RL-inc

New Computer advice

Recommended Posts

Sorry for the delayed response - busy times around here.

I have been discussing with a computer guy I plan on having help me through purchase and install- he has viewed may of our comments here and has suggested the machine bellow- any thoughts are appreciated.

1561200173_Annotation2019-04-16103345.thumb.jpg.77ce5105e6edca2806c3e45050d79da5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to see if anyone had string comments one way or the other before I pull the trigger on this set up.

 

Thanks as always for the input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RL-inc said:

Just wanted to see if anyone had string comments one way or the other before I pull the trigger on this set up.

 

Thanks as always for the input.

 

Missed the earlier post..... I think it should be good for a couple of years , but maybe less upgradable in the future than say the DS "Slade" system Mark linked to earlier in the Thread which uses a mainstream Motherboard, i9 CPU I think? and slightly faster memory etc, but it is likely Okay for the Sale Price. 

 

Not sure what you have now but you may need to pickup some Displayport cables for the new 1080 GFX Card too.

 

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks much Mick- 

Again - remembering I am not computer tech savvy AT ALL- I am assuming that this is a serious upgrade from where I am at now and I should expect a solid increase in performance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RL-inc said:

Thanks much Mick- 

Again - remembering I am not computer tech savvy AT ALL- I am assuming that this is a serious upgrade from where I am at now and I should expect a solid increase in performance?

 

It's a bit of one or the other compared to the computer in the OP....similar CPU but perhaps stronger GPU with DXR  built in ....which Chief may or may not implement in the next year or two...... but (too) small SSD at 128GB and it is SATA not NVME. but Deal in the OP has finished.

 

MarkMc is still thinking about things too and is still looking and comparing Parts at DS , and you maybe able to configure a nice system from them too , but not sure if you have changed your budget ?  $1800>2500<1800 ?  but Dell may have a weekend Sale Too with it being Easter?

 

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw Michael say in another thread he had Ordered a new Computer too but not sure if he has it yet or where he Ordered from....but can't remember which thread it was......

 

Michael you out there tonight ... :) 

 

@Alaskan_Son

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Kbird1 said:

I saw Michael say in another thread he had Ordered a new Computer too but not sure if he has it yet or where he Ordered from....but can't remember which thread it was......

 

Michael you out there tonight ... :) 

 

@Alaskan_Son

 

Hey Mick,  I posted the specs to the machine I ordered here...

 

...hasn’t showed up just yet.  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RL-inc said:

Just wanted to see if anyone had string comments one way or the other before I pull the trigger on this set up.

 

Thanks as always for the input.

 

No super strong opinions one way or another but that definitely looks like a solid rig at a fair price to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

Hey Mick,  I posted the specs to the machine I ordered here...

 

...hasn’t showed up just yet.  

 

 

 

 

 

Thx Michael , the comp. in the OP is a Dell Aurora as well  

 

and I just saw this one at Dell too Rob....... not sure it has everything the same as the OP but pricing is like refurb you posted above....

 

https://deals.dell.com/en-us/productdetail/29we

 

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a ton folks-

time to get er done

 

will update sig with hew details soon :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you are looking for possible upgrades I would really strongly consider the i9 9900K over the i7 8700k and an Nvidia RTX graphics card over the GTX 1080. Not sure those options are available in the Dell Precision line, if not you may wish to check out the Dell Alienware Aurora systems.

 

The advantage if you go with the I9 9900K is that it is faster than the 8700K and it uses Intel's latest socket and chipset which means in the future you could drop in one of the higher threaded I9 processors. With the I7 8700K there are really no CPU upgrade options without changing the mother board.

 

The newer Nvidia RTX cards are based on the latest graphics technology and as such they will eventually replace the GTX series so from a software perspective I'm not sure developers will be making any great efforts to improve GTX performance, they will focus on the RTX.

 

From a cost perspective these upgrades would likely add about $700 to your system cost. If your budget is tight then the system you are considering is a very good choice and compared to your current rig you will see a very noticeable performance gain. What's difficult to discern is whether or not you would be able to see any significant performance gain between the system you are considering versus the technically upgraded one. This would be highly dependent upon your CA model complexity and what other software you use. Unfortunately there is no standardized CA test procedure to specifically evaluate CA's performance in respect to hardware, so it is not possible to provide a definitive answer to all of this. For example, technically the I9 9900k on average is about 20% faster than the I7 8700K, however most of this advantage only materializes if one is running heavily threaded operations where it can utilize those extra cores. CA is a mixed bag of single and multi-threaded operations so this potential gain is only going to be seen under certain circumstances/operations, added to this is the fact that there are many multi-threaded operations that can't take advantage of all the available cores, given this the I9 9900K is really only going to outperform the I7 8700K if the multi-threaded operation can take advantage of more than 12 cores. To date, other than Ray Tracing, I have not been able to see any CA operation that can max out more than a few cores simultaneously.

 

I find similar results when monitoring my GTX 1060 graphics card, the only time it maxes out is when I through it a very complex PBR and even then it usually only takes 10 or 15 seconds to generate the scene. Under all other CA graphics operations it handles everything smooth and fast.

 

So in conclusion, should you decide on the Dell Precision you can rest assured that it will provide a much improved experience over your existing system, offer lots of bang for your dollar and you are not likely going to gain much by throwing a bunch more money at it.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicely put Graham and was my thinking too , and the system at Dell I linked last night above seemed to have all those advantages but I am not used to Shopping systems like Dell's , so wasn't sure if I was missing something.....seemed to be better system for a similar Price.

 

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kbird1 said:

Nicely put Graham and was my thinking too , and the system at Dell I linked last night above seemed to haxve all those advantages but I am not used to Shopping systems like this , so wasn't sure if I was missing something.....seemed to be better system for a similar Price.

 

M.

 

Thanks Mick. I just noticed your link to the Aurora configuration, for the same money I would go with that one without any hesitation. The Dell Alienware systems are solid machines and as they are constantly offering deals you can get a lot of bang for your dollar. These systems always hold up competitively when under review and are typically right up there in the top grouping. Hey and depending upon how you expense things you can go for Dells lease to own program and have a system for $60/month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, that i7 9700K is a nice CPU for the money. Though it does not have hyperthreading those 8 real cores will run at max frequency, which I believe for many of CA's operations this could be better than CPU's that might have a few more cores but they quickly throttle back under high load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheKitchenAbode said:

From a cost perspective these upgrades would likely add about $700 to your system cost....What's difficult to discern is whether or not you would be able to see any significant performance gain between the system you are considering versus the technically upgraded one.

Very important point in my opinion. You may have the latest and greatest but is it actually faster real world Chief? And it is worth $700 for a system you may not be able to tell the difference in speed using Chief? Not the easiest choice....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

Very important point in my opinion. You may have the latest and greatest but is it actually faster real world Chief? And it is worth $700 for a system you may not be able to tell the difference in speed using Chief? Not the easiest choice....

 

That's the problem, we have no way other than generalities to quantify performance benefits. In the past I did try by posting a plan for users to run and report back their experiences, unfortunately only a few participated so there was insufficient data to work with. What was interesting though from the ones that did respond was that some systems that theoretically should have tromped all over lesser systems did not necessarily do so, but unfortunately due to the lack of data there was no real way to explain this or determine if this was the norm or just some one off exception to the rule.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TheKitchenAbode said:

 

That's the problem, we have no way other than generalities to quantify performance benefits. In the past I did try by posting a plan for users to run and report back their experiences, unfortunately only a few participated so there was insufficient data to work with. What was interesting though from the ones that did respond was that some systems that theoretically should have tromped all over lesser systems did not necessarily do so, but unfortunately due to the lack of data there was no real way to explain this or determine if this was the norm or just some one off exception to the rule.

 

 

Yeah, because of this not sure what I would buy tomorrow, but would probably go for as much tech as I could afford and stay away from the Xeons that I currently have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

Yeah, because of this not sure what I would buy tomorrow, but would probably go for as much tech as I could afford and stay away from the Xeons that I currently have.

 

Those Xeon processors are a tough one especially given the cost. IMO if CA is the main consideration then a single CPU is the better way to go. A $400 single CPU will run at a higher base frequency, higher turbo frequency and have as many cores as say a typical Xeon at 4 times the price. Though you can have two Xeons on the same board that unfortunately does not by default equate to double the performance as they are highly application dependent. Maybe a good analogy would be should I buy a diesel or a gas engine vehicle, both will get you from a to b in about the same time, you pay more for a diesel engine but it will likely last double or more the life of the gas engine, but this only matters if you are a very high mileage driver or plan to keep the vehicle for a very long time. If not then gas is your best bet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TheKitchenAbode said:

 

Those Xeon processors are a tough one especially given the cost. IMO if CA is the main consideration then a single CPU is the better way to go. A $400 single CPU will run at a higher base frequency, higher turbo frequency and have as many cores as say a typical Xeon at 4 times the price. Though you can have two Xeons on the same board that unfortunately does not by default equate to double the performance as they are highly application dependent. Maybe a good analogy would be should I buy a diesel or a gas engine vehicle, both will get you from a to b in about the same time, you pay more for a diesel engine but it will likely last double or more the life of the gas engine, but this only matters if you are a very high mileage driver or plan to keep the vehicle for a very long time. If not then gas is your best bet.

I don't think Xeon processors are a tough call at all. The ones I bought were inexpensive and were purchased for their 24 core RayTrace abilities at least 5 years ago. Today's Chief does not benefit at all as you've illustrated. Anyone else reading this might be tempted but they are not a good processor for Chief. Maybe the highest end most expensive Xeon? But who would even be tempted at the cost? Dunno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

were purchased for their 24 core RayTrace abilities at least 5 years ago

 

That's a perfect example of a specific application derived benefit from the dual Xeons. 5 years ago single CPU had at best 4 hyper threaded cores. The only way to get more cores was to go with dual Xeons. Today you can get say an AMD Threadripper with 16 hyper threaded cores for less than a $800.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOOO many used xeons on ebay from servers that can be had for around $500 for over 10 cores and as I keep mentioning in these computer threads, the difference in CA between my XEON and a new 8th gen i7 running @ 1.5x the clock speed is next to none.

CA really benefits from read/write, RAM and your gfx card...so if your workflow can benefit from more cores in some other software, then a Xeon is well worth the price when purchased used or refurbed...

people always forget about the monster L3 cache and the fact that on an 8 hour workday avg CA uses 5% cpu and a helluva a lot more RAM and HDD activity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheKitchenAbode said:

The advantage if you go with the I9 9900K is that it is faster than the 8700K and it uses Intel's latest socket and chipset which means in the future you could drop in one of the higher threaded I9 processors.

I've been looking around lately and pretty settled on a 9900k. From what I've seen good cooling with a proper case can prevent throttling.

As to cores I've run a few simple tests on the Sager and while they don't max out I see all cores getting serious action with undo, some transform replicate and watercolor renderings (more so with lines on top) as with PBR it's not sustained but they are getting used. I'd still agree that the 9700K is a good bet though.

 

As I've been looking around lately I've noticed is that even some custom builders are sticking in older motherboards. If I'm going desktop I want to be able to upgrade so for me that has become a factor. It's also something I don't know enough about yet. OTOH a lot have 2080 Ti for less than street value-wonder what's up with that.

 

For me it was easier sorting out laptops, fewer good options I guess. As Graham noted - it can look like a great system and not perform as well as something lesser. From what I see it's the whole package and I think it starts with the case, MOBO, cooling-then finally CPU/GPU RAM...and/or budget.

 

I've configured a couple of pretty nice machines at $3k (target budget) to $3400. Parts for the same are just about $1k less. In some instances with better options in that first category (one killer parts list at 2500). Still have not decided to build but in regardless I want to do some more research. and may go to a build it clinic at Microcenter next month to help decide.

 

BTW-is anyone overclocking CPU or GPU? If so do you see a difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MarkMc said:

BTW-is anyone overclocking CPU or GPU? If so do you see a difference?

My XEON is overclocked because it is water cooled, on heavy renders in an external program my 1070 card produces crazy amounts of heat and heats up every component around it so I do not overclock it.

Just an FYI I have on many occasions run a 24 hour render in Thea which uses all CPU cores and the gfx card. Thats 22 cores @ 100% and gfx at 100% for 24 straight hours. I had to modify my cases fan layouts...120mm fans always work best(noise/performance/longevity)

 

The major reason you build a cpu yourself is for the motherboard- better pci lane construction and implementation, better layout of CPU/RAM/m.2 (closer together). Better handling of power, better UEFI, more options(fan speed controllers, dual booting, flashing, overclocking, undervolting, list goes on)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuffed my desktop PC into this lil case

IMG_20190419_111302.thumb.jpg.d295442e5e204b1cc3cf4d1c7b6d578a.jpg

You don't see it from the front

IMG_20190419_111551.thumb.jpg.80ca6122effd3c0da6bc5f98ffde5a43.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Renerabbitt said:

The major reason you build a cpu yourself is .....

I'm seeking that, though I've found very good options with custom. A little better with build which combined with cost might overcome the trepidation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Member Statistics

    28310
    Total Members
    6254
    Most Online
    nrafiq
    Newest Member
    nrafiq
    Joined