Computer upgrade feedback and suggestions

[lbuttery]

Chief isn't CAD software?

 

No, Chief is 3D modeling software

 

while it has Cad tools it is not dedicated CAD like AutoCAD etc

 

Lew

[HumbleChief]

12 hours ago, paulchoate said:

So I think I got my answer: 6 or 8 core Intel I7 high GHz processor (fast single core for daily tasks yet multiple cores for faster ray tracing...which by the way is a great way to wow clients) and a Nvidia 1060, 70 or 80 graphics card. ( I think). 

Yup, that's a good bet for Chief and if your budget is tight you can save a little on the graphics card by going with the 1070 instead of the 1080 and putting that money elsewhere, and still achieve very good 3D performance in Chief.

[HumbleChief]

8 hours ago, lbuttery said:

Chief isn't CAD software?

 

No, Chief is 3D modeling software

 

while it has Cad tools it is not dedicated CAD like AutoCAD etc

 

Lew

Yeah, that's a bit weird to think of Chief as something other than CAD software but as Lew points out is does not share the same characteristics as ACAD etc. and plays by different rules.

[TheKitchenAbode]

Concerning the graphics card, your main consideration is more about how many monitors you intend to run and at what resolution. The more monitors at higher resolutions will require better cards. Also, you need to consider the demands placed on your graphics card by other programs that you may be using at the same time as CA. They all have to be managed by the graphics card so that when you switch back and forth everything is fast and smooth.

[lbuttery]

with Cad you draw walls and doors and windows using lines etc via cad tools

 

with Chief you PLACE walls, door, windows objects that are BIM smart

(Chief has BIM but it is very limited BIM in relation to the rest of the BIM industry)

 

in Chief you PLACE in 2D then generate 3D using an engine that is similar to a gaming engine

 

you can also create in 3D and generate the 2D

this is Chief's ultimate goal - do "all" design in 3D

then generate the 2D

 

Lew

[Ridge_Runner]

40 minutes ago, lbuttery said:

this is Chief's ultimate goal - do "all" design in 3D

then generate the 2D

Good summation, Lew. I certainly miss some of otherCAD's CAD features but I much prefer designing in Chief. I have to constantly fight the impulse to quickly just do it in CAD. It may seem quicker up front but when you learn the basics of how Chief works I wouldn't go back to the familiar just for the sake of saving a little time up front and losing so much more later.

[HumbleChief]

5 minutes ago, TheKitchenAbode said:

Concerning the graphics card, your main consideration is more about how many monitors you intend to run and at what resolution. The more monitors at higher resolutions will require better cards. Also, you need to consider the demands placed on your graphics card by other programs that you may be using at the same time as CA. They all have to be managed by the graphics card so that when you switch back and forth everything is fast and smooth.

True that. I have 3 monitors of various resolution (see sig) and an older 780 NVidia card worked great as does the newer 1080. If you have 4K stuff then you might need the video card muscle. If not you can save a few bucks by buying a slightly lesser card than the 1080.

[paulchoate]

Wow, once again I'm floored by the time all of you put into answering my question and explaining a few things. Really appreciate it. I only run one monitor now but am planning on running two 4k screens (I have a 4k now on my laptop and though there are sometimes issues with scale overall I like it).   And if (more of a "when")  I'm going to upgrade my desktop setup I may as well set it up for "tomorrow" and not "today": the 1080 graphics card may be overkill but I'll have it covered for the next few years. The hard part of all this is finding a computer that has more than a 4-core processor (a "fast" one) other than Xeon which are relatively "slow" compared to some of the more common quad-cores found in most "over the counter" computers (actually I haven't seen anything more than a 4-core). Unless of course I find a company to customize/build it for me. Basically I'm trying too customize my desktop for Chief...I don't like lag time and am willing to spend a few bucks to reduce lag time during "normal" drawing and also greatly improve ray trace speed. My current desk top is 8 years old and ran my old CAD software just fine but won't run Chief at all...so, time to upgrade and I may as well get what I want.

[TheKitchenAbode]

A CPU like the Skylak I7 7700K has 4 physical core but with hyperthreading this equates to 8 logical cores. You could also consider the I7 5960X, it has 8 physical cores and with hyperthreading you have 16 logical cores. It does not clock as high as the 7700K and costs about 3 times the price. It all depends on how much Ray Tracing you plan to do in justifying the cost to get more cores. Your other option is to wait a few months for Intels new lineup and AMD's new ThreadRipper series. They are going to be expensive but they will represent the very best you can get. On the other hand, with your current system being 5 years old you will notice a huge difference moving to say the I7 7700K.

[Brettb808]

So im really new here but all of these programs always have the same type of argument regarding hardware.  i will spec 2 computers from pcpartpicker.com that you should base your next computers off of to run chief, cad, 2020, Pro kitchen, Rev-it or another similar program.

 

High end:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/QfdpkT

Ryzen's 1800x brings 8 cores to the table to help in ray trace for only 450$ and a 3.6ghz clock speed is sufficient and can be overclocked. The 1700x would also be a good choice because of its 8 cores/16 treads.

32gb ram is not needed but helps when running multiple programs

1080ti is a top of the line graphics card which is also not needed but is nice to have.

The ssd is a nice addition for any PC because it helps with boot times and overall performance.

 

Med end

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/7XWWvV

Ryzen's 1600x is an affordable 6 core processor, costing only 230$ with a clock speed of 3.6. 

16gb of ram is the minimum amount of ram you should be using, also ram speed doesn't matter for the most part.

1070 is the basic enthusiast graphics card for gamer and designers alike.

ssd for boot/ run design programs - Mechanical hard drive for basic storage.

 

Some points

• Intel processors typically have a higher single core clock speed which is great for gaming, but not so good for rendering. 
• Intel processors are typically much more expensive then the new amd processors and dont offer asmuch when it comes to rendering.
• Note that only Intel i7 processors use hyper-threading which artificially doubles the amount of Threads your PC uses to render.  More thread > Quicker renders.  All AMD Ryzen processors utilize hyper-threading.
• Intel Xenon Chips are bad.  Typically Much more expensive, run much slower, utilize older chip sets.  Dont be fooled by the high core count.  
• Quatro GPU's are also bad.  They are Crazy expensive.  You can get similar performance buying a Enthusiast Graphics Card for a fraction of the price. Try to stick with the 9 and 10 series Nvidia Gpu's 970, 980, 1060, 1070, 1080 ect...

My Computer setup:

Intel i7 4790k 4.0ghz, overclocked to 4.7 - 4 core processor with Hyper Threading

16 Gb DDR3 1866ghz ram

(2x) Evga 980 ti Sli

850w power

(3) Crucial Mx200 ssd

(2) WD Blue HDD

I have no Problems running any software i throw at my computer. 

[TheKitchenAbode]

Bretb808 - Some good points there. Just a bit of clarification. Hyper-threading is available on many of Intel series chips besides the I7 series. I would not say that the Xeons are bad per say, it just depends on how much money you can afford to spend. There are many Xeons that will clock up in the high 3GHz range and with dual processing capabilities you can have a lot of cores.

 

The AMD Ryzen series are certainly worth consideration, especially given their attractive cost and high core count. From the test reviews I have seen so far they are not up to par with Intel when it comes to single thread performance.

 

The challenge unfortunately is finding that critical balance between frequency and core count. So far from what I can determine, other than Ray Tracing, many of CAs operations are not fully optimized to take advantage of those cores and as such one needs to look closely at the CPUs single thread performance stats.

 

For Ray Tracing cores are very important, but also the frequency that those cores run at. Another very important consideration with Ray Tracing is the fact that ones lighting strategy has a huge impact on Ray Trace times and quality. If your current Ray Traces on your current system don't look reasonably good after 30 or 50 passes they after not really going to look any better on a faster machine after 200 passes, you will be very disappointed.

 

If I were considering an upgrade today I would wait a few months for Intel's and AMDs newer chips. Preliminary indicators are that these offerings will provide some interesting choices across a wide range of costs, frequencies and core count. Even if one chooses a former series chip, the new chips will likely drive prices down on these former chips so you really can't lose one way or the other. 

 

 

 

 

[TheKitchenAbode]

Just to emphasize my comments above concerning Ray Tracing and what to expect by throwing more CPU horsepower at it.

 

This is after 5 passes in 1 minute.

 

This is after 100 passes in 17 minutes.

The only change is a cleaner image, less graininess.

 

Running more passes does not substantially change the overall scene, it just cleans things up.

 

If your scene looks like this after 5 passes.

 

Then it's going to look essentially the same after 100 passes.

 

You can spend all of your money on cores, but you are not going to get any better results, just faster.

 

[limitless8]

From what I heard the new 7700, can be safely clocked to 4.5 and many get 4.7 even, but you would deff need an AIO.  You can check from my signature what I'm using, it's a 2 year old system, 6 cores and 12 threads at 4.3 stable, the 980 gets the job done as well (running a 4k monitor basically).  I agree with Graham that if you screw up the lights in a scene won't matter what you're running, as well material definitions and so on, something I came to realize in the early days when I began using chief (trial and error).

Up until recently I was thinking of getting a laptop for on the road work or client demonstration, but came to the conclusion that putting out 2k for a good laptop wasn't worth it simply because I rarely have to do work in front of a client, and showing images and so on many mid level laptops that I have can do.

 

I'm actually thinking of investing the money for the laptop, into a second system, to double work load ( have one system battling ray traces all day, line them up and watch them fall), and have a second desktop to keep working on and if need be ray trace as well.

 

For what it's worth, pcpartpicker is deff a great site for anybody who doesn't fully understand how hardware compatibility works, and I personally love building my comps as much as houses, it's a form of art in some ways.  

 

Currently I have my heart set on an AMD ryzen 7 1800x, 8 cores 16 threads at 4.0 when overclocked and it'll be stable (not too far from my current cpu).  As for gpu consider getting an MSI corsair hybrid 1070, it's water cooled and from what I read gets great results in any aspect.  With memory 32gb should be what you aim for, there are always deals on packs of 4*8gb sticks, for speeds well as much as they might not affect chief, higher clocked ram will have your system in all aspects running smoother and faster.  

 

You're 3 build I saw was around 2299

Check the link below, same price, and I don't know what everybody else will say but from my perspective for the same money you get a much more powerful system that's future-proof.

 

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/kFRF6X

[jcaffee]

4 hours ago, limitless8 said:

system that's future-proof

hahahahahahahahahahahaha.  Oops, sorry, I didn't mean to laugh out loud.

[limitless8]

30 minutes ago, jcaffee said:

hahahahahahahahahahahaha.  Oops, sorry, I didn't mean to laugh out loud.

Well Jay I don't know what to say except maybe explain your reasoning instead of just being plain sarcastic?

[Renerabbitt]

Lol @jcaffee

just my two cents, I bought my 14 core Xeon in my sig for $500 on eBay, watercooled it and clocked it to 2.7ghz.. and it really cranks... sure there are some things that my laptop's 6700 are slightly more snappy on, but the gigantic l3 cache on the Xeon really sets it apart, not to mention the cores help with programs I use outside of chief

Take a look:

[jcaffee]

14 minutes ago, limitless8 said:

splain your reasoning instead of just being plain sarcastic?

 

Ok.  Technology has a lifecycle.  At best, you plan for that lifecycle based on experience and industry norms.  At worst, your needs are on the bleeding edge and the lifecycle is measured in weeks.

Most CAD and ArcVis technical requirements are safe at 36 months.  Do people get more?  Sure.  Some folks also get way less.  But the concept of technical "future-proof" is something that went out the door in the 70s.  

[limitless8]

13 minutes ago, jcaffee said:

 

Ok.  Technology has a lifecycle.  At best, you plan for that lifecycle based on experience and industry norms.  At worst, your needs are on the bleeding edge and the lifecycle is measured in weeks.

Most CAD and ArcVis technical requirements are safe at 36 months.  Do people get more?  Sure.  Some folks also get way less.  But the concept of technical "future-proof" is something that went out the door in the 70s.  

When I said future proof I didn't mean for eternity.  I think we just have different understandings of the same expression.   When I say future proof I mean that it'll last him prob 2 to 4 years depending on what he will be doing.   

The example rig I posted would deff last 2 years with chief if not all 4.  My rig is still going at it without any problems and it's been 2 years. 

Also considering that of his three examples the most pricey was 2300$, I suggested what I did.

[Archnot-Boltz]

My home CPU is a stock Dell XPS 8300 that's over 5 yrs old, i7, 2 gb Nvidia  graphics, 16 mb ram, 1-T 7200 rpm hard drive and it still does Chief fine (I don't use Ray-Trace). My work cpu was built by our IT guy and he screwed up and bought a mother board that wouldn't accept an i7, so I only have an i5 with a 4 gb graphics card, 1-Terrabite 7200 Hard drive and this unit is 3 yrs old and running X8 fine (again, no ray-tracing).

 

Both units are over 3 ghz and chugging along just fine, so future proofing with Chief ain't that big a deal if you start out with a modern machine.-BB

[TheKitchenAbode]

One important factor that must be considered in all of this are the other programs one has active while working with CA. These will place additional demands on available system resources. What can be difficult is determining the cumulative impact of this and what is the best hardware combination one needs to ensure everything functions fast and smooth. This becomes even more challenging when one has budgetary limitations and one needs to set their expectations accordingly. Future proofing is not really so much about hardware, it's more related to how your software needs change over time. If your current system runs your current software fine then it will continue to do so for ever. Purchasing more than you actually need for today really depends on trying to anticipate what other future things you might require. For example, if Virtual Reality is in your near future or you see a need for 4K or 5K monitors down the road then you need to take this into account when configuring your new system.

 

If your desire is to have a laptop as your primary system then one needs to keep in mind that they are very limited in upgradeability and in most cases not upgradeable at all. Desktop systems on the other hand provide greater flexibility and can undergo a round or two of upgrading to accommodate future needs.

 

[lbuttery]

I will research "top of the line" at purchase time

 

then back down a step or two to what I can afford

putting most $$ into things that can't be upgraded later

 

doing this gives the best chance to have a fully viable PC 5+ years in the future

 

who knows what will be out 5 years from now

try to be ready for it

 

Lew

[paulchoate]

On ‎6‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 9:44 AM, TheKitchenAbode said:

Just to emphasize my comments above concerning Ray Tracing and what to expect by throwing more CPU horsepower at it.

 

This is after 5 passes in 1 minute.

 

This is after 100 passes in 17 minutes.

The only change is a cleaner image, less graininess.

 

Running more passes does not substantially change the overall scene, it just cleans things up.

 

If your scene looks like this after 5 passes.

 

Then it's going to look essentially the same after 100 passes.

 

You can spend all of your money on cores, but you are not going to get any better results, just faster.

 

"The only change is a cleaner image, less graininess. Running more passes does not substantially change the overall scene, it just cleans things up." EXACTLY lol

 

"You can spend all of your money on cores, but you are not going to get any better results, just faster." EXACTLY lol (again)

[TheKitchenAbode]

19 minutes ago, paulchoate said:

"The only change is a cleaner image, less graininess. Running more passes does not substantially change the overall scene, it just cleans things up." EXACTLY lol

 

"You can spend all of your money on cores, but you are not going to get any better results, just faster." EXACTLY lol (again)

 

Your missing my point. I'm not disputing the fact that a faster system won't run the same number of passes faster. The point I'm try to emphasize is that by getting a handle on lighting there is no need to run a Ray Trace for 6 hours. On that sample output you posted in the other thread you could run that for 20 days and the stainless steel would still be black. The quality of a Ray Trace is not directly related to the number of passes.

[paulchoate]

1 hour ago, TheKitchenAbode said:

 

Your missing my point. I'm not disputing the fact that a faster system won't run the same number of passes faster. The point I'm try to emphasize is that by getting a handle on lighting there is no need to run a Ray Trace for 6 hours. On that sample output you posted in the other thread you could run that for 20 days and the stainless steel would still be black. The quality of a Ray Trace is not directly related to the number of passes.

I do see your point and  value it. I was just making a small joke...What you are saying is that if I spend a bit of time learning what makes for a "good" ray trace I'll save myself a lot of time and probably money as well. Thank you and keep it coming!

[TheKitchenAbode]

11 hours ago, paulchoate said:

I do see your point and  value it. I was just making a small joke...What you are saying is that if I spend a bit of time learning what makes for a "good" ray trace I'll save myself a lot of time and probably money as well. Thank you and keep it coming!

 

Yes, I think that would be a win win situation. A dual approach would truly maximize your gains and just might save you some money.

 

Just another example, this ran in 1 minute and only needed 7 passes. I realize it is not magazine quality but for 1 minute of Ray Trace time I really find it hard to fault.