Hi to everyone,
A couple of months ago I asked about which platform to go but I didnt buy anything so now is the time.
First of all I need to say that this PC will be used only for 3d rendering and nothing else, games are not even considered.Second this PC will not be upgraded in the near future, lets say 3-4 years so upgrade path is not important, from the start I know what I buy now will be used for 3 years and then I'll change everything like now (I'm using Athlon 3200+ ) Actually my question is more about the relation between faster architecure but dual channel (SB) vs slower architecture but triple channel (x58) when doing 3D rendering and similiar multi threaded tasks.
And for my question I'll copy the same post that some guy have asked on another forum but didnt get answer:
The CPUs are 2600k and 960
Question for all,
I've been researching on the subject of benefits of an extra channel of memory. Now, research shows that for gaming, an extra channel doesn't add a whole lot of performance advantage, that, however, could be because games usually do not require moving large amounts of data. BUT, if you're doing 3D rendering, encoding or things that require a lot of ram and video memory would a dual-channel start to slack behind tripple channel because of bandwidth shortage?
Now the kicker, would the architecture/frequency benefits of sandybridge 2600k compensate for the lack of an extra channel in real life situations for media/3d workstation?
The benchmarks show that yes, 2600k outperforms i7 950(which is only a bit slower than 960) by a good margin especially in rendering/encoding times. However, all of the benchmarks are testing quite small files (500mb). Does this test show reality of RL? Or in real life with huge files the dual-channel will start to bottle neck lightning fast 2600k?
So, bottom line question. For a media/3D workstation, with all pros and cons considered, would you rather go with triple channel 1600mhz i7 960 or dual channel 1600mhz 2600k?
Remember: no gaming, no need of an upgrade path, only performance for render.
And one last thing,
I've seen people say that triple channel still isnt used like it should by the applications or something like that, and since I'll have this rig for a couple of years maybe there will be some benefit from it down do road? (I know a little fortune teller question)
Thanks
I ask this because every question about this topic, 960 vs 2600k turns out to be more or less about gaming.
A couple of months ago I asked about which platform to go but I didnt buy anything so now is the time.
First of all I need to say that this PC will be used only for 3d rendering and nothing else, games are not even considered.Second this PC will not be upgraded in the near future, lets say 3-4 years so upgrade path is not important, from the start I know what I buy now will be used for 3 years and then I'll change everything like now (I'm using Athlon 3200+ ) Actually my question is more about the relation between faster architecure but dual channel (SB) vs slower architecture but triple channel (x58) when doing 3D rendering and similiar multi threaded tasks.
And for my question I'll copy the same post that some guy have asked on another forum but didnt get answer:
The CPUs are 2600k and 960
Question for all,
I've been researching on the subject of benefits of an extra channel of memory. Now, research shows that for gaming, an extra channel doesn't add a whole lot of performance advantage, that, however, could be because games usually do not require moving large amounts of data. BUT, if you're doing 3D rendering, encoding or things that require a lot of ram and video memory would a dual-channel start to slack behind tripple channel because of bandwidth shortage?
Now the kicker, would the architecture/frequency benefits of sandybridge 2600k compensate for the lack of an extra channel in real life situations for media/3d workstation?
The benchmarks show that yes, 2600k outperforms i7 950(which is only a bit slower than 960) by a good margin especially in rendering/encoding times. However, all of the benchmarks are testing quite small files (500mb). Does this test show reality of RL? Or in real life with huge files the dual-channel will start to bottle neck lightning fast 2600k?
So, bottom line question. For a media/3D workstation, with all pros and cons considered, would you rather go with triple channel 1600mhz i7 960 or dual channel 1600mhz 2600k?
Remember: no gaming, no need of an upgrade path, only performance for render.
And one last thing,
I've seen people say that triple channel still isnt used like it should by the applications or something like that, and since I'll have this rig for a couple of years maybe there will be some benefit from it down do road? (I know a little fortune teller question)
Thanks
I ask this because every question about this topic, 960 vs 2600k turns out to be more or less about gaming.