New Editing/Animation Workstation Build

DanTTTD · Jan 28, 2015

Hi everyone,

I know you all must be sick of these questions, but I wanted to put my proposed new PC build list to you guy to make sure I'm on the right track, and to see if you have any better suggestions. I have read many of the threads on this great forum, but I now want to run it by you folks.

I want to build a bespoke workstation for motion graphics and post-production (After Effects) editing hi-res video (Premiere Pro), and perhaps most importantly, 3D animation (being able to at least have a go at complex particle simulations) in Maya. Fast, or at least acceptable rendering speeds from these programs is a priority.

I am hoping to spend £1,000, although I guess I could save if it were to go slightly over budget for a significant performance gain.

Here it is:

GPU:

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 780 Ti OC
£300

http://www.pcsuppliers.co.uk/zotac-zt-70505-10p-graphics-card?gclid=CjwKEAiArqKmBRCOj_qfmuqinnYSJAAkAYwGV2EsiWQlfy2z1piGLf8RvS335E9gan3If_yBlF-ZKxoCfQrw_wcB

or

The straight GTX 780 if you folks think it is sufficient.

or

EVGA GeForce GTX 970 Superclocked Graphics card - 4 GB - GDDR5 SDRAM
£280

https://www.google.co.uk/shopping/product/6606017354681172001?q=gtx+970&es_sm=91&biw=1920&bih=959&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.84607526,d.ZGU&tch=1&ech=1&psi=wvfIVI3yB_PY7Abe_4GwBw.1422456770578.3&prds=paur:ClkAsKraX98-KZB2XC7bEZHXSRGhUrZmKwh7VFMgeTdrj1CEu5dSa0_8OU5lvhDHeWU3fcSINNuUGk1qa8XDXaBcPOo665_HXocpzH0DfB72o3jRforDRk27GBIZAFPVH73b9_I7tDNIUbwHGFe__5R0X-BPuw&ei=y_fIVPKPKKa07gaqroDoBw&ved=0CNABEKYrMAM

What do i need to watch out for with regards the different makes? Is the superclocked one better?

CPU:

3.5Ghz quad core Intel Core i7 3770K ivy-bridge
£225

http://www.ebuyer.com/349023-intel-core-i7-3770-3-4ghz-socket-1155-8mb-cache-retail-boxed-processor-bx80637i73770?utm_source=google&utm_medium=products&gclid=CjwKEAiArqKmBRCOj_qfmuqinnYSJAAkAYwGX6DSU8QTfDiOgTtmpn8UsbbYR0oXG96lDV4pYGFsSRoCHrXw_wcB

or

Intel Core i7-5820K Socket 2011-3 Hexa Core 3.30GHz Processor
£300

http://www.maplin.co.uk/p/intel-core-i7-5820k-socket-2011-3-hexa-core-330ghz-processor-a32rt?gclid=Cj0KEQiA6JemBRC5tYLRwYGcwosBEiQANA3IB2W1jVt9Csy21k5hvMULeW6PFz91w56LPyiiDT3kfpQaAvwc8P8HAQ

or

Intel Core i7 4790K 4GHz Socket 1150 8MB L3 Cache Retail Boxed Processor - £255

http://www.ebuyer.com/645546-intel-core-i7-4790k-4ghz-socket-1150-8mb-l3-cache-retail-boxed-bx80646i74790k?utm_source=google&utm_medium=products&gclid=Cj0KEQiA6JemBRC5tYLRwYGcwosBEiQANA3IB_BUOSEJ-fqcdL8LAuXbOPXJne--uiV-1KO4cI4zGTIaAsqP8P8HAQ

or

Intel Core i7 4790 Quad Core Professional Processor (3.60GHz, 8MB, Haswell, 84W, Graphics, Hyper Threading Technology, Socket 1150)
£245

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intel-Professional-Processor-Threading-Technology/dp/B00K3E8NZC%3FSubscriptionId%3DAKIAI62SSPLIHX7AR6PA%26tag%3Dcpuboss-21%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3DB00K3E8NZC

or

AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition FX-9590 5.0GHz 16MB
This CPU seems higher spec than the intels. I know they have hyper-threading, but surely this doesn't beat the double amount of cores this AMD has??? And the price of this is much much nicer...
£174

http://www.shop.bt.com/products/amd-fx-8-core-black-edition-fx-9590-5-0ghz-16mb-9NSG.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc%20product%20search&utm_campaign=PLA%20|%20Shopping%20|%20All%20Products

Tower (not yet sourced, not fussed about design)

storage:
I have plenty of old external hard drives that run via firewire 400 and USB 2, so ok for archiving and storage. So i am looking at an SSD for the main drive if this is the fastest option. I want the fastest internal SSD, and would be willing to go to 250gb or lower if recommended:

SSD:
Samsung 840 EVO 500 GB Internal SSD Serial ATA-600 2.5" MZ-7TE500
£178

https://www.google.co.uk/shopping/product/14502341382128331030?es_sm=91&biw=1920&bih=959&sclient=psy-ab&q=ssd+500gb&oq=ssd+5&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.84607526,d.d2s&pf=p&sugexp=msedr&gs_rn=61&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=W0XYaEe7iaOY5Ck0NPWssQ&ds=sh&pq=ssd&cp=5&gs_id=8&xhr=t&tch=1&ech=3&psi=v_zIVLXXEcjwaMqegvAN.1422458047943.3&prds=paur:ClkAsKraX9TzonLqyEL1e_zQtUT-2FOQpl1HS6x6_CqWWMJ9VqlKAUBUh0mMD--1Q2QHzaUVQFJXZISyTi4yhLb4bUP5n1WpqRy49tS7tlBC1z-348wD-rYhYRIZAFPVH72OsyWLNrG3-3LGD4nTM0QIexG5Sg&ei=1_zIVPTOGZHoaNSIgqAB&ved=0CJcBEKYrMAA

or

kingston hyperx ssd drive 120
x2
One for boot drive, one for previews, caches and working files/project directory.
Is this preferable to a single 500GB SSD?

HDD:
perhaps a cheap internal HDD is advisable? A 1 or 2 TB one for intermediate file storage? Don't want to go to expensive for this though as it doesn't seem essential. Willing to be corrected.

RAM:
(X2) CORSAIR Vengeance 32GB (4 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2133 Desktop Memory Model CMZ32GX3M4A2133C10

Motherboard:
ASUS P9X79-E WS LGA 2011 Intel X79 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 SSI CEB Intel

PSU:
How important are these? I mean, the difference between models?

Cooler Master V8 GTS - High Performance CPU Cooler with Horizontal Vapor Chamber and 8 Heatpipes

or

Corsair H60 (CPU)

Happy to go with whatever is suggested here.

I am not going to be doing any gaming. I am going to be using After Effects, Premiere Pro, (as well as other Adobe CC software, but I'm not concerned about Photoshop performance), as well as Maya, Cinema 4D, and secondary programs will be NUKE, ZBrush, Houdini, and PFTrack.
The main 2 I want to have brilliant performance with are After Effects and Maya. I want fast work speed (display graphics, particle simulation and previews) as well as fast rendering times. I would say that the rendering is probably the most important, although both are.

If it is far far better to build a bespoke rendering workstation I may consider that in the future, and if so I could tip this workstation more heavily towards the actual designing/previewing side of the workflow - although, ideally, I would like this machine to be able to handle both aspects of the workflow as this is breaking the bank as it is.

I am going to be using 3 monitors (which I have). I would be interested to hear hi def monitor recommendations though as mine are quite old (Dell E1909W).

I am undecided about the OS. I basically want it to run the aforemetioned programs and nothing else, and so was tempted by Linux. Originally I thought Ubuntu, which runs Maya, but Adobe doesn't seem to run on it. Even using Wine people in forums have been saying it is tricky and unstable, so i may have to go windows - if I am forced to run Windows OS I don't mind which version I run. I guess Windows 7 is preferable. Is there any long term problem with running this OS on a bespoke workstation?

I think is about all. Please feel free to suggest alternatives, I am still finessing my list and would appreciate any input you folks have.

Thanks for your time in advance.

Demosthenest · Jan 28, 2015

I think this would work very well for you:
PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3dJcFT
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3dJcFT/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor ($316.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D14 65.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($74.69 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock Z97 Extreme3 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($104.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($62.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: A-Data Premier Pro SP600 128GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($59.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($51.88 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 960 2GB Video Card ($199.99 @ NCIX US)
Case: Corsair Graphite Series 230T Orange ATX Mid Tower Case ($64.99 @ Micro Center)
Power Supply: SeaSonic 620W 80+ Bronze Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($54.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $991.50
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-28 10:52 EST-0500

i7 4790k is a beast and you should be able to easily get 15% extra performance when overclocked.
Gtx 960 should be enough for your needs, has the same features as it's older brother but it's less powerful.
I would go with windows 8.1 if I were you, it's way faster than windows 7. Get Classic Shell and it acts just like windows 7.
PSU is very important, you need a good quality one or it can kill your system.

Demosthenest · Jan 28, 2015

Oh, and don't get an fx 9370 , it's terrible. Runs very very warm and i7 4790k is way better and should fit in your system. You don't need 8 cores.

boogalooelectric · Jan 28, 2015

If you can afford: "Intel Core i7-5820K Socket 2011-3 Hexa Core 3.30GHz Processor
£300

http://www.maplin.co.uk/p/intel-core-i7-5820k-socket-20..."

I would go with that one, the things I am hearing from others in the 3D community who have the LGA 2011 V3 setup claim they are noticing around a 30% improvement over an Ivy Bridge config with similar specs.

I recommend just getting the 500 SSD over the two smaller Kingston SSD's.

As for OS's you could try using GIMP over Adobe if you want to go the Linux route. Otherwise I advise you to go with Windows 7, I have experience with Win 7 and 8 in regards to 3D programs and 7 works better in my opinion.

Get the GTX 970, you will wish you had if you do not, and stick with an Nvidia GPU, AMD GPU's are not able to run Octane.

boogalooelectric · Jan 28, 2015

In rendering the more cores you have the better, so you absolutely should get as many cores as you can. Rendering is not like gaming, I have a 6 core Xeon and when I render it uses all 12 cores (the 6 plus the hyper threaded virtual cores) while rendering with DAZ or Poser or Luxrender.

Rendering needs more cores, and in regards to GPU, the more ram on the GPU the better, common guidelines these days say you want at least 2 gigs of VRAM on the GPU.

DanTTTD · Jan 29, 2015

Thanks for your replies so far guys, really appreciate you taking the time to advise.

First question is, why are the AMD CPUs so bad? Are the cores just rubbish, even though there are 8 of them?

I like the idea of tipping my money towards the CPU. because I know that my CPU in my current, rubbish workstation is constantly at 100% when rendering. So I'd like to through some power at that. But what is the trade off? How important is the GPU really? Is it more for real-time computations (i.e. gaming, video streaming at high res?) I know I need a good one to be able to display my video on 3 screens, but do any of the previews even use the GPU for caching or anything? If not then I would be happy going lower for the graphics card.

Is the GTX 780 ti a bad choice? From reviews and comparisons this seems better than the GTX 970 and cheaper, and only marginally worse than the 980. Have I got this wrong? Could I get away with the standard GTX 780? Or even lower? What are the benefits?

So, get an Nvidia GTX, boogalooelectric? Do you have any recommended ones? Is it best to look for a superclocked/overclocked one?

Why do you recommend a 500GB SSD boogalooelectric? Are you thinking to put OS, software and project files all on the one SSD? Then use old external HDDs to store and archive non-current video, projects and files? Is it ok to put all this on one SSD? I would've thought that Demosthenest's idea of a 128GB SSD coupled with another internal 1TB HDD would be better? As Adobe recommends placing working cache and preview files on a separate drive. Plus I know I'll be moving large projects around an awful lot with a single 500 (which will probably become 350 once the OS and software are installed) GB SSD. Is this something you do regularly? Move project folders around after each sitting to keep the main internal drive clear?

Thanks again in advance guys, really appreciated.

Demosthenest · Jan 29, 2015

High end amd cpus are rubish because of poor single core performance and heat issues.
A gtx 960 would suffice, it's a great gpu for your needs. Gtx 780 is absolutely overkill.

DanTTTD · Jan 29, 2015

Hi Demosthenest,

Could you explain why it is overkill. You are most probably right, but could you just elaborate a little bit? Is it because Maya and After Effects hardly use any of the GPU? I heard that particle dynamics in Maya has started using Vram in GPUs for calculating. Wouldn't the higher spec GPUs help in this case? Or is it just for display power?

DanTTTD · Jan 29, 2015

So you don't even think 970 is needed?

Demosthenest · Jan 29, 2015

Well according to this http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/AutoDesk-Maya-2014-Professional-GPU-Acceleration-509/ you would need a firepro to get a noticeable improvement. Something like this: http://pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-video-card-100505842

boogalooelectric · Jan 29, 2015

DanTTTD :

It depends on what you are willing to live with. A 960 is probably good enough to get what you want done, the thing you have to consider is workflow. A faster CPU/GPU combined with more memory is going to render faster then a lesser system.

An AMD CPU would work, but you would be much happier with an Intel I7 or a Xeon, as you will spend less time waiting for the render to complete.

I do not believe there is such a thing as 'overkill' for these types of systems (just my opinion) as I have seen on forum posts of various 3D communities and there are people using 12 core xeon's or Opteron's, with workstation GPU's and 64 gigs of ram. I feel you should get the best you can afford or you might regret it later.

As for the SSD and the larger size, there is a phenomenon regarding SSD's where their performance decreases significantly when they reach around 80-90% capacity. So a larger SSD will prevent this from happening and give you the headroom you need for storage and you will not have to manage files as much.

Going back to GPU's I have a GTX 770 and wish I had waited a month for the 970's to come out. A mentor of mine just upgraded to a 970 and has noticed a 50 % improvement in workflow.

DanTTTD · Jan 29, 2015

I had written off the Firepro line, but that Maya report seems to favour them over Quadros. Granted, they don't include GTX series, but what do you make of that Boogaloo? Firepro w5000 or GTX? Seems the Firepro range from £250 to £350. And the GTX 970 is about £270. Ahhhh, choices...

DanTTTD · Jan 29, 2015

It's just odd that the Firepro doesn't really get mentioned that often...

DanTTTD · Jan 29, 2015

The GTX 770 ti is £300 too...

boogalooelectric · Jan 29, 2015

Most people avoid AMD GPU's for rendering because of the Octane Render issue. Even if they do not use Octane they have an Nvidia GPU in case they decide to try it later. I think this is the main reason for Nvidia's current dominance in this area.

However if the program you intend to use (Maya) recommends AMD over Nvidia than I think you should take that recommendation seriously. I imagine the render engine in Maya is quite good thus you might not need Octane and would be happy with a Firepro or an AMD game card.

DanTTTD · Jan 29, 2015

This:
https://compubench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=compu20&D1=NVIDIA+GeForce+GTX+760&os1=Windows&api1=cl&D2=AMD+FirePro+W5000+%28FireGL+V%29&cols=2
Has the GTX 760 beating the W5000 all over the place.

Demosthenest · Jan 29, 2015

They included the titan. The firepro I recommeneded beat the titan by a lot in maya. The benchmarks you linked do not include maya.

DanTTTD · Jan 30, 2015

True, but it has 3D animation processes listed. I can't find an up to date Maya benchmark test, so there is no way of knowing whether the GTX 900 series is performing better than Firepro. I think the clincher will be After Effects and how reliant on GPU it is. I have read so far that it is hardly reliant at all (apart from ray-tracing, which is already outdated).

Demosthenest · Jan 30, 2015

I don't think a gtx 970 would perform much better than a titan.

DanTTTD · Jan 30, 2015

I am now leaning towards the AMD Firepro w5000. It seems to win with Maya. I am concerned about its performance in After Effects and Premiere Pro, but I am hoping that it is not THAT bad (as it seems that Adobe prefers NVidia GTX, with them outperforming even the Quadros). I am hoping that a good quick CPU will make amends for the Firepro in Adobe software. And it seems that Adobe CS6 onwards are supporting openCL which is geared towards Firepro (although there are apparently still gaps in effects like blur which will be dumped onto the CPU).

I really need After Effects to run fast in viewport realtime workflow and rendering. Does anyone know if Firepro W5000 is a wise chioce for this. I know the GTX 970 would be better for this software, but is it MUCH worse?

DanTTTD · Jan 30, 2015

i.e. is Firepro W5000 THAT MUCH SLOWER than a GTX 970 in After Effects? Both in viewport, realtime (fast draft) workflow, and rendering in post.

bambiboom · Jan 30, 2015

DanTTTD,

In my view, workstations need to be configured to accommodate the most demanding project in the most demanding program- sorry- programme and within an expected level of performance. If you are doing particle animation using an Autodesk, Adobe, or Dessault software, I recommend a Xeon > ECC RAM > Quadro system.

As film editing and video processing, animation can use all the avaialable cores, fast, dual Xeons is an enhancement. The Software makers listed above all use CUDA acceleration - meaning NIVIDIA and consumer cards are simply not good at Maya, a Quadro is the thing to use here. This is an older test of various workstation cards on this site, and this demonstrates that a Quadro K5000 was fastest on Maya 2013 and that a $175 AMD V4900 was faster than a $1,000 GTX Titan:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493-8.html

The current performance equivalent of the K5000 today is the recent (9.14) Quadro K4200, and fortunately for us, the K4200 costs half of the K5000.

As for ECC RAM, particles, smoke shadows, reflections, and aspects of textures can accumulate errors rapidly because of the vast positional processing calculations. I tried rendering on a non-ECC system with a GTX 285 and was never able to produce a single useful rendering- there were artifacts- some subtle, others dramatic-on every rendering.

For your budget of £1,000, I believe the necessary cost / performance ratio suggests buying a high quality, high performance workstation system that is already mostly depreciated in value:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Dell-Precision-T7500-2-x-Intel-Xeon-X5680-6-Core-48GB-RAM-1TB-NVidia-Quadro-2000-/141534475757?pt=DE_Technik_Computer_Peripherieger%C3%A4te_PC_Systeme&hash=item20f41cb5ed

> This is a Dell Precision T7500 (in Germany) with two Xeon X5680, 6-core CPUs @ 3.33/3.6Ghz, 48 Gb of ECC 1333 RAM, and a Quadro 2000, for £940.

While the technology is obsolete, the performance can be within current expectations. Buying this kind of system saves research, ordering, assembling, configuring, and fault analysis of a new system and these systems are ultra-reliable. I bought a used T5400 in 2010 and in 5 years of demanding use, it never failed.

With this kind of purchase, It would be possible to receive this system, load applications, and general configurations and be at work in a few hours. then, over time:

1. Replace the Quadro 2000 with a Quadro K4200, used K5000, or K2200
2. Add a good sized SSD- 480-512GB and set a partition for OS and programmes and a second for working files
3. Add a Dell PERC or LSI-based SAS /SATA controller to have an SATA III 6GB/s disk subsystem.

> And I think it's possible to see that the T7500 has a high percentage of the performance of a current workstation but for about 1/4 the cost. For reference, my main system:

HP z420 (2014) > Xeon E5-1620 quad core @ 3.6 / 3.8GHz > 24GB DDR3 ECC 1600 RAM > Quadro K2200 (4GB)> Intel 730 480GB > Western Digital Black WD1003FZEX 1TB> M-Audio 192 sound card > Linksys AE3000 USB WiFi > 2X Dell Ultrasharp U2715H 2560 X 1440 > Windows 7 Professional 64 >
[ Passmark Rating = 4402 > CPU= 9280 / 2D= 797 / 3D=3480 / Mem= 2558 / Disk= 4498]

On Passmark a T7500 with 2X XeonX5680, Quadro K5000, LSI 9280 controller, 48Gb RAM:
Passmark Rating = 4192 > CPU= 14335 / 2D= 655 / 3D=4247 / Mem= 1499 / Disk= 9382

> and I would predict that with the calculation power, very high 3D score***, and extremely fast disk , that the perception of the T7500 would be of a faster system than the HP z420. With 3X as many cores/ threads, I would expect comparative rendering times of the T7500 to be close to 1/3 of the HP.

*** [But, in the Spring, 2015, NVIDIA will be releasing a new Quadro, the Maxwell GPU M6000 with 12GB RAM and the Passmark 3D score is 11077. My prediction is $5,600. The average score for a single GTX Titan Black 12GB is 8744,..]

A secondary way to achieve this is to buy a low specification system and upgrade it, this can be more ecoomical, but is more time-consuming. I did this a couple of weeks ago:

Dell Precision T5500 (2011) Original: Xeon E5620 quad core @ 2.4 / 2.6 GHz > 6GB DDR3 ECC Reg 1066 > Quadro FX 580 (512MB) > Dell PERC 6/i SAS /SATA controller > Seagate Cheetah 15K 146GB > Linksys WMP600N WiFi > Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
[ Passmark system rating = 1479 / CPU = 4067 / 2D= 520 / 3D= 311 / Mem= 1473 / Disk= 1208]

Dell Precision T5500 Revised > Xeon X5680 six -core @ 3.33 / 3.6GHz, 24GB DDR3 ECC 1333 > Quadro 4000 (2GB ) > Samsung 840 250GB /WD RE4 Enterprise 1TB > M-Audio 192 sound card > Linksys WMP600N PCI WiFi > Windows 7 Professional 64> HP 2711x (1920 X 1440)
[ Passmark system rating = 3339 / CPU = 9347 / 2D= 684 / 3D= 2030 / Mem= 1871 / Disk= 2234]

The original system cost $171 (Ebay US) and ordering parts an, installing, and loading software was done over about two weeks- I'd guess about 20 hours total. As I had the Quadro 4000, Samsung 840, and WD RE4 spare, the cash outlay for this system was about $650 and if I bought those items used, it would have cost about $1,000.

In summary, a high level, used Precision T7500 could provide excellent cost performance and optimized for your use and could be ready to begin use the same day as receipt.

Cheers,

BambiBoom

DanTTTD · Jan 30, 2015

Ok. I think I'm settled on GPU. I'm sure I could keep researching and deliberating, but then new ones will come out and I'll have to start all over again.

So, next is the CPU. I have to say that i am still curious as to why the AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition FX-9590 5.0GHz 16MB get such a bad rep off forum posters. Is it because of AMD being cheaper? Isn't 8 cores better than intel's 6 (even if they are hyper-threaded)? The FX-9590 seems to out-spec the Intel Core i7-5820K Socket 2011-3 Hexa Core 3.30GHz Processor in most regards. And it is half the price. Just because it runs a little hotter you think I should write this one off?

Also, will it be more compatible with my AMD GPU? Any benefits there?

DanTTTD · Jan 30, 2015

Thanks for the post Bambiboom, I'm digesting it slowly.

Demosthenest · Jan 30, 2015

The amd 9590 sucks. the i7 5820k is way better and doesn't have overheating issues.

New Editing/Animation Workstation Build

Reputable

Admirable

Admirable

Distinguished

Distinguished

Reputable

Admirable

Reputable

Reputable

Admirable

Distinguished

Reputable

Reputable

Reputable

Distinguished

Reputable

Admirable

Reputable

Admirable

Reputable

Reputable

Splendid

Reputable

Reputable

Admirable

Share this page