FTK hardware recomm...
Clear all

FTK hardware recommendations  

Active Member

I am looking into purchasing UTK and wanted to find out from those who use it what amount of RAM and what CPU works best. I have heard 1-2 GB RAM and >1GHz processor.

Has anyone seen a measurable performance boost going over 2GB RAM?
What about upgrading to Dual core processor or dual processor? Does FTK take enough advantage of that to justify the increased cost?



Posted : 08/07/2006 8:48 am
Active Member


Access Data are going to be having a launch day in the UK soon where all of the new features will be revealed. You may have already had this is the US. I have heard it will support 64 bit processors but I'm not sure if it will also make use of dual or multi processors properly. However I'm sure you will want to be doing something else whilst FTK is indexing the case and so dual core or dual processor computers are worth going for. I would certainly go with at least 2GB of memory and if you're going to run 64 bit Windows then even more than that. If you are going to have to go through masses of image files then I would recommend a pretty decent graphics card too as this will greatly reduce 'scroll lag' when viewing a folder containing 40,000+ images.

We currently run PCs with Intel D940 processors, 4GB of RAM, X800 GT graphics and all the other usual trimmings. It's OK and will be for the next couple of years. I suspect anything less won't cope with the ever increasing quantities of data you will be crunching in 2 years or more.


Posted : 10/07/2006 3:31 pm
Active Member

Consider that the new intel chip (Conroe) is to be released later this month. It may be worth the wait. If for no other reason than the price drop on the other chips.

For forensics though the most important consideration is hard drive speed and throughput. Searches, data carving, and such will all prove that your bottleneck is the drive. In other words the processor and memory will handle the work faster than they are capable of getting it. A storage RAID comprised of SATA 3 gb/s drives would be money well spent.

Posted : 10/07/2006 5:38 pm
Active Member

Whats wrong with AMD? They are really handing it to Intel as of late. I prefer their chips to be honest.

Posted : 11/07/2006 2:08 am
Active Member

I think it's a matter of preference really. They have in the past been more efficient in terms of energy (and heat). From what I'm reading however the AM2 will clearly lag behind the Conroe. The reviews of the new AM2 chips have been mixed to poor.

Posted : 11/07/2006 2:17 am