PC build for 3d modeling and animation

[JeanLucAwesome]

Hello, I'm applying to schools for what title says above and I'm looking to upgrade my pc for this.

Of course they'll have they're own workstations I can use and i will but I'd like one of my own so I can apply what I'm learning at home as well.

Here's my current specs;

Asus p8z77i deluxe
16gb ram
550w psu
Msi gtx 670 twinfrozer p.e.
i5 3570k

 

[bambiboom]

JeanLucAwesome,

When I think of 3D modeling and animation, for image quality I always think of a Xeon > ECC > Quadro system, especially if there's Autodesk and or Adobe software.

The problem I could forsee with your current system is that the i5-3570K is a quad core and not hyperthreading and so will not be brilliant at 3D modeling and rendering which is CPU based. If you're going to be rendering and using Maya modeling, a hyperthreading 6-core, or better yet, dual 6-core Xeons would be the thing. However, depending on the budget, you could change to a Xeon E3-1270 v2 (3.5 /3.9GHz , 8MB cache, 4 core / 8 thread, hyperthreading, $355) a suitable motherboard (ASUS P8B WS LGA 1155 Intel C206 ATX Intel Xeon E3 Server/Workstation Motherboard $229.99), 16GB ECC RAM ($150), and exchange your GTX 670 for a good used Quadro 4000 (about $350). That configuration would be highly capable and stable. Otherwise, you might consider only changing to an i7-3770 (3.5 / 3.9GHz , 8MB cache, 4 core / 8 thread, hyperthreading $320)- and which is probably the identical die of the the Xeon 1270 without the integrated graphics. The 8 threads, 8MB cache will save a lot of time and frustration especially if you have to render each frame in animations. By the way, rendering programs and 3D modeling generally do not like overclocking.

Just before reading your post, I was running a fairly modest rendering (the jpg is only 2.3MB) of a 25MB Sketchup model on an 8 core / 16 thread, Xeon 3.2 and using 12 threads, it took 11 minutes and the first core of the one of the Xeons went to 93 C with the others in the mid-high 80's, and the RAM went to the high 80's C. The model for this rendering is another part of the story as I had to break up my (125MB) model into small pieces as all attempts to make renderings would crash after about 20 minutes. To be fair there are 330X 3D trees and several , large, complex buildings on a large site. Autodesk and Adobe are better optimized than Sketchup- and Maya can use multiple cores, but I would have as many threads that are as fast as possible if you're rendering.

In summary, both 3D modeling and rendering is very demanding and especially rendering need an optimized system.


Cheers,

BambiBoom

[ Dell Precision T5400 > 2X Xeon X5460 quad core @3.16GHz > 16 GB ECC > Quadro FX 4800 (1.5GB) > WD RE4 / Segt Brcda 500GB > Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit > AutoCad, Revit, Solidworks 2010, Sketchup Pro, Corel Technical Designer, Adobe CS4 MC, WordP Office, MS Office ]

 

[JeanLucAwesome]

JeanLucAwesome,

When I think of 3D modeling and animation, for image quality I always think of a Xeon > ECC > Quadro system, especially if there's Autodesk and or Adobe software.

The problem I could forsee with your current system is that the i5-3570K is a quad core and not hyperthreading and so will not be brilliant at 3D modeling and rendering which is CPU based. If you're going to be rendering and using Maya modeling, a hyperthreading 6-core, or better yet, dual 6-core Xeons would be the thing. However, depending on the budget, you could change to a Xeon E3-1270 v2 (3.5 /3.9GHz , 8MB cache, 4 core / 8 thread, hyperthreading, $355) a suitable motherboard (ASUS P8B WS LGA 1155 Intel C206 ATX Intel Xeon E3 Server/Workstation Motherboard $229.99), 16GB ECC RAM ($150), and exchange your GTX 670 for a good used Quadro 4000 (about $350). That configuration would be highly capable and stable. Otherwise, you might consider only changing to an i7-3770 (3.5 / 3.9GHz , 8MB cache, 4 core / 8 thread, hyperthreading $320)- and which is probably the identical die of the the Xeon 1270 without the integrated graphics. The 8 threads, 8MB cache will save a lot of time and frustration especially if you have to render each frame in animations. By the way, rendering programs and 3D modeling generally do not like overclocking.

Just before reading your post, I was running a fairly modest rendering (the jpg is only 2.3MB) of a 25MB Sketchup model on an 8 core / 16 thread, Xeon 3.2 and using 12 threads, it took 11 minutes and the first core of the one of the Xeons went to 93 C with the others in the mid-high 80's, and the RAM went to the high 80's C. The model for this rendering is another part of the story as I had to break up my (125MB) model into small pieces as all attempts to make renderings would crash after about 20 minutes. To be fair there are 330X 3D trees and several , large, complex buildings on a large site. Autodesk and Adobe are better optimized than Sketchup- and Maya can use multiple cores, but I would have as many threads that are as fast as possible if you're rendering.

In summary, both 3D modeling and rendering is very demanding and especially rendering need an optimized system.


Cheers,

BambiBoom

[ Dell Precision T5400 > 2X Xeon X5460 quad core @3.16GHz > 16 GB ECC > Quadro FX 4800 (1.5GB) > WD RE4 / Segt Brcda 500GB > Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit > AutoCad, Revit, Solidworks 2010, Sketchup Pro, Corel Technical Designer, Adobe CS4 MC, WordP Office, MS Office ]

Thanks for the info BambiBoom, sounds like instead of "upgrading" I should just build a workstation from the ground up, what I have now is pretty much just my gaming rig.

 

[bambiboom]

JeanLucAwesome,

A lot depends on how complex your projects will be and the level of expectation of the image quality. A couple of days ago, I ran a rendering of only 800 X 300 and using 12 of the available 16 threads on my system, this rendering took 12 minutes to what I would consider a "test" quality- just to judge the lighting, shadows. In that 12 minutes, the RAM went from the typical 72 to to 93C and all eight CPU cores from 60 to to 85-87C. Imagine then if you're rendering hundreds of animation frames, and you have four threads. It does help to have a higher clock speed- my system is 3.16GHz, but overclocking is likely to introduce artifacts. When I used a GTX 285 in my current system, viewports wouldn't open and I had severe GPU-induced artificating in display- didn't print- but made it impossible to judge the eventual results. Also, I think of aliasing as one of the most obvious quality problems in 3D modeling and the GTX would only produce at 16X whereas the Quadro using a Solidworks driver can run anti-aliasing at 128X and I would think Maya would benefit from high anti-aliasing.

Of course, the best solution would be to have a dual 6-core Xeon / ECC / Quadro system, but I think you could go a long way with your current system by replacing the i5-3570K with an i7-3770K so at least you have 8 threads instead of 4. and also, with careful shopping, for about $350, find a good used Quadro 4000, 2GB, 256 CUDA, 256-bit, and very strong in 3D. An alternative to that for about that price is the Quadro FX 5800, which is 240 CUDA, 512-bit- and 4GB (189W). The FX 5800 it has a 102 GB/S memory bandwidth to the 89 of the Quadro 4000. The FX 5800 was a $3,100 card new and designed for video production. The reason I chose the GTX 285 for the earlier experiment is that it has the same GPU, 512-bit, 240 shaders as the FX 5800 except with 1GB instead of 4GB. My current card, the Quadro FX 4800 has the same GPU, but is 384-bit ,192 CUDA cores, and 1.5GB, giving a 77 GB/s bandwidth.

My suggestion is that you download the free 30-day trial of Maya and any other trials of applications that might be used in school and see how well they work on your current system - perhaps there are demo models to play with and you can test viewports, image quality, rendering time and quality, stability, and so on. Then, you could start out with your current system and be prepared to change CPU and/ or graphics card as projects were more complex and if there was still a problem with rendering times, consider a new system.

Looking a the minimum system requirements For Maya, it doesn't seem too tough, but in the certified systems list >

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/syscert?id=18844534&siteID=123112

> there are no bargain-basement suggestions, a lot of $2,500 to $5,000 systems listed and all the certified graphics cards are Quadros or Firepros. BOXX makes a Maya system and the middle range system is $3,200 with i7-quad core overclocked to 4.5 and Quadro K2000.

I've been working up a workstation series with concepts for systems from $800 > AMD FX 8350 eight core/ 8GB / Firepro-based to $13,500- dual Xeon 8-core /128GB ECC/ Quadro K5000.

This is a system that would run Maya really well with 6 cores / 12 threads>

BambiBoom PixelDozer Cadanimatoedigrapharific ExtremeSignature V ®©™®™©™ _6.30.13

This system is intended as a workstation solution with high performance / high precision, very high stability / reliability at reasonable cost, and suitable for 2D and 3D CAD, graphic design, rendering, mathematics, simulation, animation, and video editing. AutoCad, Revit, Inventor, Solidworks, Maya, Adobe CS6

1. Xeon E5-1650 6-core 3.2 /3.8GHz, 12MB cache, LGA 2011 $600 (Passmark CPU score= 11462, rank = No. 12)

2. Noctua NH-U12S 120x120x25 ( NF-F12 PWM) SSO2-Bearing CPU Cooler $70

3. ASUS P9X79 WS LGA 2011 Intel X79 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 SSI CEB $380.

4. 16GB (2X 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 ECC Unbuffered Server Memory $160. (Check ASUS motherboard compatibility list)

5. NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (D) VCQK2000-PB 2GB GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 Workstation Video Card $414

6. SAMSUNG 840 Pro Series MZ-7PD128BW 2.5" 128GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) $134.99 (OS and Applications)

7. Western Digital WD Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive $94.99 (Files, Backup, System Image)

8. SeaSonic X Series X650 Gold ((SS-650KM Active PFC F3)) 650W ATX12V V2.3/EPS 12V V2.91 SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Active PFC Power Supply $120.

9. LIAN LI PC-A75 Black Aluminum ATX Full Tower Computer Case $182

10. Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64-bit - OEM $140

11. ASUS DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Black SATA 24X DVD Burner - Bulk - OEM $17.

TOTAL > $2,315.

Options to this would be >

1. Used Quadro 4000 2GB Graphics Card > About $350-400

2. New Quadro K4000 3GB Graphics Card > $800

3. 2nd Western Digital WD Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive (RAID 1 mirroring backup / system image restore) $94.99

4. 3rd Western Digital WD Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive $94.99 (RAID 5 striping / mirroring, backup, system image restore)

If I were replacing my current system, the above would be my choice, with the Quadro K4000 and the three HD's in RAID 5 - about $3,000.

A similar performance in some aspects could be had for about $1,900 by buying a used Dell Precision T7500 with a Xeon X5680 CPU's and adding a used Quadro 4000. Here's one that sold for under $1,500 >

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dell-Precision-T7500-3-33Ghz-X5680-Six-Core-48GB-1600Mhz-Tesla-C1060-4GB-1TB-/221224367287?pt=Desktop_PCs&hash=item3381fff4b7

Note that one has a rare Tesla M1060 GPU coprocessor- $2,200 new- and 48GB RAM. That would've been an $8,000+ system new and would have 6 cores / 12 threads at 3.33/ 3.6GHz and the excellent Quadro 4000. A 2nd X5680 could be added for 12 cores / 24 threads by buying the CPU / memory riser / fan -about $250, and a used X5680, about $600-700. Btw, with the CPU riser, you can have 192GB of RAM!

Cheers,

BambiBoom

 

[alfabruce]

HI Bambiboom,

That makes very interesting reading as Im also trying to find myself a machine to do 3d modelling, rendering and photoshop. Im interested in you comments about the DEll Precisin T7500. I posted a questions yesterday about this computer listed here

http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/joondanna/desktops/price-reduced-dell-precision-t5500-intel-xeon-quad-x5647-2-93ghz/1023046290

Dell Precision T5500 intel Xeon Quad X5647@2.93ghz $950.00(AUD) Negotiable.

My initial thoughts were that this would be great for my work but Im also wondering if the later processors as a custom build would be better and more able to be tweaked later if I want more speed as someone else on here wisely pointed out.

What are your thougts??

Cheers

TIm

 

[bambiboom]

HI Bambiboom,

That makes very interesting reading as Im also trying to find myself a machine to do 3d modelling, rendering and photoshop. Im interested in you comments about the DEll Precisin T7500. I posted a questions yesterday about this computer listed here

http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/joondanna/desktops/price-reduced-dell-precision-t5500-intel-xeon-quad-x5647-2-93ghz/1023046290

Dell Precision T5500 intel Xeon Quad X5647@2.93ghz $950.00(AUD) Negotiable.

My initial thoughts were that this would be great for my work but Im also wondering if the later processors as a custom build would be better and more able to be tweaked later if I want more speed as someone else on here wisely pointed out.

What are your thougts??

Cheers

Tim

Goodday Tim !

The T5500 in the advert would be very, very good. The X5647 is 2.93 / 3.2 turbo , hyperthreading, cost $1,200 US new and is ranked No. 140 on the Passmark CPU benchmarks. It does have a 25.6 memory bandwidth and a 1066 speed RAM, - not a hot rod, but overall should be a solid and steady goer. That system has one of the best choices for graphics card as well in the Quadro 4000. Those are $800 new and even used still $400 or so- a very good 3D card and the Quadro drivers are the best.

To improve on that system substantially is not difficult- you can do anything with money! If you wanted to build new, I would suggest using the Xeon E5-1650 (3.2 . 3,8GHz) 6-core. That is a fast 6-core but as an LGA 2011, the system is more upgradable- you can use an E5-2687W 8 core later when there's a spare $1,900 on the dresser. A 6 -core gives you 12 threads and rendering can use all there are. If a four core will do, the same LGA 2011 system could be done with a Xeon E5-1620 which is $300 instead of $600 (note the 1620 has a higher base speed of 3.6 / 3.8 GHz) or for LGA 1150, the Xeon E3-1270 V3 is amazingly fast for the price. I think the E5 would have a better future though and there's double the memory bandwidth and more cache.

Here's a couple of system ideas I had a few weeks ago >

BambiBoom PixelDozer Cadaedigrapharific TurboFosters Modelator VII ®£©™®$™_ 6.6.13

1. Intel Xeon E3-1270 V2 Ivy Bridge 3.5GHz (3.9GHz Turbo) 4 x 256KB L2 Cache 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1155 69W Quad-Core Server Processor BX80637E31270V2 > $344 (This was 2 months ago so this is a V2. The 1270 V3 Haswell is faster for only $10 more, but will use an LGA 1150 motherboard.

2. COOLER MASTER Hyper 212 EVO RR-212E-20PK-R2 Continuous Direct Contact 120mm Sleeve CPU Cooler > $35.

3. ASUS P8B WS LGA 1155 Intel C206 ATX Intel Xeon E3 Server/Workstation Motherboard > $230.

4. Kingston 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM ECC Unbuffered DDR3 1333 Server Memory Model KVR1333D3E9SK2/16G > $160.

5. NVIDIA Quadro K2000 VCQK2000-PB 2GB GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 Workstation Video Card $420.

6. OPT > SAMSUNG 840 Pro Series MZ-7PD128BW 2.5" 128GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) $150.

7. Western Digital WD Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive > $90

8. SeaSonic M12II 520 Bronze 520W ATX12V v2.3 / EPS 12V v2.91 SLI Ready 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Modular Active PFC Power Supply > $80

9. ASUS DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Black SATA 24X DVD Burner - Bulk - OEM $17.

10. LIAN LI PC-7HX Black Aluminum ATX Mid Tower Computer Case $100.

11. Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64-bit (Full Version) - OEM $140


TOTAL= $1,650 > $1,796 w/ SSD

____________________________________

BambiBoom PixelCannon CadaAnimamodelgrapharific RocketRoo WalletScream XV ™$#©™_6.6.13

This system is intended as a workstation solution with high performance / high precision, very high stability / reliability at reasonable cost, and suitable for 2D and 3D CAD, graphic design, rendering, mathematics, simulation, animation, and video editing.

1. Xeon E5-1650 6-core 3.2 /3.8GHz, 12MB cache, LGA 2011 $630 (Passmark CPU score= 11462, rank = No. 12) > $590.

_1A. Intel Xeon Quad-Core Processor E5-1620 3.6 / 3.8GHz 5.0GT/s 10MB LGA 2011 CPU, OEM > $294 (Superbiz) (Passmark CPU score= 9199, rank = No. 38)

2. Noctua NH-U12S 120x120x25 ( NF-F12 PWM) SSO2-Bearing ( Self-stabilizing oil-pressure bearing ) CPU Cooler $70

3. ASUS P9X79 WS LGA 2011 Intel X79 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 SSI CEB > $380.

4. 16GB (2X 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 ECC Unbuffered Server Memory >about $150. (Check ASUS motherboard compatibility list)

5. NVIDIA Quadro K2000 VCQK2000-PB 2GB GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 Workstation Video Card $420.

6. Western Digital WD Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive (RAID 1) > $90 (OS and Applications)

7. (2) Western Digital WD Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive (RAID 1) >$180 $90ea. (Files, Backup, System Image)

_6+7 Option > This could be done within a similar total cost using a 120-128 GB SSD (about $120) for the OS and applications in combination with a single 1TB or 2TB ($90-$150) mech'l drive.

8. SeaSonic X Series X650 Gold ((SS-650KM Active PFC F3)) 650W ATX12V V2.3/EPS 12V V2.91 SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Active PFC Power Supply $120.

9. LIAN LI PC-A75 Black Aluminum ATX Full Tower Computer Case $182

10. ASUS DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Black SATA 24X DVD Burner - Bulk - OEM $17.

11. Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64-bit (Full Version) - OEM $140

TOTAL = $2,043 with E5-1620 and $2,340 with E5-1650 > Similar totals for the SSD / Mech'l drives option

_______________________________________________________

It is very useful to have a good system for learning as a slow, balky, or unreliable system is frustrating and a distraction from the creative aspect and learning the applications.

Cheers,

BambiBoom


[ Dell Precision T5400 > 2X Xeon X5460 quad core @3.16GHz > 16 GB ECC 667> Quadro FX 4800 (1.5GB) > WD RE4 / Segt Brcda 500GB > Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit > HP 2711x 27" 1920 x 1080 > AutoCad, Revit, Solidworks, Sketchup Pro, Corel Technical Designer, Adobe CS MC, WordP Office, MS Office > architecture, industrial design, graphic design, rendering, writing ]

 

[alfabruce]

Hi Bambiboom,

Thanks for that. yes I remember seeing your advice on the t7500s a while back which is what inspired me to look at something similar.
I might have a closer look at that t5500 as its got a SSD included also whichi starts to sound good for the money.

I spose Im stuck between building up a new custom machine like suggested by another person on this site , something like this


_____________________________________________________________________________


Well I Recommend something like this

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU:Intel Core i7-4770 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($349.00 @ Mwave Australia)
CPU Cooler:Corsair H60 54.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($94.00 @ PLE Computers)
Motherboard:Gigabyte GA-H87-D3H ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($129.00 @ PCCaseGear)
Memory:Corsair Vengeance LP 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($134.95 @ Mwave Australia)
Storage:Samsung 840 Series 120GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($115.00 @ Mwave Australia)
Storage:Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($69.00 @ Mwave Australia)
Video Card:EVGA GeForce GTX 760 2GB Video Card ($309.00 @ PCCaseGear)
Case:NZXT Phantom (White) ATX Full Tower Case ($159.00 @ Scorptec)
Power Supply:Antec High Current Gamer 620W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($95.00 @ Mwave Australia)
Total: $1453.95
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-08-03 04:22 EST+1000)

I know that Rhino and Blender like Nvidia quadro cards but i dont see much gain in performance unless you jump to the quadro K5000, wich is at the 1600 usd price point

__________________________________________________________________________________

os really push it to something like your Xeon proposal build above which looks very tempting.

Money is always an issue but you quickly forget how much you spent when you get a thrill every time you sit down and use your machine.

If I was tryingt o get to around the $1000-$1500 would you go the new build or the T5500.

THanks for your advice.

Cheers


Tim

 

[bambiboom]

Tim,

There is a lot to be said about assembling just the right combination of components and that are new and oriented towards the current trends in performance enhancement. Not long ago, CUDA rules Autodesk and Adobe, but today there's a shift towards OpenGL, CL,and DirectX. I'm still quite Quadro-centric but that's because I still use AutoCad 2007, Solidworks 2010 and Adobe CS4 from that long ago, bygone era. Today, CUDA is shifting into the realm of co-processing acceleration- CPU's put on skates.

The i7-4770 system described appears to have some very good choices. There are some image quality benefits to a Xeon > ECC > Quadro configuration- error-correction, anti-aliasing, multiple lighting, viewports, etc, but the i7 concept should be quick.

My only hesitation in recommending the i7 system is in the concern over the future potential. If rendering is very important to your work or likely to become so, Im not sure the LGA 1150 platform will in future accommodate more than 4 core CPU's while the LGA 2011 can currently have 4, 6, and 8, and may even add 10 and 12-core Xeons by this time next year.

Again, a complicated equation. I think I would say that a decision should be based on the most hardware- demanding application and the applications put into order of priority. If rendering were No 1 for example, that would be strong argument for a dual 6-core Xeon, and if you were using Solidworks that's an order for a Quadro.

That particular T500 though is quite tempting. For perspective on how good that deal is, here is the least expensive T5500 X5647 system sold on Ebay US >

http://www.ebay.com/itm/DELL-WORKSTATION-T5500-1-X-INTEL-QC-X5647-2-93GHZ-8GB-RAM-2-X-160GB-SATA-/190872011417?pt=Desktop_PCs&hash=item2c70dbc299

> and which was sold for $1,369. with 8GB RAM, 160GB HD, and a Quadro NVS, a card worth about $25.

It appears that on Ebay US, to add a second X5647 would cost about $250 for the CPU and about $200 for the CPU / memory / Fan riser. So, if AU prices are similar for used parts, the $995 T5500 could be a dual Xeon with 8 cores / 16 threads in the $1,500 budget and with a Quadro 4000 , one of the best all-rounder CAD cards . The X5647 must be quite desirable- it was apparently used in high quality servers and is still offered at over $800.

Just to confuse things a bit more, here is another new system idea, but at the very best cost / performance level I can manage >

BambiBoom PixelPusher CadoGraphicamatic iPlot Scotsman WalletJoyScream Amdisty VII ™$#©™_7.2.13

1. AMD FX-8350 Vishera 4.0GHz (4.2GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core Desktop Processor FD8350FRHKBOX > $200

2. [optional CPU cooler]

3. GIGABYTE GA-970A-UD3 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard > $110

4. AMD Radeon™ RE1600 Entertainment Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory AE316G1609U2K CAS=9 > $112.

5. MSI N660 TF 2GD5/OC GeForce GTX 660 2GB 192-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card > $194.

_5A. OPT'l > EVGA 02G-P4-2760-KR GeForce GTX 760 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 SLI Support Video Card > $250.

6. Western Digital WD Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive > $90

7. CORSAIR CX430M 430W ATX12V v2.3 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Modular Active PFC Power Supply > $50.

8. ASUS DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Black SATA 24X DVD Burner - Bulk - OEM $17.

9. Antec Three Hundred Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case > $60.

10. Microsoft Windows 8 Professional 64-bit OEM $86

TOTAL= $919 or $973 with GTX 760

Gosh- difficult. Can you say a bit more about your use?


Cheers,

BambiBoom

 

[alfabruce]

Hi Again and thanks again,

Im using it for my personal art and design and maybe a bit of contract work.
Ill be modelling fairly complicated scenes in Rhino and possibly also in Blender with its Zbrush like functions which I havnt exlored yet.

Imm import the Rhino files into Blender and add textures, lights, compositing, volume fogs etc etc and create large images to print, possibly up to 2000mm wide by 800mm high or similar.

These will then be taken into Photoshop/Corel or similar for extra work.

I wont be doing animation but I plan to make the scenes very detailed so rendering will be a big part of the process and fairly demanding. I have nt used blender to any great extent previously, my main work has been in 3DMAX at work but I cant afford that at home and Im quite impressed with Blender to date.

Im running a nice ASUS PB27Q and will get another one to run beside it or maybe a 24 Cintiq Wacom.

Just looking at that Add for the T5500 again, one of the images shows the Control panel and 8 processors running so I presume it is a dual Xeon or am I getting confused???.

So much to think about!!!

Tim

 

[alfabruce]

Hi again,

So from waht you are saying, I can simply grab a couple of Xeon E3-1270V2 for approx $390 AUD ($780 total) or whatever funky xeon processors are released in the coming years as you suggest withmore coers and threads, and replace the dual x5647s that are in there without changing the mother boards etc etc. That would give it some good speed. Im a bit confused though because the existing x5647s only have a passmark of 5919 which seems quite low compared to an i7 3770K.

Tim

 

[bambiboom]

Hi again,

So from waht you are saying, I can simply grab a couple of Xeon E3-1270V2 for approx $390 AUD ($780 total) or whatever funky xeon processors are released in the coming years as you suggest with more cores and threads, and replace the dual x5647s that are in there without changing the mother boards etc etc. That would give it some good speed. Im a bit confused though because the existing x5647s only have a passmark of 5919 which seems quite low compared to an i7 3770K.

Tim

Tim,

It's not possible to use just any old funky Xeon that tuns up- E3 Xeons use LGA 1155 or 1150 socket while the T5500 is LGA 1366.

But the T5500 has it's points > it seems like a good value- good clock speed CPU, Quadro 4000, SSD, 12GB RAM and would allow adding a second CPU within your $1500 limit. With 8 cores / 16 threads the rendering capabilities should be very good.

The X5647 could also be changed- sold for $250 and for $450 (= +$250-300) substitute an X5670, 6-core 2.93 . Where the X5647 is rated No. 150, score = 5919 (dual X5647 = 10066), the X5670 is rated No. 64, score = 8457 and dual X5670's giving 12 cores / 24 threads with a rating of No. 16, score =13276. the CPU could also become a 6-core, X5680 3.33GHz for $600 and two of those= 14151. To summarize, the $995 T5500 would allow (for an additional $200-300) a 6 core, 12 thread (Total about $1300) system and later another $600-700 creates a 12 core/ 24 thread system (Total about $2,000) with a very good graphic card.

Yes, the complication is that the i7-4770 has a Passmark rating of No, 21, score = 9989 to the dual X5647 at 10066 for about the same cost. The total CPU score is similar, but the dual Xeons would have 8 cores / 16 threads to the i7's 4 cores / 8 threads- twice as times as many cores / threads for rendering. The i7 has a higher clock speed, so for much of the working time, the i7 would seem faster- the dual Xeon idea may be overly concerned with less rendering time. It's noticeably more money, but the dual X56870 would provide 12 cores / 24 threads with a CPU score 25%-30% above the i7.

Here's another idea, again to have both good modeling as well as rendering speed >

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/HP-z420-XEON-3-2GHz-E5-1650-6-Core-Workstation-/261254758405?pt=AU_comp_dekstop&hash=item3cd3ff4005

> which is an HP z420 (in NSW) with the 6-core Xeon E5-1650 (3.2 / 3.8) and Quadro FX 4600 768MB card for AU $ 800 . The E5 is Passmark No. 13 , score = 11513 and i7-4770 is No, 21, score = 9989. Looks as though it needs a bit of sorting, but good raw material. Sell the FX 4600, buy a used Quadro 4000 and add RAM > still under $1,500 and has 50% more cores /threads.

It amounts to how much fussing you're prepared to do. Building the i7-4770 system for $1,500 has it strong points as everything is new and high performance. but, remeber that researching compatibility / performance, ordering, assembling, configuration, loading OS and applications, and trouble-shooting is a fuss as well. You might carefully research the GTX performance in any application you're likely to use- amazingly in some specialized applications a lower end Quadro or Firepro can best a GTX Titan, and there are some that will just work with a GTX, but overall, the i7 is probably the most sensible idea.

I don't know, my head is spinning too!

Cheers,

BambiBoom

 

[alfabruce]

Thanks again.
Ive got to be honest, Im very keen on the idea of that T5500. Ill try to give them a call to day (Sunday) but probably wont have much luck. Ill let you know how I get on.

So just to clarify, I can buy a second X5647 and plug that straight in with no expected other modifications which I think sounds great for my needs now and, as you suggest which sounds very impressive, grab a couple of 5670s somewhere down the track.

Thanks for the words of wisdom

TIm

 

[bambiboom]

Thanks again.
Ive got to be honest, Im very keen on the idea of that T5500. Ill try to give them a call to day (Sunday) but probably wont have much luck. Ill let you know how I get on.

So just to clarify, I can buy a second X5647 and plug that straight in with no expected other modifications which I think sounds great for my needs now and, as you suggest which sounds very impressive, grab a couple of 5670s somewhere down the track.

Thanks for the words of wisdom

TIm

Tim,

Yes, I agree that the T5500 is worth looking into. Not fuss free, but a good basis as it could be used almost right away -as is. The Quadro 4000 is good enough that you might never need to change. Improvements can be methodical, carefully shopped for price, and in your own time. That sequence worked very well for me with the T5400.

As you asked about adding a second CPU, it is a more involved than plugging in a second one, needing the appropriate CPU riser / heatsink / fan assembly (these vary from $100-300 in the US) plus (I think) the memory must be exactly equally divided between the two CPUs- same module size, speed, and particular placement. It's not a mystery though- easy as changing the oil in a Holden Commodore. Dell usefully will download the manual in PDF.

Yes, I'd be very interested to know what you decide. Doesn't the advert mention "offers"?

Cheers,

BambiBoom

 

[alfabruce]

Woops,

just had a look at used prices of some of those xeon processors and they ar seriously expensive over here which has made me tink that maybe the i7 3770k or similar is a better idea despite its lack of upgradeability.

Also have done some reserach and the new blender rendering engine is called cycles and it will only use nvidia and is not all that happy with the Quadro cards. It does all its processing on the graphics card so maybe 2x 2gb cards will be the go on a motherbord that allows and with lots of cooling or even a GTX 770 4gb card.

Wow, you think youve got something sorted and then another aspect raises its warty head.

Tim

 

[alfabruce]

Hi Bambiboom,

What about something like this

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Intel-CORE-i7-3770-16GB-RAM-120GB-SSD-4GB-Graphics-1T-Gaming-Desktop-Computer-PC-/321081270246

upgrade to 3770k

Do the motherboard, power supply and cooling etc look OK?

Looks like a fair bit of bang for the buck but I wouldnt recognize cheap and nasty if it hit me in the face yet.....Im a bit new to all the pieces that go to making up these things but learning fast and enjoying the ride

Thanks a million for your advice so far.

Tim

 

[Draven35]

I hate to be the burster of bubbles, but a *lot* of smaller VFX studios get along just fine with 'consumer' i7s and 'consumer' NVidia GPUs. Most animation tasks are single-threaded or at most two threads, up until you start rendering. (I did extensive testing on this for an upcoming article here on Tom's) CPU speed makes more of a difference than cores in most of these tasks.

The 3770/4770 makes a difference in actual modeling and animation tasks (not rendering) because of its extra memory bandwidth.

The system you list above would be ok except for the GPU, it needs a much better GPU, and I'd go with NVidia over AMD because they have better OpenGL drivers. (I'm talking actual experienced stability, not benchmark performance)

The reason you don't see tests for 3d modeling and animation that actually test normal modeling and animation workflows here on Tom's is these things are difficult to make into something repeatable and executable.

Unless you're running seriously high polygon counts, or software like solidworks (etc) you'll never notice the difference between a ?Quadro and a GeForce, unless you turn on something Quadro-specific like anti-aliased lines (AFAIK still not supported in hardware on the GeForce). Both Maya and Max now use DirectX11 instead of OpenGL so that likely changes their performance on GeForce cards for the better as well. Especially don't bother with the lower-end workstation cards like the Quadro 2000 and K2000, you'd get light-years better performance from a $200 game card, and likely never see any stability problems.

If you're going to school for animation, you'll be eligible for free educational copes of Max and Maya. Don't bother with Blender, seriously. Blender is free, there, i said something good about it. There's a reason that you can't find a studio that works in Blender. You'd almost be better off buying a copy of Lightwave two or three versions old than dealing with Blender.

Twelve minutes a frame for a render is *nothing*. Seriously. Give me a call when it reaches an hour per frame or more.

 

[alfabruce]

HI Draven,

Thanks for the info,

Yeah I noticed that that card is a bit basic also.

I think Ill build something for myself as per the earlier post with a GTX780.

IM not goingto school, that was an earlier poster who started this thrad JeanLucAwesome.....im hopping thats his realy name. Im doing my own artwork from home and cant afford to buy a copy of one of those. Ive used MAX a fair bit in the past and wasnt all that impressed by it to be completely honest but that was 6 or so years ago and maybe I needed some more tuition.

Ive done a lot of RHino and Flamingo too and thought that was OK but from what Ive seen, Blender looks to be a good deal more capable.

I would considerd buying an old version but, like solidworks, I didnt think you could sell licenses?

What is it about Blender that you dont like before I rush and get myself all set up and start training myself in it as Im very new to it. For a person in my position, it seems like a great concept. Does it crash too much. Is it too slow?

Thanks for you advice on which spec machine to buy. LIke so many things, its esy to get overwealmed by talk and figures and look for something way inexcess of what I need.

Thanks

Tim

 

[Draven35]

Since Lightwave still uses hardware keys, they can sell the license by selling the hardware key. I don't know about Max or Maya (or Cinema4D) licenses.

The UI in Blender is counter-intuitive and cobbled together compared to other 3D animation software. As time goes on, it seems to get more complex by chaining features on to its existing way of working while never streamlining the interface. Meanwhile, the interface for 3dsMax seems to have drastically improved recently, especially after the addition of the Slate material editor.

Also, it depends if you're just doing work for yourself or if you plan on working for someone else doing 3d. A company is more likely to depend on commercial software and many of them expect you to have skills with the software they use not just general skills... because often it can take too long to get up to speed in an operational manner with a new 3d application.

 

[alfabruce]

NAh,

I'll be doing my own thing. After years working as an industrial designer staring at screens at work Ive had enough. Im training to be a teacher now and will feed my creative urges and get my screen time at home. I agree the layout in Blender is a bit overwealming but Ill give it a go. Its free after all and lots of people seem to love it.

Cheers

Tim

 

[bambiboom]

Tim,

With all the head-spinning options at hand, it seemed a good time to think of a method to sort them through >

1. Reverse engineer the hardware from an understanding of the ways in which the principal applications you will use are optimized.

_1A.> Performance optimization > For example CPU / GPU intensive, memory / disk intensive, then if CPU intensive does the application use only one core or all of them, if GPU intensive, what kind of acceleration is used > CUDA, Open GL, CL, .

_1B> Content quality optimization > While speed is important especially in a commercial situation, there are important reasons to consider a capability of producing the highest quality images when required. The reasons I became Xeon >ECC RAM > Quadro -oriented is simply that it allows high levels of anti-aliasing (up to 128x), certain viewport functions, multiple lighting sources, artifact-free, and refined shadows and color gradients, but of course, those don't apply to every task. Most of my use doesn't demand this very highest quality, but there are moments when it does the system needs to be capable of that level of image quality even if only one out of ten uses require it. Especially with rendering- one of the most demanding applications, the final result is all that matters- saving 10 minutes per rendering is irrelevant. This characterization applies also to sound. On this forum, there seems to be little emphasis on sound quality, but if I were editing video, or making animations or multimedia presentations, the sound would become as high a priority as the images. In summary, for reasons of image quality, a system needs to be able to achieve the highest potential quality of the most demanding application.

2. Then, think of the order of priority in terms of time spent on each task, then on the way in which the time is utilized.

3. The priority of use then suggests the priority of performance for each task.

5. This cycles back to the first consideration which is to > find the hardware that works best for the tasks > that are the most important > in which the most time is used.

6. Consider future possibilities as software and task priorities change constantly as does the hardware that makes them work best. This is a way to allow for new software and version upgrades that will require the least hardware changes. Many workstation programs are moving towards CUDA acceleration and Open GL, CL,and DirectX and as Draven35 mentions, there are both CPU and GPU-based rendering applications. In general, the increasing size and complexity of programs is what drives hardware upgrades. In my situation, I end up using programs through several version upgrades as in most I never use more than a percentage of the capabilities. If I hadn't changed from 2D to 3D CAD in 2009, I would probably still be using my 2004 Pentium 4 (most tasks are still single threaded), if I hadn't been significantly increasing the amount of rendering since 2012, the Precision T5400 would still have a single quad core CPU, and if I didn't go to large file sizes in 3D and contemplate animation and video editing, I would have still the 512MB FX580 instead of the 1.5GB FX 4800. I only change hardware when there is a software capability that I will use and then also return to the idea or priority of use. Predicting the future in software is difficult but tracing the trends, and analyzing the needs, and the personal pattern of upgrading makes it possible to specify a system that is very good at the most important tasks and can also perform well in related applications and in future versions.

Sorry for all the theory, verbiage, and history but I occasionally need to clarify my own thinking.

As for your proposed system, the more we've conversed, I think there would be benefits on several levels from building as the process of specification simultaneously creates an understanding of the software / hardware relationship, improving the choices in both, and in the care and feeding of the system.

That said, I would return to the idea of the kind of overall analysis of use, then to the hardware that can do it to the highest level required (even if that level is only occasionally), and the hardware that can accommodate the future to a reasonable degree.

Cheers,

BambiBoom

 

[Draven35]

OpenGL allows and has allowed the same number of lighting sources since 2.0, iirc. Pro cards don't allow any more OpenGL lights than consumer cards. Lighting in directX is calculated using shaders instead, so your number of shader units becomes a priority.

If you're worried about sound quality, you need to buy an audio interface, instead of using a consumer sound card.

If you're planning on doing a lot of GPU-accelerated rendering, then your GPU memory is going to become a high priority. Complex scenes eat GPU RAM like nobody's business. The THG VrayRT test scene- a single 220,000 polygon car- eats roughly 700 MB of GPU memory.

 

[alfabruce]

THanks guys,

Im certainly very interested in good antialiasing and also using multiple light sources as some scenes will be underwater. I am not at all concerned about sound. What im struggling with at the moment is just how much a big scene is going to use in Blender.On the blender artist sites they talk about maxing out the card depending upon the number and complexity of textures etc ect. How does someone know how big the card needs to be. Ive had experience with Rhino and Max but blender I really dont know. Imagine a seaside landscape, complex waves shapes, foam, surf, beach, rocks, week, clifs, underwater stones, fish, weed, birds, people etc how much memory wil lthat take. Im quite convinced that a nice fast i7 will do the job and part of me is wondering if its worth saving up for a titan card???

Its really a bit of a lucky dip.

Thans again for your advice.

Tim

 

[Draven35]

The thing is, maxing out the card doesn't matter to the final render. That's right, when using a software render engine (like the Blender Cycles engine in software mode, Vray, mental ray, etc) your GPU matters exactly zero. Most render nodes at processional VFX studios are 'pizza box' servers or blade servers with crummy graphics (e.g. the HP Proliant series, with their 32 MB onboard ATI display card) because software rendering does not use the GPU, even now. iray, VrayRT, Octane, etc, DO use the GPU, but most don't.

When doing scene setup, you use low-resolution proxy objects to get your staging and animation done. At this point other than having enough lights to see, and a vague impression of the final lighting, the lighting doesn't matter. When you step up to the higher resolution objects for finessing the scene, you force the use of textures that are lower resolution than your final resolution *in the preview window*, which does not affect the quality of the final render. You also optimize the use of polygons in your scenes- does that distant tree that is ten pixels tall really need to be 50k polygons? The answer is usually 'no'. When you're animating camera movement in the foreground, do you need to be looking at the distant trees in their full resolution? No, a bounding box would work fine.

A titan card would make a difference in how you work and interactivity speed when you're actually animating, but NONE in the final render unless you're using a GPU-based renderer. Knowing how to work withing the limitations on any card, even a titan, is part and parcel of doing 3d work. Also keep in mind that many cards have a maximum limit on any texture size- commonly 8192x8192 on many cards, so if your textures are higher res than that (easy to happen especially if its something like an HDRI sky) it will be scaled in the preview window.

 

[alfabruce]

Hi Draven35

From what I understand the cycles renderer in BLender is heavily GPU based. If you render on the CPU its much much slower and thats why everyone is harping on about the importance of the GPU size which is all well and good but jut how big does it need to be before it wot work.

I think what Ill do is buy a good but affordable graphics card and give it a shot. It it works OK then great and Ive saved myself spedning 3 or 4 time as much on the titan. If not, Ill sell it and move up.

Your points about rendering are interesting and make sense. Like any program, its a matter of working within your constraints to achieve the best you can.

I hope to buy a PC very soon so Ill let you know how effective it is.

Cheers

Tim

 

[Draven35]

If you have to render large scenes like exteriors,, you will *never* have a GPU big enough unless you buy something like a Quadro K6000. Even then, conventional memory-saving measures like instancing aren't likely to work on the GPU.

However, according to the Blender wiki here: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2.6/Manual/Render/Cycles/GPU_Rendering you're likely to run into other limitations first- the Cycles GPU engine is limited to 95 'byte' (i assume it means integer ) and 5 floating point images. I have a scene in my 3d software right now with 16 floating point images ( 8 normal maps, 8 .exr specular maps) and its just a single object that i am texturing in 3dcoat, so that 5 limitation can easily be exceeded. If you use OSL shaders, they only work for CPU-based rendering in Cycles. Other GPU renderers have similar limitations, which is why GPU rendering is used a lot for lighting, shading etc but then final renders are done on a CPU. Then you have to account for the polygons themselves, which as i said earlier, can eat RAM and it is *very* easy for a nice exterior to run into the millions of polygons.