New Rig - Question about GHz vs Cores

[padre.ayuso]

SYSTEM: Tower Workstation 2x E5-2630 v3 Xeon, 16Cores 32 Threads,

64GB DDR4 ECC RAM

 

MOTHERBOARD: MB ASUS Z10PE-D16 WS LGA2011-v3/ Intel C612 PCH/ DDR4/

Quad CrossFireX & 3-Way SLI/ SATA3&USB3.0/ M.2/ A&V&2GbE/

EEB Server Motherboard

 

CPU: (2) CPU Intel Xeon E5-2630v3 8-Core 2.4GHz 8.0GT/s 20MB LGA

2011-v3 CPU

 

MEMORY: (4) DDR4 2133 16GB ECC/REG 288pin CL15 RDIMM (64GB)

SSD SSD Samsung 950 PRO NVMe 512GB Solid State Drive -

Encrypted, Internal, PCI Express 3.0 x4 (NVMe), 512MB Buffer,

256-Bit AES, Samsung V-NAND, M.2 2280 Form Factor -

MZ-V5P512BW

 

POWER: PW Thermaltake PS-TPD-1200MPCGUS-1 1200W ATX12V /

EPS12V 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Active PFC Power...

 

SOFTWARE: SW Microsoft Windows 7 Professional SP1 64-bit English

(1-Pack), OEM

 

GPU: 2 GTX970 (already have them in my current workstation, just transferring them)

 

I use it for 3DS Max and VRay. I will be sending final renderings to my own farm, where I'll be adding some more servers. The workstation will do modeling, texturing and test renderings. So the question would be, would I benefit more from having a dual quad core with 3.0 GHz rather than a dual 8 core with 2.4 GHz? The question arose because I had a datum that in the past the GHz speed would be distributed among cores and thus a dual quad core, while having only half the cores to a dual 8 core may be faster rendering in general (for test renderings) at 2.4 GHz. It would stand to reason, if this was the case, that I should spend a bit more on a dual quad core at 3.0 GHz rather than a dual 8 core at 2.4 GHz?

 

Any ideas on this? Thank you!

[RyderSK]

Unless you can afford some of the higher end Xeons (think 2660 v3 and higher), ignore this solution since you can get similar performance by highly overclocked i7 (5960X).

 

But otherwise, yes, the math is quite simple like that, simply multiply Cores by Frequency. It's not 100perc. precise, because some part of rendering aren't completely multithreaded, so everything will favour frequency slightly bit more than cores but generally it works out. So 10 cores at 2Ghz will provide same multi-threaded performance as 5 cores at 4Ghz ( I made up the numbers ).

 

But outside of rendering, multi-threading doesn't come into account much and most tasks are still mostly single-threaded. Hence for workstation, i7 is preferable, or highly clocked 165W/ WS models of Xeons (which are super expensive).

[padre.ayuso]

Thanks Juraj,

 

I think I understand it. So for my workstations I should get i7 as you recommend and I will, since the logic you provide makes sense.

 

In terms of rendering servers, I think I understand it as well. Either i7 or Xeon 5 will work, taking into account the cores vs frequency calculation you provide above, where it is now a matter of budget and preference, am I right?

[RyderSK]

There is an exact calculation elsewhere in this forum by Numerobis :- D but it's matter of budget and preference according to me.

 

Though, Intel coming up with 10-core i7 in H1 2016 is surely gonna mix up the cards a bit in favour of i7 again.

[Nikolaos M]

Juraj is right. I currently run a 5960X at 4.4GHz (24/7 rock stable) which gives a Cinebench R15 score of 1760cb in multi-core and 174cb in single-core performance (similar to the 4790K's at the same clocks, both Haswell).

 

2x E5-2630 v3 would give a combined ~2000cb in multi-core inside Cinebench R15, and a single-core somewhere around 130-140cb (couldn't find a reliable score, but judging from other Xeons close to its specs, I estimated this one).

 

So, compared to an oc'ed 5960X you gain about 10% in rendering performance with the dual 2630, but you lose a great deal in single threaded performance (according to my estimation, more than 20%). Plus the fact you need 300-400$ more not only for the Xeons, but for the mobo too.

 

Here's what I suggest you take a look at, if you want:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/nphxwP

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/nphxwP/by_merchant/

 

CPU: Intel Core i7-5960X 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($899.99 @ Micro Center)

CPU Cooler: NZXT Kraken X61 106.1 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($119.99 @ B&H)

Motherboard: Asus X99-DELUXE ATX LGA2011-3 Motherboard ($369.99 @ Micro Center)

Memory: Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($189.99 @ Amazon)

Storage: Samsung 950 PRO 512GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($347.99 @ Adorama)

Case: Phanteks Enthoo Series Primo Aluminum ATX Full Tower Case ($239.99 @ Newegg)

Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA P2 1600W 80+ Platinum Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($336.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Total: $2504.93

 

I have 4 of the above parts in my current rig, so I have a personal opinion about them: 5960X, Asus Deluxe, Corsair Vengeance LPX 32gb and the X61 Kraken.

The other parts are just top notch. Do a little research and you'll find out about them (you seem to already recognize the Samsung 950's dominance:o).

 

The Deluxe can support up to 5 gpus at x8 gen 3.0 bandwidth. The last pcie slot shares bandwidth with m.2 pcie ssds (if you decide to try the samsung 950). So it's a very good motherboard for gpu rendering on multiple gpus.

 

Mind the RAM selection. I've had trouble configuring the profiles. XMP in these motherboards activates a 125 strap by default in some cases, and you could see instability issues (I did). These Corsairs are widely tested with X99's, and Asus seems to approve them (most of JJ's builds in Youtube have these particular modules inside).

[padre.ayuso]

You guys are total geniuses. So basically I look at doing what you guys have been telling me. I have to gather the finances but it seems pretty solid as to what I'll get. I'll just up the RAM to 64, just because I can afford it right now and because I don't want to do it in a years time. In terms of servers, I'll have a similar configuration, just with a different chassis. And yes, SSD is the way to go, and Samsung seems to be pretty reliable around. Got it on the memory stability, I'll take that into account. As soon as I get these babies into action, I'll let you guys how it goes.

[Nikolaos M]

If you plan to build render nodes based on the 5960x, you could certainly use simpler parts. The specific parts I suggested above are for the main Workstation only. So, if I'm correct you are planning to use both cpu and gpu rendering. Is that right?

[numerobis]

1600W PSU? Really?

[Nikolaos M]

1600W PSU? Really?

Yes, why not?

Alex is interested in gpu rendering and, if I understood correctly, he is planning to add more gpu(-s) to his system, while having already two 970's running for rendering purposes. So yes, a psu of this wattage would be my pick for an oc'ed 5960X and 2-3 (or more in the future) gpus for rendering. It's nice to have a headroom in this case.

 

He's already started another thread about this potential a few days ago. See here

http://forums.cgarchitect.com/79321-enabling-sli-gtx-970-a.html

 

Of course, it's Alex's turn to clear things up, whether he is really into gpu rendering or not. My proposal was a base for conversation, not a final build, so, I'm waiting for his thoughts to "correct" the initial build accordingly.

Edited November 18, 2015 by nikolaosm

[numerobis]

He's already started another thread about this potential a few days ago. See here

http://forums.cgarchitect.com/79321-enabling-sli-gtx-970-a.html

Ah, ok... now i understand

[padre.ayuso]

If you plan to build render nodes based on the 5960x, you could certainly use simpler parts. The specific parts I suggested above are for the main Workstation only. So, if I'm correct you are planning to use both cpu and gpu rendering. Is that right?

 

Yes, the workstation I'm building I'm planning to add GPUs in the future. The way this technology is going, I think I'll benefit from it. So while I'm currently doing mainly CPU, I have already cut down time by using GPU to tweak my initial lighting and materials on simpler scenes. So yes, I'm looking at expanding my GPUs in the future to be able to do bigger scenes while doing CPU currently, so Nikolaos has a good point, have a good enough PSU to accommodate future expansion. For the render workstations, I will keep them CPU based renderers at the moment, and I'm tracking about having simpler parts for those.

[SgWRX]

depending on how many cards you want to run for gpu rendering, look for a motherboard with 4 pcie-16 slots. some boards only have 2 and the rest are x8 or hybrid x8/x4. example asus x99e-ws. 1500w psu would be very good, once you start adding video cards and cooling fans/fan controllers, you'll need some headroom. i've run a monitor on my psu and find with 4 cards rendering + cpu, i can peak around 1100watt draw. find a good big case that'll handle multiple fans/radiators if you liquid cool. thermaltake has some that fit the bill.

[Nikolaos M]

Yes, 4 gpus would fit well on a Asus WS or a Rampage V, because all the consumer cards these days are dual slot and need some space to be positioned on stack. The Deluxe can hold 3 dual slot cards, so if 4 cards are a possible scenario, there are some better options in the market.

[padre.ayuso]

Thanks and that's a good datum to have, I had not thought about that even though it was probably mentioned before. Thanks Nik!

[daveharry]

Nice setup.. Do you have cinebench scores? I got a 4 x E7-8870 V1 Xeon setup with 128 GB Ram for rendering here. But I'm only getting a score of 3000 max on cinebench 15. Windows 2012 does allow me to use the 4 processors 100% with Hyper-V. Hope I'll get some help here.

[daveharry]

Nice Rig.. Do you have cinebench scores?? I've got a 4 x E7-8870 V1 with 128 GB rams but I'm only able to score 3000 max from it. Windows 2012 does allow me to usee 100% cpu on Hyper-V.