j_forrester Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Hi there guys, Just wondering if any knew of any good desktops for 3D Architectural Visualisation. I am looking to buy in the next few months and am trying to get as much info as possible. I will be needing to render both stills and animations and work with large models from time to time with many hundereds of thousands of polygons. I have looked at boxx which seem really good but wondered if there are any other really good companies out there? My max budget is £1500 for the tower itself but would prefer not to go as high if needs be. Basically if you had £1500 to spend on a tower what kind of spec would you be expecting. Will be running 2D/3D packages as well as adobe suite. Many thanks in advance, much appreciated. Jaimie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnold Sher Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 quad core 2.6 mhz, 4gig ram, decent video card and you should be on your way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidR Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Are you rendering on this machine, or is it mainly for modeling? You may or may not benefit from dual quad-cores depending, and may be fine with 1 dual-core. As for graphics cards, I've had horrible experiences with ATI (they're blacklisted where I work) and have had nothing but joy with nvidia (Quadro). We have Dell at work, and one thing I really like about Dell is that they are really quiet compared to the IBMs and HPs I've seen, and I heard that Boxx are loud, but I don't really know, so... Machines are pretty easy to spec, really, if you just analyse the type of work you do (the info you gave is pretty vague). The big question is really game card or wkstation card? -You'll hear different opinions, but the guy who swears by game cards may spend most of his time texturing a character, or doing small residential projects which aren't demanding of your card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_forrester Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 Thanks for the advice guys, it's definatley a good starting point. With so many different types of RAM and graphics cards it's knowing which one would suit my needs of high poly count, animation and Vray rendering. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazdaz Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Definitely go with a Quad-core. Don't even look at Duo-cores now a days. Go with a high-end Nvidia gaming card - 8800 (or whatever number they are up to now). 2 to 4 GBs of RAM, and a minimum of 1/2 TB of harddrive space. Of course if your PC purchase won't be for weeks, AMD is coming out with their new 3-core chip which just might take back the performance crown from Intel (which would be a hell of a coup seeing as how badly Intel has been beating up on AMD for the last few years). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F J Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Of course if your PC purchase won't be for weeks, AMD is coming out with their new 3-core chip which just might take back the performance crown from Intel (which would be a hell of a coup seeing as how badly Intel has been beating up on AMD for the last few years). a 3core cpu beat up a Quad? u'r kiddin' me! also obviously u havent heard of the Intel Peryn 45nm CPU's commin' out this January.. AMD will be watchin' the party from the backseat from now on.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazdaz Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 a 3core cpu beat up a Quad? u'r kiddin' me! also obviously u havent heard of the Intel Peryn 45nm CPU's commin' out this January.. AMD will be watchin' the party from the backseat from now on.. Yea, just like how AMD's lower-clocked Athlon chips beat the crap out of Intel chips running hundreds of megahertz faster clock a few years ago. Don't count AMD out, and don't try to compare completely dissimilar chip architectures. AMD seems to have at least one trump card, in the form of superfast inter-CPU bus speed. If it really materializes like that, 3 cores could very well outperform 4 cores, and probably for cheaper. As with everything in the computer world, the proof is in the benchmarks, but until these chips get tested, I wouldn't discount what AMD can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F J Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Yea, just like how AMD's lower-clocked Athlon chips beat the crap out of Intel chips running hundreds of megahertz faster clock a few years ago. Don't count AMD out, and don't try to compare completely dissimilar chip architectures. thats what u just did comparing clocks between Athlon n the Pentiums 4.. n btw, here's some benchmarks of a Peryn, doubt AMD will top that.. www.hipro-tech.com/images/hipro5/1_ASUS_P5E3_WS_Pro/Yorkfield_3GHz/4550/Super_Pi_1M_4653MHz_1.49VCore_9.953s_1.png www.hipro-tech.com/images/hipro5/1_ASUS_P5E3_WS_Pro/Yorkfield_3GHz/4550/Super_Pi_1M_4653MHz_1.49VCore_9.953s_2.png www.hipro-tech.com/images/hipro5/1_ASUS_P5E3_WS_Pro/Yorkfield_3GHz/4550/2k5_4550MHz_1.49VCore_CF_880_990_1.png www.hipro-tech.com/images/hipro5/1_ASUS_P5E3_WS_Pro/Yorkfield_3GHz/4550/2k5_4550MHz_1.49VCore_CF_880_990_2.png www.hipro-tech.com/images/hipro5/1_ASUS_P5E3_WS_Pro/Yorkfield_3GHz/4550/2k5_4550MHz_1.49VCore_CF_880_990_3.png www.hipro-tech.com/images/hipro5/1_ASUS_P5E3_WS_Pro/Yorkfield_3GHz/4550/2k6_4550MHz_1.49VCore_CF_880_990_1.png www.hipro-tech.com/images/hipro5/1_ASUS_P5E3_WS_Pro/Yorkfield_3GHz/4550/2k6_4550MHz_1.49VCore_CF_880_990_2.png www.hipro-tech.com/images/hipro5/1_ASUS_P5E3_WS_Pro/Yorkfield_3GHz/4550/2k6_4550MHz_1.49VCore_CF_880_990_3.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidR Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I forget where I saw it, but current Intel quad-cores also beat Opteron quad-cores (model 2230 or something like that?) in 3dsMax rendering, despite similar clockspeed and Opteron's puported 40% FP advantage. We have an Opteron renderfarm, and it's been fantastic, but our new wkstations will be Intel. Wait if you can, because the next-gen from both look very good. As for the game card vs Quadro debate, there is one thing to keep in mind: if you're looking at realtime solutions such as Autodesk's Showcase, you absolutely must have a Quadro because it uses CG, so no game cards, no ATI wkstation cards, etc. Also, if you plan on doing anything that requires DX10, your OS must be Vista, though most vendors don't offer it in a 64-bit wkstation config. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazdaz Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 thats what u just did comparing clocks between Athlon n the Pentiums 4.. Duh - I am pointing out how pointless your comparison is.. you are automatically judging a brand new architecture from AMD to be slower just because it runs on 3 cores and not 4. You can't just compare apples to oranges like that. Compare performance numbers, NOT cross-platform specs. And you can post up screenshots all you want, only a fanboy doesn't realize that in the PC world everything is moving forward at lightspeed. Intel makes great CPUs - right now. Hell, I am running a brand new Intel Quad-core myself and wouldn't even have considered an AMD machine 3 months ago. But all that can change in the blink of an eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manta Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 The speed at which things change will always come back and bite you in the A**, so go with the next best thing (which has already gone on sale) a quad core Intel... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F J Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 Duh - I am pointing out how pointless your comparison is.. you are automatically judging a brand new architecture from AMD to be slower just because it runs on 3 cores and not 4. You can't just compare apples to oranges like that. uhh, no. i am not automatically judging just because its runs on 3 cores.. that CPU is actually a quad-core with 1 of the cores disabled because AMD cant get the 4th core to work! that should tell u somethin' about "moving forward at lightspeed".. furthermore, this is also a 65nm CPU that they intend to throw against Intel's 45nm.. and yet another 3-core AMD will build, this time on 45nm isnt due till close to summer time in 2009! even this 65nm 3-core isnt due till next March.. Compare performance numbers, NOT cross-platform specs. cya then.. ...wouldn't even have considered an AMD machine 3 months ago. But all that can change in the blink of an eye. yea right.. by the time AMD does anything fancy Intel's Nehalem Octo-Core will be here to crash that party.. AMD will be watchin' the party from the backseat from now on.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macpod Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 I forget where I saw it, but current Intel quad-cores also beat Opteron quad-cores (model 2230 or something like that?) in 3dsMax rendering, despite similar clockspeed and Opteron's puported 40% FP advantage. We have an Opteron renderfarm, and it's been fantastic, but our new wkstations will be Intel. Wait if you can, because the next-gen from both look very good. As for the game card vs Quadro debate, there is one thing to keep in mind: if you're looking at realtime solutions such as Autodesk's Showcase, you absolutely must have a Quadro because it uses CG, so no game cards, no ATI wkstation cards, etc. Also, if you plan on doing anything that requires DX10, your OS must be Vista, though most vendors don't offer it in a 64-bit wkstation config. That doesn't seem right. CG[computer graphics] requires Nvidia Quadro?...........Oooook and what program requires DX10? [EDIT] so CG is some nvidia proprietary language only support by quadro cards........thats crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F J Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Compare performance numbers, NOT cross-platform specs. well, here's ur 3-core CPU score.. these 3-cores turn out to be quad-cores with a defective 4th core that AMD didnt want to completely trash, so they'r trying to still have some revenue income on them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Architectocracy Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 I suggest reading this article: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/index.html Intel will be in big trouble when the spider platform hits the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F J Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 I suggest reading this article: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/index.html Intel will be in big trouble when the spider platform hits the market. thats great! did u read page 22 by any chance? lol www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/page22.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Architectocracy Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Yes i read it. But that's just comparison for the CPU's. If you read the whole thing you'd know that AMD is preparing whole new platform, with more advanced features and innovations than those of Intel. Also these would be the first CPU's (budget CPU's) and faster ones will follow. They are a little slower than Intel's, but that's why they will be cheaper and the overall platform will be much more affordable (both for initial purchase and for upgrade) with better overall performance. Not to mention the new, more advanced CPU architecture. This means if you have X amount of cash, you will get more from AMD, than from Intel. Also Intel made a suspicious announcement about their new CPU and the compatibility will be terrible. I understand that you're an Intel fan, but that only adds to your subjectivity. A PC is not only made from individual components you know. So my recommendation would be waiting for AMD spider. Cheers! P.S. Q6600 is not a real quadcore CPU. It's actually made of 2 core2duo CPUs on 1 die. It's history repeating, like the race for the first 2-core CPU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F J Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 yea yea, Intel sells non-native quads, AMD sells quads with 1 crippled core, bla bla bla.. well of course AMD is cheaper, thats their strategy for not being out of business already.. and oh, i hear the Spider's 4 graphics cards system is awesome to work with DirectX v17.4a.. "In the direct comparison with Intel's smallest quad-core processor, the Core 2 Q6600, AMD's Phenom 9600 doesn't stand a chance. It trails its rival by 13.5%" ... "The Phenom 9700 running at 2.4 GHz, which will arrive come January, can narrow the gap to 9.8% in our benchmark suite." if this Spider loses already to the (7 months old?) Q6600 just imagine whats gonna happen next month when the Q9450 is out.. well if Rendering is our line of business, no other piece than the CPU will be responsible for system performance.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I wouldn't spend too much time waiting for the next CPU. There's always going to be a new thing in the works better than what's out there now, and what's out there now is always going to be cheaper in a few months. You could go crazy. Just get what you need it and can budget it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ky Lane Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Have a good look at the dual quadcore mac pro... Im ecstatic with mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidR Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 and what program requires DX10? [EDIT] so CG is some nvidia proprietary language only support by quadro cards........thats crap I was just highlighting something that may be important to a small percentage of people -I agree that most are best off with a game card. DX10 support may be important because it brings support for area shadows, and cool but less important, DOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidR Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 I wouldn't spend too much time waiting for the next CPU. There's always going to be a new thing in the works better than what's out there now, and what's out there now is always going to be cheaper in a few months. You could go crazy. Just get what you need it and can budget it. Xeon54xx or the single-socket equivalent are the way to go. I'm waiting for Feb. release of non-extreme edition Penryn/Wolfdale quad cores because I believe that sse4 will be a bigger and bigger deal as apps are patched to make use of it. Very promising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spooner04 Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 I'm going to build a machine with dual tri cores, just so that I can say my machine is a sex-core. *edit* heh, and I predict that the render time will always be just right for male users, but too quick for female users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now