Mary Katherine Goode,
Something that's been touched on in the many replies in this thread is the difference between a high performance gaming computer and a workstation. There is a factor of the CPU,single and double precision, high- 128X- anti-aliasing factors, 10-bit color, and other features. The gaming computer emphasizes higher frame rates in games as against accuracy and quality in image creation where each frame is completely finished. There is also the question of reliability and error-free calculation.The tools to create games are different from the tools to play them.
There is a reason for Xeons and Quadros as I discovered when I tried a GeForce GTX 285 for AutoCad, Revit, Solidworks, Adobe CS4, Sketchup, and etc- it did certain things well- blocking out and small files, but when the files were large and the quality had to be very high, it would work on a rendering for 20 minutes and crash, had strange shadow artifacts, crashed Sketchup, would not open Solidworks viewports- which are very important in creating the detailed drawings. Doesn't Maya use multiple viewports? I changed the GTX for a Quadro FX 4800 and using the specialized drivers that are part of the increased costs, my problems faded away also. Again, I'm not certain of all the interactions at work- probably the configuration of the drivers, but I am certain that work became less hit and miss!
The following is an alternative to a gaming directed computer, just for your consideration.
This uses a Xeon E5-1650 6-core @ 3.2 / 3.8 GHZ which is No. 15 on the Passmark benchmarks>
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php
It's important to note that Xeons can't be overclocked and this is to provide ultra-stability. And, in your use, the sheer clock speed is deceptive experientially. An 8-core AMD FX 8350 at 4.2GHz will not run Maya as fast as a 6-core Xeon at 2.6GHz. If you look into the calculation performance, you will find that Xeons are the highest rated. It's surprising, but if put these in order of benchmarks, of the top 20 benchmarked CPU's, 16 are Xeons, Nos. 1 through 7 and Xeons comprise 8 of the top 10. I don't understand the way the balance is achieved, but Xeons seem to emphasize high performance in certain calculation performances, whereas i7's are differently set up. On Passmark Perfromance Test, the highest performing E5-1650 / Quadro (4000) machine has a rating of 4246 with 2D / 3D scores of 781 / 1958. This is a Dell Precision T3600 and the CPU score is almost 25% under the top E5-1650 computer, so it can do much better. The highest rated E5-1650 computer that one uses a GTX660 and X79 motherboard for a rating of 5570 and 2D/3D of 886 / 4099. At a bit under $600, this is one of the few Xeons that seems to be realistically priced. There are 10-core Xeons used in 8-CPU configuration that cost $4,600 ,..
For the graphics card, the suggestion here is to use the recently released Quadro K4000, which produces fantastic numbers in both 2D and 3D on Passmark Performance Test. An i7-3770K /K4000 machine has an overall rating of 5080 with 2D/3D scores of 1043 / 2924. For comparison, my 2X Xeon X5460/ Quadro FX 4800 (1.5GB) makes a rating of 1909 with 2D/3D scores of 521 / 924. You can see in this example that the K4000 is to the FX 4800 more or less 2X in 2D and 3X in 3D. In the past few years, Quadros have moved from 2D towards stronger 3D emphasis. The 3GB memory of the K4000 should also be more appropriate to large Maya files and you may find you never need more, whereas the K2000 might be stretched a bit. Still, the K2000 is very good -the top K2000 computer is i7-3930K based with rating of 4579 with 2D/3D of 911/1684.
An important aspect of the world of Quadros are the specialized drivers made for certain applications. One reason I chose the Quadro FX 4800 is that there are specialized drivers for the most demanding applications I use, the AutoCad 2007, CS4 MC, and Solidworks x64 (2010) and that is true of the current Quadros and versions of that software. There was a version of the FX 4800 called the CX that was optimized specifically for CS4. Autodesk does certify the K4000 for Maya and has a partnered specialized driver for it. This trend is increasing as Adobe is now moving into GPU accelerated applications that can take advantage of GPU coprocessing- in my view the Personal Supercomputer future of workstations >
http://www.nvidia.com/object/gpu-accelerated-applications.html
Here's a Xeon / Quadro system suggestion >
Animation, Editing, Imaging Workstation 4.13.13
1. Intel Xeon E5-1650 Sandy Bridge-EP 3.2GHz (3.8GHz Turbo Boost) LGA 2011 130W Six-Core Server Processor $586.99
2. Noctua NH-D14 120mm & 140mm SSO CPU Cooler $81.99
3. SUPERMICRO X9SRA Single Socket R (LGA 2011) E5 ATX Workstation/Server Motherboard $290.00
4. Kingston 16GB (4 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 ECC Unbuffered Server Memory w/TS Intel Model KVR16E11K4/16I $161.00
a. Latency = 11
b. Given your animation, video editing, and probable multiple simultaneous application use, I wish this amount were 32GB.
5. SAMSUNG 840 Pro Series MZ-7PD128BW 2.5" 250GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) $165.00
a. OS and Applications
6. Western Digital WD Black WD2002FAEX 2TB 7200 RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive $165.
7. NVIDIA® Quadro® K4000 VCQK4000-PB 3GB GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 Workstation Video Card $800.
8. ASUS DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Black SATA 24X DVD Burner - Bulk - OEM $20
9. LIAN LI PC-A75 Black Aluminum ATX Full Tower Computer Case $182.
10. SeaSonic M12II 750 SS-750AM 750W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Modular Active PFC Semi-modular Power Supply $100.00
11. Microsoft Windows 7 Professional SP1 64-bit - OEM $140.00
Subtotal: $2,692.
This is of course, over your budget as it does not include a monitor. In my view, the monitor choice is as critical as any other component, more so when the results need to free of color and optical aberrations such that the content produced will never appear anywhere else in the same way. I had a 22" CRT NEC monitor that very gradually lost red and I did a project that produced hundreds of images that would be beet red on another computer or when printed. For my 3D CAD use now, I'm am very happy with an HP 27" 2711x @ 1920 X 1080 but if I did it again- I would have a 27" 2560 X 1440 monitor. As in the case of the K4000, a 2560 X 1440 monitor would be a stretch to the budget, but given the resolution, color accuracy, and text and detail display quality necessary, it would be worth having a look. When I saw these monitors- the Samsung and Viewsonic, I was suddenly disappointed in the HP- it seemed somewhat crude and lifeless with grainy text- the pixels seem huge! I am easily spoiled by high quality.
Monitors are a component that any workstation user really should see in person- it seems impossible to gauge online or from reviews. The general quality, aspects of position adjustment, screen reflectivity, and importantly, the level and operation of controls varies considerably and is absolutely critical for the kind of work the proposed computer would be handling. The screen coating is very important as there are those that complain of some Dell Ultrasharps that they are "looking through pebbles" while certain other sizes Ultrasharps are fine The HP 2711x does not have a non-reflective coating and in my experience when positioned such that there is not a light source behind, it is much clearer and more immediate-looking. Monitors need to be seen working.
On the subject of dual monitors, I would not presume to tell you your preference, but I have used CAD for 20 years on both single and dual monitors and I would choose a single, large monitor over dual monitor every time. When using dual monitors, the monitors are smaller and I found that I was quickly fatigued with zooming in and out, panning, scanning across side to side, and having to navigate the mouse miles back and forth every day between a viewport on one side and the menus on the other screen. I think the constant zooming and panning on a smaller monitor was especially tiring and work on dual monitors was definitely slower.
So, suggestions out of the budget and not using dual monitors, but may well be worth consideration as a longer term use- if it could be used an extra two years without additional expenditure there is actually a substantial economy- for example not having to spend $1,000 on a new graphics card or upgraded CPU. Also, this might open discussions as to the important differences between high performance computers intended for gaming and for content creation.
Cheers,
BambiBoom
[Dell Precision T5400 (2010)> 2X Xeon X5460 @3.16GHz, 16 GB DDR2-667, Quadro FX 4800 (1.5GB), WD RE4 / Segt Brcda > HP 2711x 1920 X 1080 monitor > Win 7 Ultimate 64 > AutoCad, Revit, Solidworks, Sketchup, CS4 MC, Corel Technical Designer, Wordperfect office, MS Office ]
, glad you liked it!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram