Thinking about a new computer - part 1: about the microprocessor

[MF_Erwan]

Now I'm back from Antarctica and I have saved some money, I'm thinking about building a real computer to really play with Terragen (I only had a labtop until now).
So I would like some help to make a good and fast computer. Since I want to make TG3 videos.

So here is the 1st part: which microprocessor is the best by now? I suppose the fastet and the maximum of cores is the best.
Should I take a multiprocessor motherboard (is it useful for Terragen ?) ?
What about the ventirad? How do I choose it?

Erwan

[Dune]

Welcome back to the unfrozen world. There are a few threads about new machines fit for TG3, so best to browse a little first or use the search button. But I'm sure someone will chime in here....

[kaedorg]

Hi and welcome back.

I was glad to follow your Experience in Antartica.
As i bought a 3rd computer last month (tg3 dedicated even if it is also for my bookshop),
I could give you the specs, I bought them in Germany but I live in Brittany - Bretagne.
MP in french if interested

David

[Oshyan]

The very simple but surprisingly accurate rule of thumb is "number of cores times clock speed = general performance". This is only true for CPUs from a given manufacturer, so you can't compare Intel to AMD this way. But you *can* look at say an Intel i7 4770 at 3.4Ghz with 4 cores and see that it's actually the same speed as the more expensive Intel Xeon E3-1270 at 3.4Ghz and 4 cores. If you have lots of money to use, you could get dual 12 core CPUs and it would really be incredibly fast. But I think the best price/performance ratio is still in 6 core Intel CPUs right now.

- Oshyan

[Tangled-Universe]

Yes that would be the most sensible advice I reckon.

With a 6-core, sensible render settings and a healthy dose of patience you can churn out fantastic stuff in reasonable time.

If you're keen on massive amounts of instances + multiple populations of those then I *really* recommend 32GB of RAM.
I have 16GB and am constantly hitting the limits.

I have a 4-core i7-2600K...waiting for an 8-core i7, but unfortunately AMD let go of high performance CPU's and Intel is the one and only company producing them. So as long as they think they haven't earned enough with the 4 and 6 cores we won't get any 8 core CPU soon. Shame :/

[PabloMack]

an Intel i7 4770 at 3.4Ghz with 4 cores and see that it's actually the same speed as the more expensive Intel Xeon E3-1270 at 3.4Ghz and 4 cores.

This is counter-intuitive. The Xeon has no integrated graphics while the i7 has. So you pay more for less. Perhaps the Xeon has more interconnectivity to run more than one on a motherboard.

What puzzles me is reported TDP. I have a Phenom II x4 955 that was supposed to have a TDP of 125W (later models lowered to 95W). However, I have never seen it burn more than about 68 Watts at 100% CPU usage. If I use the Gigabyte utility to throttle power it lowers power consumption to less than 60W. The best I can figure is that 125/95Watts gives overclockers some head room to push their processors faster. I suspect that some "locked" processors (mostly Intel) are rated with lower TDP since they do not have to allow for overclocking. If this is so, then this would tend to mislead people into thinking that locked processors are more power efficient than unlocked processors. I see a lot of benchmarking sites computing "processing power per watt" and ranking them accordingly. I, for one, don't plan to overclock. Instead, I have started to build more units and run only at stock frequencies. If the manufacturers are adding more head room for overclocking, then the power numbers are misleading everyone into thinking that the processors are less power efficient then they really are.