Graphics workstation build ???

Associate
Joined
7 Sep 2011
Posts
49
Disclosure: building pcs since 286's, last pc built in 2012/13, a bit behind times.

I had a discussion with my boss today about renewing graphics workstations at our advertisement/signmaking company.

At the moment the plan is to get rid of all old barely functioning hardware (celerons/i3's), that run operations in way too fragmented manner - too many old computers doing separate things in the shop. Too much usb key hopping, different software versions and general inconvenience of having too many chairs to sit in during the day (technically needlessly)...

I need to figure out the platform for next build that will do most of the things we need (will describe later).
My main concern is intel/amd choice, core counts and how each performs in 2d vector graphics production role.
Do i go for (historically) stable intel performance with less cores or go for AMD's fabled new (3700/3800?) chips ? (To be clear: although intel rep dipped in recent times, i'm not here for the intel/amd drama - need performance advice.)...
Do i need a dedicated GPU for that sort of work ? Would it help ? How much would it help ? Definitely no need for rtx2080ti's in this case (pity, though :D) but is there a point in slapping in old gtx970/980 over integrated ? I do use 970 at home with coreldrawx6, it works fine, i just dont know how much of a difference it makes over intel integrated (and i'm not pulling my machine apart to find out :D )

Software and hardware we use in the shop for the most part are CorelDraw x8/x9, Roland RIP for superwide solvent printer/cutter, couple of Graphtec plotters, NanoCAD/Artcam for large cabinetmakers cnc router (tekcel v-series 3x2m beastie).

Also, there is the need for centralised storage solution, like NAS of some sort, with which i dont have any experience at all. Want to get something that will let me do redundant storage to 2 sets of drives (i'm not familiar with raid types).

Screens: 24in is absolutely fine, not sure of the need of 144hz. Panel color quality/price is more important.

For memory, i think we do need 32gb as sometimes we get monster bitmaps to print on the monster printer we have. Curent machine handling printing has 16gb and handles well, but looking to the future may need moar.

For local storage 1tb nvme's should suffice, as most storage would be handled by NAS.

Budget is not unlimited, but not set yet. However we both agreed that performance takes priority over RGB nonsense. Basic cases(no glass/windows), adequate for cpu/gpu but reliable power supplies (no need for watt overkill here), air cooling (stability is key, no OC), no game'y gimmicks (pc moonlighting as a christmas tree) etc... Keep it as low cost as possible. To quote boss "we're not a corporation".

I'm off to raid some cpu benching sites now, and although its more of a general query if someone have something more specific to feed me then i'd appreciate it...

In general we need a machine capable of shoving LOADS of flat vectors and monster printing processing for as little money as possible.

Any advice is welcome and appreciated, educate me...
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Posts
18,610
Location
Aberdeen
You should consider going to Dell or HP. Remember that this is a business and things like maintainability, reliability, and warranty apply. IIRC the software you list isn't actually terribly core-aware. Rather they depend on fastest cores. NanoCad will use any OpenGL GPU. So super-duper multi-core CPUs aren't your answer, although they will allow you to do more than one thing at once.

I would also minimise local storage: you want as much centralised as possible, with local working storage as appropriate, and gigabit networking to link it all together.

Putting it all together: a comprehensive refresh with standardised Dell workstations all round, a Dell rack server running Windows Server (Essentials 2016 if you have fewer than 25 users) and an UnRAID or FreeNAS rack server for file storage. Plus a backup solution (likely cloud backup). All software should be standardised. If you have a standard build it means that of a PC goes pop you can put a new PC on the desk (make sure you have a spare stashed away) and they can be back working immediately. Again, remember this is business: time is money.

L:ow-end PCs from Dell, HP etc, are going to be as cheap or cheaper than PCs you can build yourself. For example look at the Dell Optiplex 70 and Vostro series PCs. They find it hard to compete once you get to customised PCs: once you want to add non-standard amounts of RAM or a GPU, then you may find it cheaper to BYO.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
14,112
Location
West Midlands
Any advice is welcome and appreciated, educate me...

I don't think you really need to worry about performance from one CPU vendor to the next, for the most part they are around the same speed when performing single threaded tasks, and obviously if you are using a multi-threaded workload that is very 'core aware' then more cores are better than less.

From a business perspective I'd be looking at ensuring reliability is the key factor. I've just completed a build using the excellent ASUS Pro WS X570-ACE AM4 motherboard, and an AMD R9 3900x with 64GB DDR4 ECC RAM, and configured using a RAID 1 NVME setup, as the board supports multiple M.2 slots as full speed. The user of this machine doesn't do sign writing, but uses drawing apps and some light 3D modelling, and some video work from time to time.

All of this is hooked up to a centralised Synology NAS box, which has a nice fast SSD cache and 9-10TB of usable storage, with two drive redundancy. Backups are committed to a third external USB NVMe M.2 SSD (via USB 3.1(Gen2)), and taken off site daily, with a rotation of two drives only.

I'd ensure that any case you buy has excellent airflow, and also has filers on all of the fan grills, so maintenance and cleaning is kept to a minimum and the components can operate with peak efficiency, and not overheat.

From the graphics point-of-view, I'd say look for something that isn't power hungry, and does the job you need it to do, even a card at the lower end of the Nvida range might do, something like a GTX 1650 Super. Obviously with regards to monitors and workflow in graphics you won't be working in 10-bit unless you go from application to GPU output, to monitor, but I doubt that you need that level of accuracy. If you did need that then you'd want a Quadro card, and a suitable screen. I often recommend the BenQ PD3200U screen, it's a nice 4K display with really good colour accuracy and measures 32" so plenty of physical size, as well as desktop real estate to work with.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
7 Sep 2011
Posts
49
I'm starting to think that best course of action is to just buy old 5-6th gen(ish) i7 and cram loads of ram and an ssd into it.
Reason being 1500 quid wont buy me much more performance than old pro setup but for a fraction of a price (please prove me wrong with arguments).
For new still looking into branded pcs (dell/hp as suggested).
 
Back
Top Bottom