the best workstation for 3dsmax .

Become a member of the CGSociety

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

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12 December 2013   #1
the best workstation for 3dsmax .

Hi ,
I'm looking to buy new desktop so i decided to buy a workstation computer .
my budget is around 7000 $ .
i'm really confused to get the best value compering the components to it's price . and i really need ur kind help if u can .

i'm looking to HPC Workstations(Supermicro SuperChassis SYS-7047GR-TRF 1620W Tower) that fills my needs in 3dsmax .
and i saw lots of articles and videos about GPU and CPU rendering , i want after baying that much of money to get the best value .

Quardo 4000 (3GB) + (Tesla C2075 ) gives me nvidia maximus technology .
But it's price is 3000 $

i saw new intel Xeon Phi technology and i'm wondering if any if u try it in 3dsmax . and if it's work properly .

i'm really confused , cuz also the processors are so expensive ( i'm thinking of Dual Xeon E5 2650 V2 2.6 - 3.4 TB 25 MB cach 16 cores total ) = 3000 $ also .

the pack of Dual Xeon and nvidia is 9400 $ with 64 GB rams
the other pack of Dual Xeon and 1 Phi card is 8000 $

and if the GPU rendering work ok for all interiors and exteriors can i choose cheap pressers some thing with 1000 $ and nvidia cards , or to take high processors such i select and take the qaurdo 4000 as a first stage and buy Tesla later or to give up nvidia products and stick with Phi technology .

Plz help , i really want to render in real time and improve my skills .

Thx .
Old 12 December 2013   #2
GPU rendering with iRay or VrayRT goes faster using a gaming card rather than the workstation cards (Quadro) so if that's a big deal for you, get a better gaming card rather than a workstation card. The Quadro will do best for your viewport, so it would be better to get a single really good Quadro as your main graphics card.
You can use as many GPU's as you have in your computer for GPU rendering, so you can use a Quadro as your main GPU for your viewport and then have some extra gaming cards just for GPU rendering. For whatever GPU you get, it has to have enough memory to load your entire scene, so get something with 4GB or more.
As for Tesla, I'm not sure whether that is compatible with 3ds Max, maybe someone else here knows more about those--I do know gaming cards are still better at GPU rendering for things like iRay and VrayRT than the Tesla though.
As far as Xeon Phi--I don't think anything in 3ds Max is compatible with it.
The Z-Axis
Old 12 December 2013   #3
I'd save the money for the Quadro and invest in a good monitor or a big SSD for the boot/swap disk.
You should aks this kind of question in the hardware forum, you'll get more replys, especially concerning your CPU related questions.
Old 12 December 2013   #4
Quadro is a giant waste for just about everything, expect quad buffered 3d (stereo 3d).

Put that money in other places.

If you haven't yet worked with iRay or VRay RT you should try them before you spend money assuming you will use them. They are largely inadequate for my needs, at least-- still seem like half-baked technology, which a lot of limitations.I know some people find them perfect for their needs. So you determine for yourself.

Given distributed bucket rendering you may be better off buying a fast single processor i7 set up (overclock it), which will give you much better single threaded performance. Then add a few more machines for distributed rendering (giving you the fast rendering for tests). Xeon boxes are a lot more pricey, requiring a lot of other expensive components as well. A slower clock speed Xeon may be faster for rendering (when it can use all the cores), but will be slower than most overclocked i7s for interactive work with modeling and animating.
Old 12 December 2013   #5
Xeons are not really necessary either unless you want a multi socket solution. They do support ECC memory but for a workstation that is not really necessity either imhe, it more a data center thing where error tolerances are much lower. If you have a flipped bit a few times a year you might not even notice.. but if you have 1000's of servers running you can get a few crashes a week.. but for a single workstation the statistics are in your favor

Like other said, go for a fast i7, for example the i7-3930k is an excellent choice (6-core/ 12 with HT) and with a little tweaking will run stable at 4.2.. 4.7 Ghz with proper cooling.

And since alot of thing aren't multi-threaded you want fast cores, a 6 core rig at 4.4Ghz gives you a twice the speed in single threaded operation compared to a 12 at 2.2Ghz and equal @ 100% multithreaded load at a fraction of the cost.

Video wise, if you going to do giant iray project you need a lot of memory, the nVidia Titan has 6GB and is faster then the fastest quadro for GPU rendering.

I got my home built workstation for about 2500,- euros inc taxes and for most things it runs circles around 7000,- + HP workstations.

But if you have money to burn and want something that works out of the box a quadro/xeon rigs will work absolutly fine and they are not slow by any means, it's just that they are very very expensive compared to the performance you're getting.

And remember, it's not the tools that make the artist
The GPU revolution will not be rasterized! -
Old 12 December 2013   #6
Smile thx

thank u all for the ur kind replays .

now i have i full picture of it ,

but i have to ask , what do u think of AMD ?
4x AMD Opteron 6234 Interlagos 2.4GHz 16MB L3 Cache Socket G34 115W 12-Core (48 Cores Total)

the above configuration is about 5800 $ the cheapest ever in it's kind and it gives me (115.2) in total compering with i7 and Multi Xeon i think it's the best due to it's price .

i'm really now thinking of it .

and thanks again , i'm working now on Toshiba Qosmio laptop (i7 1.7 620 M ) hehehe so it's really going to be a big step to me and it's going to help the artist to do his job better in easy way .
Old 12 December 2013   #7
AMD has not been competitive for many years now. They are much slower than Intels.

I would not focus on a bunch of cores in a single box. I would focus on fast cores, then add more machines for distributed rendering if ou need them (or frame by frame for animation... I.e. a render farm). So few operations, other than the rendering, take advantage of more than one core.
Old 12 December 2013   #8
This blogpost sums up what has been told in this thread:

Dual socket for generalist workstation is only interesting with fast cpu's because of all the single threaded processes.
Follow me on Twitter
Old 12 December 2013   #9
Originally Posted by alm7treeef: but i have to ask , what do u think of AMD ?
4x AMD Opteron 6234 Interlagos 2.4GHz 16MB L3 Cache Socket G34 115W 12-Core (48 Cores Total) .

Or spending a bit more money on cpus choose an interlagos with 16 cores you end up with
64 cores... but!... you will need at least a 1000 W power supply and having four coolers runnning.

I was going to ask the same if anyone has real experience with these cpu's and not just an opinion about AMD. First thing i would wonder if Windows 7 or 8 can handle 4 physical cpu's?
Windows XP Pro only could handle 2 sockets, with 4 you had to take windows server, which
didn't support directx ...afaik.

Even if the 48 cores would be 30% slower, it would mean rendering with 4 computers without netrendering. In the past the opterons were energy killers, hot and thirsty.
But they were stable and reliable.
In 12 years i never killed a amd cpu, while "toasting" 3 Intels.

on the other hand, for the price of 2 good Xeons, you get more than 4 opterons.
I would estimate, the the last 30% of more speed of the intels, you only need in rendering,
particles, physics ...something like that. And i could imagine, that this gap is quickly closed by the sum of cores you have with the opterons.
i think i read somewere that the processes are heavily multithreaded, whil the single threaded
tasks are easy to handle by every high end cpu.

Is there any hardware guru that can tell if i am right or wrong. I'll will have to make this decisison
in 2014 too, so i am in the same dilemma.

Bobo? zap? or any AD Hardware wizzard?

Please no opinions, we need experience and facts.
pardon the straightforwardness.
Mad,Sad and Bad to the Bone!!!
Old 12 December 2013   #10
That facts are that very little benefits from multiple CPUs other than rendering. If you enable threading for massFX simulations then they are no longer dterministic, and you will get different results each time you simulate, even if you change no settings. Also, the speed difference is almost undetectable for most simulations.

PFlow is single-threaded as well.

So all of these things will benefit most form a fast CPU, not multiple cores. The overhead in distributed net rendering is pretty low if your render is slow (and why would you need it if your render was fast?)

People may want bragging rights to say I have 1024 cores in my workstation, but given the price difference that would just be throwing money out the window. I would much rather have two or three i7 machines overclocked vs. a single dual Xeon box (and could for the same price). When one machine fails you now have a backup or two. You now have an additional machine if you need to bring in a freelancer to help out. You have another machine to do your comping on separately form your 3d work. (Get a KVM,)

Yes, a single machine is likely more energy efficient.

If you want to blow a lot of cash then be sure to get a machine with the fastest clock speed possible, as most of the time you will only be using one of those cores.

Most Xeon motherboards are not overclockable either. This is one of the reasons we went from years of dual Xeons to single i7s running much faster. Now for the same budget every year we can add a workstation *and* another render node rather than just one workstation with most cores sitting idle most of the time.
Old 12 December 2013   #11
And I would put a 1000W or better power supply into a single i7 overclocked as well. Power supplies can lose about 30% of their output after one years of 24/7. We have burned up lots of power supplies in the render farm (Thermaltakes died rather quickly). This is someplace you do not want to scrimp.
Old 12 December 2013   #12
yeah, and power supplies are at their most efficient at 50..60%, load, check the efficiency curve at this page for example:

And that means less heat, longer mtbf and lower operating cost.
The GPU revolution will not be rasterized! -
Old 12 December 2013   #13
Thanks for the facts...but i am a bit picky regarding energy efficiency.
Just the facts, counting 8 hours a day, 5 days a week a 1000 Watt power supply would cost
just 800 $ electrical power a year... we are paying 35 US-cents per kw/h. So this does matter.

However.. what is better ... a bit less expensive Intel CPU and 3 or 4 Nvidia cuda cards, or going the
epensive CPU way combined with a high end gamer card with many many cores like a
GFX - "Titan". ? ? ?
Mad,Sad and Bad to the Bone!!!
Old 12 December 2013   #14
Hmmm , for the power supply u can go with

i found it the best in the market .

unless u r going to special case such as supermicro cases which came with it's power supply 1400 W .

as a sum , the guys says don't bay a multi-processors tower , stick with the single CPU tower (Desktop ) cuz when u r going with multi processors case all other components are getting expensive due to it's value .

that's what ii got form the post and the articles that they put it in here .

thx guys but i'm still looking about AMD cuz it looks interesting . for the 4 CPU u are right u need windows server as an OS , thx for mentioning that cuz i didn't notice that in the beginning , i looked after this directx thing and it can be installed now in windows server 2012 as i read .

let me know if u found something about it .

For the GPU cards , they are really expensive , i prefer to get a good pc tower with very good processor as first step and upgrade the GPU card later maybe , so choose Quardo K2000 and above to be with ur processor and after that u can get tesla cards just make sure the motherbord can take 3 or 4 PCIe for them .

correct me if i'm wrong

Old 12 December 2013   #15
We are all picky about energy efficiency these days, especially in a farm.

A 1000W power supply does NOT mean you are using 1000W all the time. It only uses what the processor/mobo/video card/accessories draw. A bigger power supply, as pointed out by others, usually draws LESS power than using a small PSU, as 40-60% load is typically peak efficiency.

The bigger PSU gives you overhead for when you need it, and overhead for its loss of output over time. It also gives you greater efficiency.

Just because Dell or some other assembler uses a smaller PSU to save them money doesn't mean it is a good idea.
Thread Closed 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
Society of Digital Artists

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

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:10 PM.

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