PC Workstation questions

theforce · 4 Sep 2009 at 16:41

I am a graphic/web designer and up to now l really didn't need anything too powerful to cope with Adobe products. I currently have a [email protected](really lovely CPU), 4GB of RAM and a 4890 to cover my gaming needs.

I recently started using Vue for some shots of a project l am currently doing and to my suprise a 1600*1200 image required 40mins to render. Considering that l will be using Max or Maya in the future l would like to know more about building a good workstation to serve my needs.

The thing l would like to know is the performance difference between a good workstation and a small, relatively inexpensive rendering farm. What would be the best choice for rendering projects on.

In addition while Vue was using all my CPU's cores my RAM utilization was never above 70%. I had the impression that 3D apps eat RAM for breakfast.

SfnX · 4 Sep 2009 at 16:49

well obviously the more you spend the more you gain so to speak, however u can buy bundles etc to make an effective/not so expensive workstation and preclocked bundles. but from say a dual core to quad/i7 is rather huge and thats what really seperates them since. ul have to spend more on the CPU than the mobo (e.g: e5200 = £51 compared to Q8200 £100+), but on the plus side u dont rly need to swap mobos if theyre the same socket.

mothermachine · 4 Sep 2009 at 17:00

I'm a 3d architectural visualiser and use 1 main 4.0OC i7 workstation for the bulk of my work and 3 extra shuttle XPCs (each a quad core) as a mini renderfarm. If you're rendering at 1600 res then, forgive me, but you're not in the big league in terms of rendering requirements (I render at a minimum of 5000 across and multiple channels, so around 3 x 5000 pixels per image). I would say the system you have is just fine for your needs. Alternatively, you could upgrade the CPU (that's pretty much the big factor in rendertimes). Your 3D app should use only what it requires from your available ram, so if it's using 70% then that's all it needs (it's determined by scene detail, complexity, BSP settings etc). Throwing more ram in a PC makes no difference to render times unless you didn't have enough for the scene already.

theforce · 4 Sep 2009 at 17:06

This is what l had in mind...
I won't be needing any cases, because l am planning to create a custom case for them. Would something like 5*

- AMD Phenom II X4 Quad Core 810
- Asus M4A785TD-M Evo AMD 785G
- OcUK Value 2GB (1x2GB) DDR3 10666C9 1333MHz * 4
- OCZ StealthXStream 400w

Now for hard drives l have no clue... :S

BIGBC · 4 Sep 2009 at 17:10

Step backwards imo. Unless your intention is to make a dedicated work system, but then I would be inclined to take what youve spec'ed there and switch the 4890 over to it for a gaming PC and use your Q6600 @ 3.2GHz for renders.

Ive found the Cache to be a large factor in rendering so something like a Q9550 @ 4GHz would be a decent step for you, with a DDR3 mobo + RAM. But at that price you might aswell go all the way to i7.

mothermachine · 4 Sep 2009 at 17:29

you'll feel the benefit of hyperthreading on the i7s yes. and a velociraptor for the OS drive is a good value way to go.

BIGBC · 4 Sep 2009 at 17:43

And an SSD is a step up from that.

mothermachine · 4 Sep 2009 at 18:41

yeh but with a huge price difference. not sure it's worth it tbh. would rather save the cash and spend it on a better CPU or ram.

BIGBC · 4 Sep 2009 at 19:04

150GB velociraptor = £114.99
64GB SSD = £105

Granted theres a capacity difference but as its OS and apps 64GB would be ample and the performance increase is better. I dont think velociraptors are worth the asking price.