I'm not new to building PCs but I haven't really kept up with recent tech for the last couple of years. I built a gaming PC just prior to that and now I'm looking to build a 3D Modeling and Rendering Workstation for my job. We're a relatively small landscape design firm so this will easily be the most powerful animal in the office, but it's not without a budget. The key is getting into the sweet spot where I'm not spending a lot for small results but I'm also not skimping on parts that will hinder the necessary processes. That said, my idea of a budget is $2,000 but that's pretty flexible.
Now, my confusion (and reason for posting) really sets in on CPUs and GPUs. In the past I've built exclusively gaming PCs and now this one won't be used for gaming at all (or very, very little). So I'm looking into Workstation GPUs and CPUs with more cores (even delving into the Xeon range). I get that these are more aligned with the desired task, but what I need help on is whether or not they are good enough comparatively to spend the extra money on.
My plan is to keep this PC independent of our company server and fairly unladen with superfluous nonsense that we have on the other computers in the office (GIS, Google Earth, etc.). My main uses will be:
Autodesk 3DS Max : we do landscape design so these are typically high poly, large scale, organic sites.
VRay: As mentioned, this will be the office beast for now. So the entire 3D modeling workflow through finished animated renderings (think golf hole fly-throughs) will be done on this machine.
Adobe CC: I'd consider this a 1.5 between primary and secondary use. I can do it on another machine, but for workflow purposes with textures it's realistic to do all on one.
Secondary uses:
Supplemental 3D programs (Vue, Terragen, ZBrush, Mudbox, etc.). I don't currently use these, but I could see needing them in the future.
AutoCAD: Another thing that I can keep to another PC, but if this thing isn't otherwise occupied then why not.
So, to stop rambling, what components would y'all include in a build of this nature? I feel it will end up being a mix of gaming and workstation components but I just don't know yet exactly what I should be looking at and figured I could use some help!
If there is anything I didn't address feel free to let me know. No need to worry about OS or peripherals in the pricing either.
Here is my build I went with a slightly weaker cpu still a great cpu so that I could go with a professional grade gpu which I think should benefit from a lot of the 3d rendering programs . I also wasn't very sure on your storage needs are you going to back up or store the finished products on another server or locally the storage may have to be changed.
I like the ideas. As far as storage needs I'm not too worried about that either. I have 4 x 750 GB 7,200 RPM drives from an old build and also access to a fairly large server to back everything up on. I'll certainly get a SSD for my OS and I'll probably get another 250 GB SSD to use as primary storage of the things I'm working on at the time.
I'm still a bit unsure on the CPU and GPU. I see y'all both went with a workstation graphics card but split on the Xeon processors. Any rhyme or reason for those decisions?
I guess what I'm trying to figure out is, since it's not an unlimited budget, where is the money best spent? As in I could save some money and get a really nice gaming graphics card instead of the workstation, and that would give me more to spend on a processor, but will I end up hating that decision in the long run?
Also, if I do go with a workstation GPU, I've read mixed reviews about the Firepro vs. Quadro debate. Obviously Quadros are more expensive across the board but it almost seems as if I'd be better off staying in the Nvidia family even if that means getting a gaming GPU over getting a Firepro (no clue on this, just an idea I've gotten watching videos and reading about the builds of others).
*FirePro I went with Autodesks tool to find what will work. As the FirePros and Quadros have not changed imensly since then, any workstation card will work. What do you do? If it is more "art" the i7 will serve you just fine. In case you are doing complex 3D engineering and plant design, the Xeon I selected will be to weak.
The internet has no clue when it comes to professional hardware. Linus is using gaming cards for video encoding (one would use Teslas/FirePro S-series cards for that). Let me tell you, using Autodesks 123D design on an R9 Fury is close to giving up. Simulating heat stress on dual W9100 is a breeze (It better be for 6000€).
Autodesk 3DS Max: CPU bound
VRay: [Do not know]
Adobe CC: partnerd with AMD, runs good on CUDA and OpenCL (toss a coin in the Quadro VS FirePro argument). Best thing to decide would be to follow this Link, click on what software you use, then click on "system requirements" and scroll down to the long lists of supported GPUs.
Vue: [Do not know]
Terragen: [Do not know]
ZBrush:
Mudbox: Will happily run on every GPU out there. Reference
AutoCAD: CPU should be a decent workstation class CPU (6 core Xeon/8 core Opteron). Definetly want to use a workstation GPU of any sort (M4000 / W7100 or better). Reference
And of course you were right on the FirePro (my apologies, too much research in too little time for me!).
I looked into VRay a bit and from my basic research it appears that it does utilize CUDA. So that, given the other information you listed, makes me lean towards the Nvidia lineup.
I take it you think that a decent quality Workstation GPU is critical to this build (over a top-end gaming card)? I think that was one of my main questions. For example, I wasn't sure if I should go with a K4200 over a GTX Titan or GTX 980 Ti. It appears the move is the K4200, M4000, or maybe a stretch to a K5000 in this scenario.
Far and away, this is a 3ds and VRay machine. I just didn't want to build something that skipped leg day and couldn't run the other programs in a pinch. That said, it appears like the 3ds modeling calls for a solid CPU while the rendering calls for a nice GPU. All things considered, the CPU seems more important given that a few of these programs are bound to its performance.
To answer your question, most of what we do would be considered "art". We do get into some AutoCAD Civil 3D but that's not what this computer will be for. We are using a lot of organic models (trees, plants, topo) so there is a tendency for our models to get pretty heavy. It's not so much about the precision as it is the ability of the processor to efficiently trudge through the high poly counts (we'll use proxies but still). I get the feeling that, in the 400-600$ range, I need to start favoring cores over speed? That would put me in the E5-1650 v3 (6-core @ 3.5 ghz) vs. i7-5930k (6-core @ 3.5 ghz) vs. E5-2630 v3 (8-core @ 2.4 ghz) area on the high end.
Might be stretching my budget but it's a good comparison starting point.
Oh. I meant art more like making sketches and rendering videos, not working majorly in 3D design software. A good board to go with the Xeon would be this:
For clarity, what's the rationale here? Is it a future upgrade ability or do you mean start out with a dual-CPU setup? I feel like that would certainly be stretching the budget.
I think we can run up around the $2200-$2500 range and I can rationalize that but I don't see how a dual-CPU (at least running both from the start) will fit into that realm.
I also don't know exactly where to draw the line between more cores with a lower speed and less cores with a higher speed. As mentioned I don't want to create something that narrows itself into a category where it can't handle the odd single-core application efficiently. I get the feeling that the number to not drop below is right around 3 ghz. I guess the perk of a dual-CPU machine is that I could drop down to 2 quad-core CPUs with more speed. More decisions! Haha.
3dsmax and most graphic related software utilize everything, all resources. Thus more cpu power together you have the more performance you get faster. You will always struggle between lack of memory when you get into it deeply.
(e5-2670 8core xeon costs around $50, v2 costs about 400-500, v3 costs up to 3/4k) with this setup it grants you ability to upgrade to v2 cpu's later when they become cheaper.
Mobo, RAM and PSU look good. The smack to the face is the TitanX which is not enough workstation card to be used in massice CAD applications such as OP described. We worked on the AMD or Nvidia problem from my lunch brake until now. Overall Quadro seems to be the better option in OPs use case.
i've played for years in graphical environments, and every time i only needed more vram and faster... i still am butthurt about nv buying up mentalray renderer ... it used to be great with ati's before... (again, if some1 knows his way around without using cuda - but opencl, there are plugins for that - amd is much better option then)
I never had up to date quadro for comparison, but i've heard titan is fully unlocked so it should be ok with cad... (it should be better than quadro really - after all its the same gpu... just different drivers) for amd side its much easier, gpu's simply are the same, the only difference what you want is vram.
The FirePro W9100 is such an amazing workhorse. I know, I am using two of them at my job. We ran some basic simulations on one W9100 32GB and one Quadro M6000 24GB. AMD pulled ahead and now most of my office runs on AMD. Back to topic. As far as I can tell, the TitanX has way to cut back double precision performance to be a fully fletched workstation card. In OpenGL, the Quadros are definetly faster than the GTX cards. If we go W7100 instead of M4000, we free up $200 for use on the CPU(s).
i can't find any indication of quadro m4000 giving any support for fp64, last gen of cards were not really good for fp64 at all. I don't think they have any, like titanx.
