Ok, so... I've been combing through Archinect computer threads looking for advice on how to build a desktop for renders/CAD/rhino. I'd use it in conjunction with my MBP, fyi, which might have a few more years of life left in it.
ANYways, I've looked at a few different sites like newegg.com, cyberpower, and a few other miscellaneous 'build your own PC' websites. Still, I feel like such a novice when it comes to computer hardware. I want to get the most value out of my purchase, but I'm not sure I have the know-how to order all the individual components I need. That's why I looked at sites like cyberpower, but I suspect they add overhead to the item costs, and of course, charge you for actually building the computer.
So, with that said - if any computer savvy people are bored at their computers for the next ten minutes and want to suggest a component list or build a desktop, please do!
Essentially I'm looking for something in the $500-$1,000 window (including monitor). I'd use it for 3D modeling (Rhino/Revit), AutoCAD, and renders. I just want something adequate. It doesn't have to be badass, or anything. Affordability is probably more important to me than performance.
The most important thing is to make sure components work together. As long as they are all roughly the same bracket of technology you should be fine, i.e. not an average system with uber new ram or something... It's always worth posting a setup on a computer building forum to get the 'ok' on it all working together. The other option is to find a setup of a built, boxed pc and copy it.
The setup I built a year or two ago should be suitable for your needs. Prices have come down, so it should be affordable.
Intel Quad Core Q6600 (Was the best value quad at the time and has dropped in price)
Crucial DDR2 RAM 4GB
Asus P5K Wireless motherboard (contains wireless router & soundcard)
Geforce 8600GT 512MB
I can't remember the power supply, but at least 650W, probably better to go a bit higher and don't skimp on quality.
Whatever drives and HD you want. HD's are so cheap now.
A fan or two.
Then all you need is a case big enough to fit it - medium - large should do.
I suggest that you have a distinct plan of action and know exactly what you're doing when building. Although daunting, it's really just snapping stuff together lego-style. There are plenty of good guides out there on how to install. It'll probably take a full day to get built and running providing there are no major hitches.
It doesn't handle more than 3 gigs of memory. You cannot multithread graphics processing (instead of all 4 cores working independently on a render, you'll only have one of the four cores doing this). Newer graphic cards features will essentially be worthless. It has poor hard disk management for the newer and larger size drives. It doesn't have readyboost (virtual page file system on flash memory which allows you to transfer data twice as fast as a hard drive).
And the lack of 64-bit support (while a lot of programs right now are not yet supporter) means that you'll only be doing half the work on an XP machine if you have a 64-bit processor.
Orochi, There's so much wrong with your posts I don't even know where to start. Virtually everything is either misleading or flat out wrong.
I hate to get into nerd pissing matches, but shut the fuck up if you don't know what you're talking about. Somebody's about to spend money based on your nonsense.
There are forums for computers - ask this at anandtech or arstechnica if you want helpful advice.
Multithreading (also known as Simultaneous Multithreading Support) is only available on XP Pro and only supports Intel Pentium 4 processors.
Even then, multithreading is often a manual operation if a program is not specifically designed to operate in multithreading mode (Photoshop CS 2, Half-Life.) So unless a program is specifically designed for it, you have to manually select an operation and assign it to a processor.
Vista does this automatically... even for programs that are not necessarily designed for multithreading-- ie, a contributing reason as to why Vista has compatibility issues.
And I was specifically talking about multithreading graphics card processing... which is having 2 or more GPUs. Technologies like Crossfire are only Vista compatible!
XP has trouble with large disk volumes and partitions are otherwise permanent on XP machines. I can create 40 drives on vista and collapse them instantly. I can relocate data from one partition to another!
XP does not have the ability to have virtual page file systems.
And the 64-bit thing is pretty much accurate.
Sorry to bust your old timey bubble... but if you want to stay cutting edge, you're going to have to settle with Vista or 7 (which is essentially Vista 2.0).
I'm only arguing this because if he's SERIOUS BUSINESS about rendering, having more than 3 gigs of ram and more than one GPU will make his renders come out in a fraction of the time.
fine line's post has the best advice, I think, although you do not necessarily need wireless capability. A Q6600 and 4GB of RAM and some sort of basic video card is all you really need (or can afford in your price range) once you factor in the cost of a monitor. I would make sure you do not skimp on the monitor ... beyond a certain level, getting a good monitor (or two) will have a much more perceptible difference than further performance upgrades.
Getting 8GB of RAM doesn't hurt right now, since DDR2 RAM is so cheap. If you stick with 4GB make sure to get it in 2 sticks of 2 gigabytes (as opposed to 4 sticks of 1GB) so that you can easily upgrade in the future if you wish by just adding more sticks in.
As for XP .... You can get buy a 64-bit version of XP (it's available for sale on Newegg) that will support more that 4GB of RAM and 64 bit software. Multi-threading is available on all XP versions. The Core i7 has multi-threading and is generally faster than other CPUs, but it's probably more expensive than you need relative to the benefits that it offers.
You do not need multiple GPUs. The software on the standard consumer GPUs (ATI Radeon or Nvidia GeForce) is intended for playing games and is not really optimized for professional software programs, so having more than one video card will not benefit you very much unless you have some sort of specialized program that is designed to take advantage of them. In order to achieve significant reliable benefits from a video card in software such as Photoshop or Autocad, you would need to get a professional GPU such as the Nvidia Quadro or ATI FireGL, but that would probably not be necessary for your price range, or even computers costing hundreds more.
In any event, multiple GPUs are beyond necessary for any computer in your budget range since a more powerful single GPU at the same price level is going to be faster and less buggy/problematic than almost combination of two cheaper GPUs. (Take a look at sites such as Tom's Hardware if you want to see comparisons charts with the exact numbers) In any event, you could run multiple GPUs on XP if you wanted to ... the SLI and Crossfire multi-GPU technologies have both been around since before Vista was ever released.
If you get an AMD phenom processor, make sure it's a Phenom II ... the older Phenoms are slower
than a comparable Intel quad core.
Also, I second the comments about making sure you get a good power supply. I would suggest a Seasonic or a Corsair or an Antec. You don't need any more than 500 watts for a Q6600/single mid-range video card configuration, although it's okay to get more in case of future upgrades if you find a good deal.
Multithreading (also known as Simultaneous Multithreading Support) is only available on XP Pro and only supports Intel Pentium 4 processors.
the first part is misleading (especially as you originally stated it), the second part is just wrong - XP Pro supports any multi cpu configuration short of massive servers. Who's going to use XP home on a workstation? By the same extension vista sucks because vista starter edition doesn't support more than three applications running at once, and also doesn't come in an x64 edition.
Even then, multithreading is often a manual operation if a program is not specifically designed to operate in multithreading mode (Photoshop CS 2, Half-Life.) So unless a program is specifically designed for it, you have to manually select an operation and assign it to a processor.
Vista does this automatically... even for programs that are not necessarily designed for multithreading-- ie, a contributing reason as to why Vista has compatibility issues.
again, misleading. Any app that will see noticeable benefits from multithreading was coded for it long ago. Photoshop has had portions coded for multithreading since v6 or v5, I don't remember which. XP-pro will handle all relevant SMP functions just fine.
And I was specifically talking about multithreading graphics card processing... which is having 2 or more GPUs. Technologies like Crossfire are only Vista compatible!
...Just plain fucking dumb. multiple GPUs are virtually useless on a workstation and completely worthless on a renderbox outside of some very esoteric solutions. Any rendering he'll do will be done with ram and CPU. And given that he's looking for something affordable, recommending multiple GPUs is, well, inane. This was the big flashing red light that you don't have a clue.
XP has trouble with large disk volumes and partitions are otherwise permanent on XP machines. I can create 40 drives on vista and collapse them instantly. I can relocate data from one partition to another!
Again, misleading. What you're nattering on about (GPT disks over MBR), virtually no workstation user will care about. In fact, there are significant reasons to avoid GPT disks in a workstation environment unless you really need them. And if one does, xp-x64 supports GPT disks just like vista.
XP does not have the ability to have virtual page file systems.
true, but again misleading. While there are scenarios where this helps, they're pretty limited, and the benefits of a VPF are easily overrun by using a decent SSD, which any workstation should have these days anyway.
And the 64-bit thing is pretty much accurate.
No, it isn't. there's a 64 bit version of XP pro, and typically in render tests it comes out ahead of vista on the same hardware. Have a glance at the benchwell toplist. Three of the top 4 are xp x64 machines, and the top vista machine is #16. See, I can be misleading too - most of this is because the top machines have better hardware and just happen to be running xp-x64, but when you compare equivalent hardware, it's either a wash to slightly favoring xp-x64.
Sorry to bust your old timey bubble... but if you want to stay cutting edge, you're going to have to settle with Vista or 7 (which is essentially Vista 2.0).
I'm only arguing this because if he's SERIOUS BUSINESS about rendering, having more than 3 gigs of ram and more than one GPU will make his renders come out in a fraction of the time.
more ram than a 32bit OS will allow (not always 3GB) will help if his rendering engine can take advantage of it (rhino's basic renderer can't, IIRC) Maxwell, vray etc. have 64 bit versions that can.
More GPUs is, as mentioned earlier, stupid. pure and simple.
Win7 looks good from a performance standpoint, and in about a year when the kinks get worked out there'll be good reasons to move to it. For now, unless you have needed peripherals that are not compatible with xp-x64, that's your best bet from a performance standpoint. And in many situations even poor old 32 bit XP will come out ahead of vista.
Oh, look at this. I got to the end and didn't even get into the performance issues vista has with openGL applications. Sigh.
I've been thinking a bit about doing a build for the first time as well... but to figure out what all components work together is a bit daunting. Would it be reasonable to use the Newegg "customers also bought" such-and-such a component to figure out a working processor/mobo/memory set?
Dont go with AMD Phenom. Do youself a favor and dont.
Windows Vista sucks, but Im using the Windows 7 RC1, and its pretty f*ing awesome. Very quick, very intuitive interface, and plays extremely nice with drivers. Even the 64 bit version.
Get the Vista Ultimate for now, and you will get a free upgrade to Windows 7 64-bit. Or you can wait for windows 7 proper, which will be out in October.
Build me a computer!
Ok, so... I've been combing through Archinect computer threads looking for advice on how to build a desktop for renders/CAD/rhino. I'd use it in conjunction with my MBP, fyi, which might have a few more years of life left in it.
ANYways, I've looked at a few different sites like newegg.com, cyberpower, and a few other miscellaneous 'build your own PC' websites. Still, I feel like such a novice when it comes to computer hardware. I want to get the most value out of my purchase, but I'm not sure I have the know-how to order all the individual components I need. That's why I looked at sites like cyberpower, but I suspect they add overhead to the item costs, and of course, charge you for actually building the computer.
So, with that said - if any computer savvy people are bored at their computers for the next ten minutes and want to suggest a component list or build a desktop, please do!
Essentially I'm looking for something in the $500-$1,000 window (including monitor). I'd use it for 3D modeling (Rhino/Revit), AutoCAD, and renders. I just want something adequate. It doesn't have to be badass, or anything. Affordability is probably more important to me than performance.
Anyways, thanks for reading!
The most important thing is to make sure components work together. As long as they are all roughly the same bracket of technology you should be fine, i.e. not an average system with uber new ram or something... It's always worth posting a setup on a computer building forum to get the 'ok' on it all working together. The other option is to find a setup of a built, boxed pc and copy it.
The setup I built a year or two ago should be suitable for your needs. Prices have come down, so it should be affordable.
Intel Quad Core Q6600 (Was the best value quad at the time and has dropped in price)
Crucial DDR2 RAM 4GB
Asus P5K Wireless motherboard (contains wireless router & soundcard)
Geforce 8600GT 512MB
I can't remember the power supply, but at least 650W, probably better to go a bit higher and don't skimp on quality.
Whatever drives and HD you want. HD's are so cheap now.
A fan or two.
Then all you need is a case big enough to fit it - medium - large should do.
I suggest that you have a distinct plan of action and know exactly what you're doing when building. Although daunting, it's really just snapping stuff together lego-style. There are plenty of good guides out there on how to install. It'll probably take a full day to get built and running providing there are no major hitches.
Good luck!
The only advice I have is to suggest looking into motherboards pretty thoroughly...
Find a motherboard that allows you to have multiple video cards.
ATI CrossFire is a system that allows you to combine multiple video cards within a single system.
It's suppose to have a pretty high "wow factor."
AMD Phenom II X4 945 Deneb 3.0GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor Model HDX945FBGIBOX
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103675
MSI 790GX-G65 AM3 AMD 790GX HDMI ATX AMD Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130224
2 x HIS H489F1GP Radeon HD 4890 1GB 256-bit PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161276
OCZ Gold 6GB (3 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Low Voltage Desktop Memory Model OCZ3G1600LV6GK - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227365
Antec Three Hundred Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811129042
Western Digital Caviar Black WD6401AALS 640GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive - OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136319
CORSAIR CMPSU-650TX 650W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS Certified Active PFC Compatible with Core i7 ... - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139005
LG 22X DVD±R DVD Burner Black IDE Model GH22NP20 - OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136144
You're going to probably want more fans or heatsinks.
But overall.
Phenom Quad @ 3 ghz
Decent bitchin' motherboard
600 gig
6gb memory
2 gigs video (upgradable to 4)
22x DVR
Subtotal $1,064.86
About $250 off if you buy from new egg right now (motherboard, processor and 1st video card on sale)
This would be a $2000-2200 computer in store.
Oooh, yummy. o_O
the only advice i have is stay away from vista.
true... trying to get vista off my new laptop now and having issues finding drivers for a toshiba
Thanks for the responses!
Orochi, that list will really help me. I might downgrade a few of those components but overall that sounds exactly like what I'm looking for.
And yea, I definitely plan on installing XP. Vista can suck my nuts. -.-
i just found out that i have to use windows 7 since i can't get drivers for my toshiba to run xp....hmmmm
Don't install XP.
It doesn't make sense in the long run.
It doesn't handle more than 3 gigs of memory. You cannot multithread graphics processing (instead of all 4 cores working independently on a render, you'll only have one of the four cores doing this). Newer graphic cards features will essentially be worthless. It has poor hard disk management for the newer and larger size drives. It doesn't have readyboost (virtual page file system on flash memory which allows you to transfer data twice as fast as a hard drive).
And the lack of 64-bit support (while a lot of programs right now are not yet supporter) means that you'll only be doing half the work on an XP machine if you have a 64-bit processor.
Vista is really not that bad if you have newer hardware and newish software.
In fact, my machine has only crashed twice in the last year ive had it.
Ok, ok.
keyword is newer
and a computer crashing twice isn't good..... my dell that i had from 2000-2008 crashed once due to overheating...just saying.
i'm going to load windows 7 this weekend and go from there.....
Two blue screens is better than a dozen.
XP can't multithread? what?
Orochi, There's so much wrong with your posts I don't even know where to start. Virtually everything is either misleading or flat out wrong.
I hate to get into nerd pissing matches, but shut the fuck up if you don't know what you're talking about. Somebody's about to spend money based on your nonsense.
There are forums for computers - ask this at anandtech or arstechnica if you want helpful advice.
Back it up.
Multithreading (also known as Simultaneous Multithreading Support) is only available on XP Pro and only supports Intel Pentium 4 processors.
Even then, multithreading is often a manual operation if a program is not specifically designed to operate in multithreading mode (Photoshop CS 2, Half-Life.) So unless a program is specifically designed for it, you have to manually select an operation and assign it to a processor.
Vista does this automatically... even for programs that are not necessarily designed for multithreading-- ie, a contributing reason as to why Vista has compatibility issues.
And I was specifically talking about multithreading graphics card processing... which is having 2 or more GPUs. Technologies like Crossfire are only Vista compatible!
XP has trouble with large disk volumes and partitions are otherwise permanent on XP machines. I can create 40 drives on vista and collapse them instantly. I can relocate data from one partition to another!
XP does not have the ability to have virtual page file systems.
And the 64-bit thing is pretty much accurate.
Sorry to bust your old timey bubble... but if you want to stay cutting edge, you're going to have to settle with Vista or 7 (which is essentially Vista 2.0).
I'm only arguing this because if he's SERIOUS BUSINESS about rendering, having more than 3 gigs of ram and more than one GPU will make his renders come out in a fraction of the time.
fine line's post has the best advice, I think, although you do not necessarily need wireless capability. A Q6600 and 4GB of RAM and some sort of basic video card is all you really need (or can afford in your price range) once you factor in the cost of a monitor. I would make sure you do not skimp on the monitor ... beyond a certain level, getting a good monitor (or two) will have a much more perceptible difference than further performance upgrades.
Getting 8GB of RAM doesn't hurt right now, since DDR2 RAM is so cheap. If you stick with 4GB make sure to get it in 2 sticks of 2 gigabytes (as opposed to 4 sticks of 1GB) so that you can easily upgrade in the future if you wish by just adding more sticks in.
As for XP .... You can get buy a 64-bit version of XP (it's available for sale on Newegg) that will support more that 4GB of RAM and 64 bit software. Multi-threading is available on all XP versions. The Core i7 has multi-threading and is generally faster than other CPUs, but it's probably more expensive than you need relative to the benefits that it offers.
You do not need multiple GPUs. The software on the standard consumer GPUs (ATI Radeon or Nvidia GeForce) is intended for playing games and is not really optimized for professional software programs, so having more than one video card will not benefit you very much unless you have some sort of specialized program that is designed to take advantage of them. In order to achieve significant reliable benefits from a video card in software such as Photoshop or Autocad, you would need to get a professional GPU such as the Nvidia Quadro or ATI FireGL, but that would probably not be necessary for your price range, or even computers costing hundreds more.
In any event, multiple GPUs are beyond necessary for any computer in your budget range since a more powerful single GPU at the same price level is going to be faster and less buggy/problematic than almost combination of two cheaper GPUs. (Take a look at sites such as Tom's Hardware if you want to see comparisons charts with the exact numbers) In any event, you could run multiple GPUs on XP if you wanted to ... the SLI and Crossfire multi-GPU technologies have both been around since before Vista was ever released.
If you get an AMD phenom processor, make sure it's a Phenom II ... the older Phenoms are slower
than a comparable Intel quad core.
Also, I second the comments about making sure you get a good power supply. I would suggest a Seasonic or a Corsair or an Antec. You don't need any more than 500 watts for a Q6600/single mid-range video card configuration, although it's okay to get more in case of future upgrades if you find a good deal.
don't load the windows7 rc on it either....
the first part is misleading (especially as you originally stated it), the second part is just wrong - XP Pro supports any multi cpu configuration short of massive servers. Who's going to use XP home on a workstation? By the same extension vista sucks because vista starter edition doesn't support more than three applications running at once, and also doesn't come in an x64 edition.
Even then, multithreading is often a manual operation if a program is not specifically designed to operate in multithreading mode (Photoshop CS 2, Half-Life.) So unless a program is specifically designed for it, you have to manually select an operation and assign it to a processor.
Vista does this automatically... even for programs that are not necessarily designed for multithreading-- ie, a contributing reason as to why Vista has compatibility issues.
again, misleading. Any app that will see noticeable benefits from multithreading was coded for it long ago. Photoshop has had portions coded for multithreading since v6 or v5, I don't remember which. XP-pro will handle all relevant SMP functions just fine.
And I was specifically talking about multithreading graphics card processing... which is having 2 or more GPUs. Technologies like Crossfire are only Vista compatible!
...Just plain fucking dumb. multiple GPUs are virtually useless on a workstation and completely worthless on a renderbox outside of some very esoteric solutions. Any rendering he'll do will be done with ram and CPU. And given that he's looking for something affordable, recommending multiple GPUs is, well, inane. This was the big flashing red light that you don't have a clue.
XP has trouble with large disk volumes and partitions are otherwise permanent on XP machines. I can create 40 drives on vista and collapse them instantly. I can relocate data from one partition to another!
Again, misleading. What you're nattering on about (GPT disks over MBR), virtually no workstation user will care about. In fact, there are significant reasons to avoid GPT disks in a workstation environment unless you really need them. And if one does, xp-x64 supports GPT disks just like vista.
XP does not have the ability to have virtual page file systems.
true, but again misleading. While there are scenarios where this helps, they're pretty limited, and the benefits of a VPF are easily overrun by using a decent SSD, which any workstation should have these days anyway.
And the 64-bit thing is pretty much accurate.
No, it isn't. there's a 64 bit version of XP pro, and typically in render tests it comes out ahead of vista on the same hardware. Have a glance at the benchwell toplist. Three of the top 4 are xp x64 machines, and the top vista machine is #16. See, I can be misleading too - most of this is because the top machines have better hardware and just happen to be running xp-x64, but when you compare equivalent hardware, it's either a wash to slightly favoring xp-x64.
Sorry to bust your old timey bubble... but if you want to stay cutting edge, you're going to have to settle with Vista or 7 (which is essentially Vista 2.0).
I'm only arguing this because if he's SERIOUS BUSINESS about rendering, having more than 3 gigs of ram and more than one GPU will make his renders come out in a fraction of the time.
more ram than a 32bit OS will allow (not always 3GB) will help if his rendering engine can take advantage of it (rhino's basic renderer can't, IIRC) Maxwell, vray etc. have 64 bit versions that can.
More GPUs is, as mentioned earlier, stupid. pure and simple.
Win7 looks good from a performance standpoint, and in about a year when the kinks get worked out there'll be good reasons to move to it. For now, unless you have needed peripherals that are not compatible with xp-x64, that's your best bet from a performance standpoint. And in many situations even poor old 32 bit XP will come out ahead of vista.
Oh, look at this. I got to the end and didn't even get into the performance issues vista has with openGL applications. Sigh.
Fucking dunce made me late for dinner.
I've been thinking a bit about doing a build for the first time as well... but to figure out what all components work together is a bit daunting. Would it be reasonable to use the Newegg "customers also bought" such-and-such a component to figure out a working processor/mobo/memory set?
Dont go with AMD Phenom. Do youself a favor and dont.
Windows Vista sucks, but Im using the Windows 7 RC1, and its pretty f*ing awesome. Very quick, very intuitive interface, and plays extremely nice with drivers. Even the 64 bit version.
Get the Vista Ultimate for now, and you will get a free upgrade to Windows 7 64-bit. Or you can wait for windows 7 proper, which will be out in October.
You could say I am sold on Windows 7.
@manamana
oooooh snap!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.