New machine, is this worth it?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

REPLY TO THREAD
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  1 Week Ago
New machine, is this worth it?

Hi there,

I'm considering building a new box. I currently have two XeonE5-2620 v2 (6 cores, 2.10 GHz) and I'm thinking to buy an IntelCore i9-7920X X-Series 2.9 GHz.
The other components are the usual: SSD Drive, 32GB ram and I'll upgrade from a current Quadro (stable, but slow) to a GTX 1080ti.

Do you think thisis worth it?
My applications are C4D, Arnold, Adobe CC, Affinity, Blender 3D.
 
  1 Week Ago
yup, you will notice a huge difference. That i7 has single core turbo boost to 4.0ghz i think, which will basically double your viewport performance.

the 1080ti wont do much for you in arnold. If you aren't planning on serious 4k gaming or using GPU renders, its overkill. 1070 will be more than enough. But if you use redshift or thea or octane, that 1080ti will scream )

www.ace5studios.com/hardware
 
  1 Week Ago
Thank you for your reply, Aleksey.
The 1080 is because I'm seeing a lot of software going in that direction and I think at some point even Arnold would take advantage of the GPU. I remember they posted a render already a while back showing their GPU sample.
So, GPU aside it seems it's an update I could benefit from. Good to know!
 
  1 Week Ago
Have you looked at a Threadripper 1950x? Higher total Cinebench points and lower cost. Though probably a smaller single thread speed.
 
  1 Week Ago
Thank you for chiming in, Luke.
I actually considered AMD, although I still think I'm going with Intel, maybe it's a matter of habits
 
  1 Week Ago
Hey, believe me, I do love TR1950, really very good performance for a nice price. I rendered my last project on it and it was really fast (car stills)
__________________
Maxon CINEMA 4D certified instructor and freelancer

CINEMA 4D "semi"-unbiased rendering tutorial

http://www.c4d.cz
 
  1 Week Ago
I would go for the Threadripper too, the 7920 costs more and render slower, do your math.
__________________
www.3drenderandbeyond.com
www.3dtutorialandbeyond.com
www.facebook.com/3drenderandbeyond
 
  1 Week Ago
I am waiting for new iMac Pro....!

...
 
  1 Week Ago
I would personally stay with Xeon. The V4's are definitely a much quicker chip than the V2 and you can design a powerful 20 core machine for under 5k.
__________________
۩PRIST

 
  1 Week Ago
I knew this was going to get confusing
Some of you guys are happy with the AMD, where can I find the Cinebench scores online? The few websites I have found are not updated with thei9-7920X, so I can't really compare the results with theThreadripper.
That said, on CPU Benchmarks, the winner is the i9-7920X with a score of23,556 vs the Threaddripper which scores21,977 (5 positions below). By the way, the i9 scores a tad higher than the V4, which costs much more:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

Also, I think another important aspect to take into account is how many applications take advantage of multiple cores. That is something I don't know and I would be curious to learn about.
 
  1 Week Ago
"That said, on CPU Benchmarks, the winner is the i9-7920X with a score of23,556 vs the Threaddripper which scores21,977 "


The top end Threadripper cost less than the i9 7920 and there's no way a 7920 can beat a 1950X in well multithreaded application, even the slower 1290X can match the 7920 score for rendering and it cost barely half the price. You should not look for generic benchmark, just check rendering benchmark from Cinebench 15, Corona, Vray ecc, then you will have realistic expectation of what you will get. Cinebench in particular gives you also the single threaded score which is the most important thing for single/badly threaded apps(in fact 90% of a typical workflow use barely a couple cores when not rendering/simulating), in this regard both Threadripper and i9 will easily outperform any Xeon out there(usually by a significant margin), in order to get both high GHZ and large core count on Xeon you will need to pay a lot more than prosumer CPUs.
__________________
www.3drenderandbeyond.com
www.3dtutorialandbeyond.com
www.facebook.com/3drenderandbeyond

Last edited by sirio : 1 Week Ago at 01:27 PM.
 
  1 Week Ago
Depends on your priorities. Looking at performance the 12 core i9 7920x gets 190 in cinebench single core and 2450 multithreaded, whilst the thread ripper 1950x gets a somewhat slower 165 single core, but more than makes up for it with 3000 multithreaded when rendering. So if its all about rendering, TR is the easy choice to make, but everything else you do will be about 20% slower due to the lower single core clocks.

If you plan to overclock then you can bump the i9 up to 3000 CB and TR up to 3400 CB.

At $1200 for the i9 and $800 for the TR, plus the extra difference in motherboard costs, youll be paying about an extra $500 overall for the intel system. the only real question is how much do you personally weight render speed vs everything else.
__________________
Matthew O'Neill
www.3dfluff.com
 
  1 Week Ago
Thanks for the info,Matthew.
I'm not sure about overclocking it, especially with the Threadripper as it already generates more heat than Intel (and also needs more power).

As for the main use, besides the apps I already mentioned, yes, I'll use it for renders, mainly Arnold. But there are other things I'm considering, like x-particles which I know runs better on i7/i9 CPUs rather than Xeon.
And then possibly Da Vinci (if I'm not mistaken another GPU optimized software) and maybe Fusion (trying to ditch Adobe altogether).
 
  1 Week Ago
Originally Posted by dsp_418: yes, I'll use it for renders, mainly Arnold.

If you're using Arnold, you'll definitely want the higher Cinebench amount.

As for X-Particles, I have dual 3.1 Gz Xeons, and I'm very content with xp speed.
 
  1 Week Ago
Originally Posted by imashination: Depends on your priorities. Looking at performance the 12 core i9 7920x gets 190 in cinebench single core and 2450 multithreaded, whilst the thread ripper 1950x gets a somewhat slower 165 single core, but more than makes up for it with 3000 multithreaded when rendering. So if its all about rendering, TR is the easy choice to make, but everything else you do will be about 20% slower due to the lower single core clocks.

If you plan to overclock then you can bump the i9 up to 3000 CB and TR up to 3400 CB.

At $1200 for the i9 and $800 for the TR, plus the extra difference in motherboard costs, youll be paying about an extra $500 overall for the intel system. the only real question is how much do you personally weight render speed vs everything else.
I know you know your stuff on hardware but :
165 single core vs 190 single-core - That makes the Threadripper just 14% behind on single core, right ?
And 3000 vs 2450 leaves the Intel 18% behind on multi-threaded.
I'm not sure the Intel makes a convincing case even at the same price, let alone at 50% extra.
Still that's the chip only. Supporting mobo & RAM is likely similar for both & I guess that dilutes the importance of the price difference on the chip.
Even so, I just can't see past the 16-core Threadripper for CG work on price/ performance right now.
__________________
Cinema 4D R17 Studio, VRAYforC4D, Z Brush, Mudbox, Photoshop CS6.
 
reply share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.