:50 PM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,871
My understanding is that the GPU makes little to no difference.
Some things to depend on what software you're using, PixInsight works best with a very fast swap drive (not everything has to be on that fast drive) and the more processors the better as pretty much everything is multi-threaded.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 28-10-2020, 04:59 PM
cwjohn (Chris)
Registered User

cwjohn is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 57
Greg

I will mostly be long focal length so lets say 25GB per one complete image. My mount has periodic error well less than 1arcsec so I am hoping for unguided 5 minute exposures (although I will get the guide camera). So assuming 20 exposures I would reckon on 512GB SSD.

2TB internal should allow me to store 4 sets of data at any one time, and a 10TB external hard disk should be sufficient for long term storage.

Is there a need for an upgraded Graphics card. My sense is that this is only useful for gaming where quick frame rates are an advantage. I am not sure there is any real benefit for processing astro images, but I am not experienced in such matters. Some advice in this regard would be helpful as a good graphics card costs quite a few $.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 28-10-2020, 05:35 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 16,411
I use CCDstack to calibrate images. With about 4gb RAM I used to get memory warnings all the time. I got an upgraded desktop computer about 1.5 years ago. It has 64gb RAM and I don't get the memory warnings.

So its RAM, its SSD versus HDD and its speed of the processor (in my experience ghz speed does not seem super important, perhaps others can chime in there). i7 seems to be a good processor.

This does not have to cost a lot. I recently got a nice 2nd hand laptop with an i7 and SSD plus 16gb ram for $650.

Just be careful with these small external SSD. I have 2 and currently can't find one of them!!! They are pretty small.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 28-10-2020, 06:15 PM
rustigsmed's Avatar
rustigsmed (Russell)
Registered User

rustigsmed is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Mornington Peninsula, Australia
Posts: 3,398
just a heads up the new AMD 5000 series is being released 5 Nov. these cpu's will be out performing i7s by what it appears could be a reasonable margin. while amd had the core count advantage for a while they didn't have the clock speed or ipc that intel has. this new series now boost to nearly 5ghz and single core ipc is outscoring intel by a large margin in things like cpuz cpu bench, cinebench r20, you will need to buy a graphics card as their is no onboard graphics unit. it also has pci4 rather than pci3.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 28-10-2020, 06:38 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 7,129
I have already gone down the QHY600 path.

Fortunately I upgraded my PC to a AMD Ryzen Threadripper...which. frankly blows my 18 month old i7 out of the water. I'd suggest you look at the AMD's as even the latest i9 crop of processors rate poorly against them.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 28-10-2020, 08:42 PM
DavidTrap's Avatar
DavidTrap (David)
Really just a beginner

DavidTrap is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
I am getting one as well. File sizes unbinned at 122mb. So if you take shorter exposures than you would with CCD, say 5 minutes instead of 10 minutes, then say 6 hours of total exposure is going to be 87gb. Plus darks, plus flats, plus flat darks and you are looking at something like 100gb for one complete image plus saved processing versions.

Greg.
Are you sure about your maths Greg?

122Mb x 12 images per hour = 1.5Gb per hour

If you're using Pixinsight for processing, there are some threads on that forum about PC specs - multithreaded processors, lots of RAM, lots of swap disks.

Something for next year's budget...

DT
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 29-10-2020, 07:40 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 16,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidTrap View Post
Are you sure about your maths Greg?

122Mb x 12 images per hour = 1.5Gb per hour

If you're using Pixinsight for processing, there are some threads on that forum about PC specs - multithreaded processors, lots of RAM, lots of swap disks.

Something for next year's budget...

DT
Oh yes, the decimal point was too far to the right! Yes its 9gb for 6 hours of imaging and I suppose something a bit less for darks, flats etc. I delete the individual exposures taken for darks once I make a master dark so that saves some space.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 09:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Limpet Controller
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement