Building a new system. Some Input, please.

[Srek]

Check the many postings on this topic here on the forum.
There is no current Pentium chip that performs anywhere near a core i5/i7.
All Intel based dual boards use Xeons not core processors.
Cheers
Björn

[Devils1stBorn]

Check the many postings on this topic here on the forum.
There is no current Pentium chip that performs anywhere near a core i5/i7.
All Intel based dual boards use Xeons not core processors.
Cheers
Björn

Ok...so apparently the Asus board I mentioned does not support the i7. My question is this, is there a dual pentium setup (or an AMD for that matter) that outperforms a single i5/i7?

I will go ahead and read through the forum to see if it helps me out. If there are a few quick points you can add to help out, it would be appreciated.

[meleseDESIGN]

The ASUS Z8NA-D6 seems to be the only board that supports Dual Socket 1366.

No, it isn´t. Z8NA-D6 is the only and first Dual Socket board in a standard ATX formfactor.
Tyan, Supermicro and Asus all provide more as one Dual Socket 1366 Board, just look at the websites.

[imashination]

Forget the pentium, its ancient. Scrap anything with the word pentium from your list of potential machines.

[Devils1stBorn]

Forget the pentium, its ancient. Scrap anything with the word pentium from your list of potential machines.

Ok...you would advise what CPU?

[meleseDESIGN]

It sounds you have made your decission allready. 1-2 CPUs and Sockel 1366. If you don´t like the E-ATX formfactor you´re limited with the Z8NA-D6 board. Unfortunatelly it has only 6 RAM DIMMs, 3 for each CPU. If you need 4GB or 8GB RAM module for a really good price, pm me.

With Dual Socket boards you also can use only one CPU. If you can´t afford 2 XEONs right away just upgrade later to a second CPU.

[Devils1stBorn]

I appreciate the help, but so far my question hasn't been addressed.

AMD or Intel?...is this i7 really that much better?

Or is it still as I remembered? AMD's performance is still solid for less the cost?

Also, I want to go dual CPU...the only reason why I question that approach is because I've been hearing that these i7's are "suppose" to be out performing even dual CPU setups...is that true?

[meleseDESIGN]

Take a look at www.benchwell.com (http://www.benchwell.com), those benchs are pretty realistic.
It should help to answer your questions.

Every i5/i7 single CPU will out performe every dual CPU setup (like Socket F, 940, 771, 371, 462) what isn´t socket 1366 based.

[olson]

If you want to spend under $1,000 I'd go for a Phenom II X4 (AMD quad core) system, under $2,000 go for a Core i7 (Intel quad core), above that is dual Opteron (AMD quad and six core) and dual Xeon (Intel quad core). Its true the Core i7 processors are pretty fast, faster than the lower end dual socket configurations but they are expensive compared to most other single socket platforms because the motherboards are very expensive (around $300). You get what you pay for so a $1,500 Core i7 system isn't going to out perform a $5,000 dual Xeon workstation. Cheers!

[imashination]

If you want a cheap machine, less than $1000 then yes, an amd x4 chip is ok. If you want a more expensive machine then get the intel i7. If you want a high end dual machine then get a dual xeon.

[meleseDESIGN]

Just something i feel like to say about AMD processors.
AMD CPUs have a much higher TDP.
Energie costs will make AMD processors more expansive over time.

[InfernalDarkness]

Just something i feel like to say about AMD processors.
AMD CPUs have a much higher TDP.
Energie costs will make AMD processors more expansive over time.

I don't know where you read something like that, but it's quite the opposite, depending on your CPU load. At idle, a Phenom system uses less energy than the i7. Please do a bit more research before making such suggestions to would-be-buyers? Also, the word you were looking for is "expensive", not "expansive", as nothing is expanding, but there is something expending.

The actual CPU's themselves differ greatly in their TDP, but the measurement is meaningless without the rest of the system involved too. Running the i7 is cheap by itself, but with an Intel-based motherboard the usage changes dramatically.

Power Usage Benchmarks (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclock-phenom-ii,2119-9.html)

CPU-only:

http://media.bestofmicro.com/S/E/174686/original/chart_processors_idle.png

Entire system:

http://media.bestofmicro.com/S/G/174688/original/chart_system_idle.png

[olson]

Just something i feel like to say about AMD processors.
AMD CPUs have a much higher TDP.
Energie costs will make AMD processors more expansive over time.

That's not the case at all. AMD even offers energy efficient products that use less than half of the Intel equivalent (like Opteron HE and EE). The standard processor models are on par or slightly under Intel equivalents in terms of heat and energy efficiency. If you're worried about efficiency then the power supply will have more to do with that than getting choosy about Intel or AMD processors. Cheers!

[Devils1stBorn]

If you want to spend under $1,000 I'd go for a Phenom II X4 (AMD quad core) system, under $2,000 go for a Core i7 (Intel quad core), above that is dual Opteron (AMD quad and six core) and dual Xeon (Intel quad core). Its true the Core i7 processors are pretty fast, faster than the lower end dual socket configurations but they are expensive compared to most other single socket platforms because the motherboards are very expensive (around $300). You get what you pay for so a $1,500 Core i7 system isn't going to out perform a $5,000 dual Xeon workstation. Cheers!

Want to say thanks to everyone.

This is what I wanted input on. Yes, I have the money to invest in a highend system, at least 6 grand. I kept reading through forums and hearing about this i7 outperforming dual cpu setups, but as I suspected, they were lower end dual setups. I want to build a highend dual cpu system...dual Xeons seem to be the best way to go now.

However, if I can save money and go dual cpu with AMD and get just about the same performance...I would go that route. As far as power consumption...I don't know how much of an affect that would truly have on a bill.

I have surround sound, game systems, 46 inch LCD that I have on regularly...and my bill is 20 bucks a month lol

I'll put a configuration together and listen to to the input...

[olson]

However, if I can save money and go dual cpu with AMD and get just about the same performance...I would go that route.

AMD server and workstation platforms typically have a three or four year life cycle. I built a workstation three years ago with dual core Opteron processors and 4GB of memory shortly after Socket F boards were available. When quad core Opteron processors came out I upgrade to that needing only a BIOS update and upgraded the memory to 8GB. Now that six core Opteron processors are out I can upgrade to those and I've already put 16GB in the system. That's the advantage to building an AMD system, a much lower total cost of ownership since you can upgrade it for a while and they actually support the platform for more than a single product launch (like Intel is notorious for doing).

Unfortunately the current AMD workstation platform (Socket F) is at the end of its mainstream life. If you are going to build in three or four months you can get in on the next generation of AMD workstations which will have six, eight, and twelve core processors that will all be built on the same platform for the next three years. If you need it now then the Xeon 5500 series is the best route because its already out and benchmarked. They use the same architecture as the Core i7 processors but with extra circuits to talk to multiple processors (since the memory controller is on the processor now like Opteron). But the Xeon system would be WYSIWYG because the next Xeon will be on a different socket with different chipsets like Intel always does. Cheers!

[meleseDESIGN]

At first: my goal isn´t to wake up the fanboy attitude.


@ InfernalDarkness

If your system runs in IDLE all the time, you´re probably right.
For us, using our systems as Rendernodes as well, we have much less energie costs with Intel Xeons as with AMD Opterons. I don´t know why, but our measurements and electricity bill has changed dramaticly since we use Intel Xeons. I guess it has something to do with how much time the systems need to get their render jobs done. Xeons don´t need that much time as Opterons. I guess it will also be the case for i7 and Phenom.

The shown charts means if you run your system in IDLE all the time, AMD will be better.
But who use his system just to let it run in IDLE? If i have 8 cores available, i like to use all available cores as much as i can. Otherwise a older single core system would be good enough.

[Devils1stBorn]

AMD server and workstation platforms typically have a three or four year life cycle. I built a workstation three years ago with dual core Opteron processors and 4GB of memory shortly after Socket F boards were available. When quad core Opteron processors came out I upgrade to that needing only a BIOS update and upgraded the memory to 8GB. Now that six core Opteron processors are out I can upgrade to those and I've already put 16GB in the system. That's the advantage to building an AMD system, a much lower total cost of ownership since you can upgrade it for a while and they actually support the platform for more than a single product launch (like Intel is notorious for doing).

Unfortunately the current AMD workstation platform (Socket F) is at the end of its mainstream life. If you are going to build in three or four months you can get in on the next generation of AMD workstations which will have six, eight, and twelve core processors that will all be built on the same platform for the next three years. If you need it now then the Xeon 5500 series is the best route because its already out and benchmarked. They use the same architecture as the Core i7 processors but with extra circuits to talk to multiple processors (since the memory controller is on the processor now like Opteron). But the Xeon system would be WYSIWYG because the next Xeon will be on a different socket with different chipsets like Intel always does. Cheers!

Thanks.

You made some points there that are interesting. You see, with me, I build a system and ride it out.

Example. I'm still using XSI 4.2 and find that there is no need for me to upgrade from that considering my pipeline. Truth is, I have a seperate work station that will run solely for XSI 4.2. I built that system years ago and now have the benefit of upgrading just enough with the technology that would suit those needs...so it's like I'm maxing out my needs for that system at a much cheaper price ;)

This current system is to prep for CS5 Production suite.

You see, XSI 4.2 does great work....so why do I need to upgrade? I'm not the guy that buys toys just for the hell of it.

So in the end...my goal is to have a system that runs XSI 4.2 at its best (which I have a fairly good understanding of the tech at the time of its release)...and have a second system (which is the one I'm actually inquiring about at this time with you guys) that will manage CS5.

Building the computer is the easy part...research and understanding the tech is the fun and entertaining part....trying to make the right decision takes time. This system will get built somewhere within the next 3 months.

With that said, now that I have the coin to invest in a system that completes my studio...I most likely will never have to purchase again. Bein able to complete a project from pre to post production is enough for me. The tools of 5 years ago are still impressive to get great work done. These frequent upgardes are for people that have money to do so and major studios.

My upgrades are extreme....not from 1 year to the next...

[Devils1stBorn]

Learned about a lot today and it seems that dual quad core Xeons is the way to go. Dual Quad core's out perform a single i7....

[meleseDESIGN]

Learned about a lot today and it seems that dual quad core Xeons is the way to go. Dual Quad core's out perform a single i7....

Not every Dual Quad core out performes a single i7.

[olson]

Not every Dual Quad core out performes a single i7.
Yes, I have the money to invest in a highend system, at least 6 grand.

At six grand they do. ;)

[InfernalDarkness]

I guess it has something to do with how much time the systems need to get their render jobs done. Xeons don´t need that much time as Opterons. I guess it will also be the case for i7 and Phenom.


I suppose you never tried the quad- or six-core Opterons, then. Comparing apples to oranges.


Learned about a lot today and it seems that dual quad core Xeons is the way to go. Dual Quad core's out perform a single i7....

Very true. And dual six-core Opterons outperform dual quad Xeons. It's a simple mathematical equation, as twelve is greater than eight.

[dmeyer]

I suppose you never tried the quad- or six-core Opterons, then. Comparing apples to oranges.



Very true. And dual six-core Opterons outperform dual quad Xeons. It's a simple mathematical equation, as twelve is greater than eight.


If only things were that simple. What if he is comparing 2.2 Ghz 6-core Istanbuls to 3.33 Ghz 4-core Nehalem Xeons? What if his application scales poorly with non power-of-2 core counts? What if it does well with hyperthreading?

As an example from my testing with Benchwell, which scales nearly linearly with core count, including hyperthreading:

2 3.33 Ghx Xeon W5590s (8 cores total): 2300
2 2.26 Xeons (8 cores total): 1700
4 2.2 Ghz Opteron 8354s (16 cores total): 1600
2 2.2 Ghz Opteron 2427s (12 cores total): 1350
2 3.2 Ghz Xeon X5482s (8 cores total): 1200

Not every application is going to behave the same. Some see no benefit from virtual cores. Some see no benefit from higher memory bandwidth. Some are poorly threaded so fewer, faster cores are better than more slower ones.

To the OP - only your specific usage profile can determine what is the best fit. If that is Softimage - go look up some Softimage benchmarks with different hardware.

[meleseDESIGN]

I suppose you never tried the quad- or six-core Opterons, then. Comparing apples to oranges.

We had it all, from single to 8 socket AMD systems. Recently we moved to new Intel Xeon and we were really surprised about the performance boost and energie efficient, render-jobs in C4D now we can get done in less time with lesser cores.

I just can say C4D performes better for us with the new Xeons in every way.
For me, i really don´t know why it shouldn´t work out the same way for XSI, Maya or any other 3D/Rendering application, if it does for C4D.

[mattmos]

That's great you're still rocking the 4.2! Just as a heads up though if you didn't know, you can currently upgrade to xsi 2010 for half the normal price - I went from 5.11 to 7.5/2010 and there were numerous small benefits to my workflow that really do add up to serious time saving, plus the whole thing is so much more multi-threaded that it will really benefit that much more from a multi-core system.

Anyway, enough pimping from me, just wanted to say that if you really wanted to go extreme with the upgrade then 6 core xeons will be out early 2010, so thats 12 physical cores, 24 with hyper-threading. should make short work of anything cs5 can throw at you.

[meleseDESIGN]

[...] 6 core xeons will be out early 2010, so thats 12 physical cores, 24 with hyper-threading. should make short work of anything cs5 can throw at you.

Yummy!!!

We saw some good looking benchmarks somewhere in the net with a couple ES of those 6 core Xeons.

http://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/showthread.php?t=606202

[Devils1stBorn]

Some more info to research...thanks guys, you're really helping.

I see no reason for me to upgrade XSI...I mean, I would like to, but that's the only reason why I would. That money can go to hardware. I have no real need to upgrade XSI.

How about this guys...I'm still putting this system together for you guys to look at...6 core CPU's sound expensive. You see, the upgrade I'm doing for the XSI 4.2 machine will not be that expensive at all. The tech that will push that app to the max is already "dated" when considering the current tech. I don't even think XSI 4.2 takes advantage of cores...still researching that. I just want two cpu's, most likely the older Opterons, that way I'm not taking a hit with mental ray.

It's the machine that will manage CS5 that will require the heavy investment. SO while I'm willing to upgrade, I'm not looking to kill the bank. Money is going to the cpu's and the video card...as you guys already know.

[imashination]

I dont know about xsi specifically, but do consider that there may well be significant render speed and opengl improvements in newer versions which could give you a bigger speed boost than new hardware could.

eg. I started a project in c4d 10.5, this project was then rendered on a 200 machine render farm over a few days. I recently had to revisit it, in 11.5 the render speed increase was so significant that I skipped the render farm entirely and just let it render on my single machine over a week instead.

[Devils1stBorn]

That's great you're still rocking the 4.2! Just as a heads up though if you didn't know, you can currently upgrade to xsi 2010 for half the normal price - I went from 5.11 to 7.5/2010 and there were numerous small benefits to my workflow that really do add up to serious time saving, plus the whole thing is so much more multi-threaded that it will really benefit that much more from a multi-core system.

Anyway, enough pimping from me, just wanted to say that if you really wanted to go extreme with the upgrade then 6 core xeons will be out early 2010, so thats 12 physical cores, 24 with hyper-threading. should make short work of anything cs5 can throw at you.

I just looked at the site and don't see this upgrade discount at all?

[meleseDESIGN]

I dont know about xsi specifically, but do consider that there may well be significant render speed and opengl improvements in newer versions which could give you a bigger speed boost than new hardware could.

That´s actually the most important reason for us why we would upgrade to a newer version.

If he likes to see some better render improvements, there are three ways to go for (actually there are only two real resons).

1. upgrading your application to a newer version
2. upgrading your hardware
3. upgrading your application and hardware

So if you would like to get the most out of it a hardware upgrade should be the first step. If you like to get even more out of it an upgrade to a newer version of your favorite 3D/Render application is the second step. Upgrading just your application while staying with your old hardware will not show noticeable render improvement.

[Srek]

Upgrading just your application while staying with your old hardware will not show noticeable render improvement.
I don't know what application you are using, but it's definitly not correct for CINEMA 4D.

Cheers
Björn

[meleseDESIGN]

I don't know what application you are using, but it's definitly not correct for CINEMA 4D.

Cheers
Björn


Cinema 4D with Xeon/i7 will show some top performances, C4D with an old Pentium 4 will not show any huge noticeable render improvement.

Anyways, upgrading to new hardware (especially socket 1366) will show much better render improvements as just upgrading the software.

[mattmos]

I just looked at the site and don't see this upgrade discount at all?

They certainly have hidden it away...

http://offers.autodesk.com/9/116724/?mktvar001=95017&mktvar002=&rid=

Best to contact your reseller as they will be the ones selling at the reduced price. Should apply to all versions of xsi, inc 4.2.

[imashination]

Upgrading just your application while staying with your old hardware will not show noticeable render improvement.

http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/pics/weights.jpg

Athlon 2800, 2 gigs ram (was surprised it still booted ;-))

C4D R8.5 9:25
C4D R11.5 2:18

4x faster on the same hardware.

[meleseDESIGN]

4x faster on the same hardware.

Any i7 will boost C4D R8.5 to be around 10x faster as C4D R11.5 would be with an Athlon 2800+.

Hardware upgrades give you allways the bigger speed boost.

[imashination]

Any i7 will boost C4D R8.5 to be around 10x faster as C4D R11.5 would be with an Athlon 2800+.

Hardware upgrades give you allways the bigger speed boost.

Youre missing the point a bit. If the choice is between a cheap £1000 machine and a £500 software upgrade or getting a dual xeon for £5000 which will be twice as fast hardware-wise, then only one of them makes any sense.

£1000 new i7 hardware, 10x faster
£500 new software, 4x faster
-----
£1500 = 40x

vs

£5000 new xeon hardware, 20x faster
£0 no new software
-----
£5000 = 20x

Then the new software becomes the cheaper upgrade, and you get a ton more new features as part of the mix. Ignoring the potential speed boost that half a decade of software engineering has created isnt a particularly prudent way of going about spending your money.

If I were the OP, I would grab the latest demo of XSI and do some tests of his own. The software speedups of AA, blurry effects, motion blur and especially multi cpu support have advanced a lot since he bought XSI.

I feel a car analogy coming on.

[meleseDESIGN]

Youre missing the point a bit. If the choice is between a cheap £1000 machine and a £500 software upgrade or getting a dual xeon for £5000 which will be twice as fast hardware-wise, then only one of them makes any sense.

Comparing i7 and latest Software upgrade with dual Xeons and older Software version is another thing. Problem here, the OP doesn´t even have a i7 system.

40x is all you get with i7 and latest soft upgrade. 20x isn´t the limit for dual XEONs, with latest soft upgrade it can boost up to 80x.

Your point is about price, my point was about speed boost.
If i were the OP, i would grab the latest dual Xeon and latest soft upgrade as well to get the most out of it, i7 wouldn´t be a bad buy neighter.

For us, recently we bought new hardware first and we like to upgrade our 3D application (C4D) start next year.

[Devils1stBorn]

Ok...again thanks for the help!

But guys, this is not about upgrading XSI 4.2...upgrading an older system just enough to get the best out of that app. I don't need anything more than XSI 4.2 at this moment.

The high end system will be geared for CS5...

I'm considering this match as far as motherboard and cpu's....

Intel Motherboard S5000PSLSATAR Intel Xeon Intel 5000P SATA RAID with 2 Intel Xeon DP Quad-core E5530 2.4GHz Processor 2.4GHz - 5.86GT/s QPI - 8MB L2 - Socket B

My video cards will be nvidia...checking prices...

Oh, and just to throw this in there...the case will be the Cooler Master ATCS 840

[Devils1stBorn]

Did I lose you guys?

[olson]

Did I lose you guys?

Those processors won't work in that board. There's also no PCI-Express x16 slots on that board. You probably want a newer board to support 5500 series Xeon and that has at least one PCI-Express x16 slot so you can get the full bang from your graphics card. Super Micro has quite a few that would fit the bill and are top notch (very reliable) and have good support. Tyan, Intel, and Asus are good options too.

http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/QPI/5500/X8DAi.cfm

That would be a good one if its in your budget. Supports the latest Xeon 5500 series and has two PCI-Express x16 slots for graphics cards that are the full x16 lanes (instead of x8 like some server boards). You might want to look at Lian Li for a case, much better cases for the money compared to Cooler Master. Cheers!

[Devils1stBorn]

Those processors won't work in that board. There's also no PCI-Express x16 slots on that board. You probably want a newer board to support 5500 series Xeon and that has at least one PCI-Express x16 slot so you can get the full bang from your graphics card. Super Micro has quite a few that would fit the bill and are top notch (very reliable) and have good support. Tyan, Intel, and Asus are good options too.

http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/QPI/5500/X8DAi.cfm

That would be a good one if its in your budget. Supports the latest Xeon 5500 series and has two PCI-Express x16 slots for graphics cards that are the full x16 lanes (instead of x8 like some server boards). You might want to look at Lian Li for a case, much better cases for the money compared to Cooler Master. Cheers!

Thanks for the info.

I will look into Lian Li, as I have been aware of those cases. However, this Cooler Master has had some great reviews, plus, I agree with the design. Perhaps you can refer to a Lian Li you feel is comparable and point out key pro's and con's?

[Devils1stBorn]

Also, has anyone had any bad experiences with newegg?

They seem to have some solid deals.

[olson]

Also, has anyone had any bad experiences with newegg?

They seem to have some solid deals.

I'll have to get back to you on the cases but as for Newegg, they have legendary customer support. They are probably the best computer components distributor in the United States. Though sales tax is a drag if you live in California (and maybe New Jersey).

[InfernalDarkness]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixel Imagination
Also, has anyone had any bad experiences with newegg?

They seem to have some solid deals.



I'll have to get back to you on the cases but as for Newegg, they have legendary customer support. They are probably the best computer components distributor in the United States. Though sales tax is a drag if you live in California (and maybe New Jersey).

Seconded. My previous Quadro had some manufacturing flaw or other and redscreened me after three days. They had the new one in my mailbox two days later. Considering how hard it is to find those cards in a retail environment, it sure beat driving two days across states to find one!

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.