I'd like some recommendations from you guys. I'll be assembling a new system for rendering and Photoshop/TG work. No games.
So I want a fast render machine and a decent but not an overly expensive and fast gaming videocard that can handle TG preview. Mobowise thinking of Intel i7 but don't know if higher than 2600k (4790 or 5820) has much benefit. I prefer Asus mobo's, but open to suggestions. I now have an P8Z68-V, but also see Z97 and loads of others. So?
And a decent videocard?
Most of all, I want it quiet.
Any ideas are welcome.
I think an Core i7 4790K sounds very cool. 4Ghz 4 cores.
For 3D prew you do not need a gaming card. Like a fanless GT 730 with 1G ram would be enough. It is not for gaming for sure but could handle anything for TG.
Ohh forgot to mention that an SSD instead of a HDD will contribute to the silence of your room :D
But they are quite pricey :(
It's always exciting to plan the next 'Big Box'. I'd go with Intel and six cores for rendering, and at least 32 gigs of ram. The 6 core 5820 lists under $400 and is unlocked if you ever want to boost the clock speed. The six cores are not necessary for PS and ordinary tasks, but for rendering in TG the extra cores make a huge difference (based on my i7 4 core machine vs. my i7 6 core machine). I highly recommend a liquid cooler, leaving the cpu in constant 100% usage mode for extended render times creates some brutal heat. And if you ever do over-clock, the extra cooling capacity is a good idea. Render times being what they are, every ounce of extra speed is precious and any money 'saved' at purchase has consequences. I've had Asus motherboards for years but recently switched to MSI after my builder ran thru 4 Asus Rampage boards out of inventory that were defective, happens. Quiet, well I guess that's in the ear of the beholder ;). The lower db fans will add some expense for sure; I guess it depends on where the machine is, and how acute your wife's hearing is (true in my case :)). I use nVidia cards exclusively, and currently have GTX 750ti's with 2 gigs of GDDR5 in each of my primary boxes. They go for under $200 these days. Not sure if 'Brand' names mean all that much, both of mine are made by EVGA. Don't know how much VAT affects prices near you, so that may dictate some decisions. Good luck Ulco, it will be great to have a faster set-up!
Quote from: Dune on June 20, 2015, 12:15:55 PM
But they are quite pricey :(
Well yeah they are a bit higher than usual. Then take a hybrid HDD. It is a mixture of 8G of SDD and half terra normal disc. SSD automatically will copy the most used files like Windows and your boot time will decrease 50 percent or in some cases more.
Given that you already have a 2600K I suppose your new system must at least exceed its performance. Otherwise, why buy a new system?
I only buy a system when it's at least twice as fast as the one I'm owning.
Considering your 2600K and a reasonable budget, that's already very very difficult!
I agree with Zaxxon: 6 cores and 32GB RAM, the bare minimum. GFX card is "useless". Water-cooling is not always more silent and not always more efficient. It also depends on what one considers a loud noise.
I highly recommend an SSD as well, but yes, they don't come cheap, but they make your system so fast and responsive! I'd never ever want a HDD as system drive anymore.
Skylake platform will be released later this year and maybe very maybe this will result in a slight drop of prices of CPU's, but I'm not counting chickens yet.
T-U has some particularly good, practical feedback here (e.g. liquid cooling is *not* always quieter, and if you're not overclocking it's generally unnecessary), and likewise Zaxxon with the 6 core, 32+GB recommendation. As far as I understand Skylake is not going to bring any major speed improvements any time soon (not until next year, I think, more cores, etc.), and while it may drive prices on older CPUs down, it may not be worth waiting for, especially if you've got paying work coming in steadily on which you could really use a faster machine.
SSDs are more expensive than HDs, but not crazy expensive in general, and regular, large HDs are insanely cheap these days. So the best thing to do, generally speaking, is get an SSD of say 256GB and then a larger "data" drive to stick all your work files on. This will make OS boot times and application start-up very fast, without making your system cost too much. Crucial, Samsung, Intel, or Sandisk SSDs are my recommendation. http://www.techspot.com/review/999-consumer-ssd-roundup-2015/page6.html
Also don't forget to check out the TG3 benchmark results to get an idea of the performance of your planned hardware upgrade. The results don't include price of the CPU, but you can look that up for CPUs that look promising. Something that might be useful and instructive given T-U's approach (aiming for twice the speed) is to run the benchmark on your current machine and then look for a result that is half the time:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eX9Ltn3_9BjsamA0Pxeflv5AKrjkgViEY8VuetB8e3k/edit#gid=1964613224
In my case, with an i7 2600k at stock speed, I have a render time of about 10 minutes. Half that time looks like it could just about be achieved with a single i7-5930K, or certainly with a i7-5960X. The 5930k is about $580, a bit pricey, but since it's the heart of your system, the absolutely most important part for best TG performance, it is probably worth it. The 5960x is more like $1000, not really justifying nearly twice the price for maybe 10-15% better performance. If $580 is still a bit too much, the 5820k is only about $390, about $50 more than the 4790k and with a respectable performance margin (again, reference the benchmark results), not too much slower than the 5930. All this changes if you overclock, which is actually surprisingly easy these and not very risky these days, especially for mild overclocks.
As you know the graphics card doesn't affect TG render time. It helps with being able to view complex objects and large populations in the 3D preview, but it's generally not worth spending a ton of money on.
- Oshyan
Thanks very much for your deep analysis and advice, guys. Really helpful. Martin, the reason I want another machine is that I still work on a core 2 due, but have an extra i7 as dedicated render machine (and sometimes to work on, as the core 2 duo will crash on heavy work). The core 2 duo is from 2007, HD getting submerged, so I can't even defrag anymore, working in Lightwave and Photoshop is sometimes slow with large files or calculating stuff like cloth dynamics, etc.
It's also buggy; showing my partitions in Partition Magic with strange signs, showing my C on second place (instead of D) whenever I reboot to a second OS (switching between win 7 online and XP offline).... So I'd have to reinstall everything anyway if I were to buy another HD, so I 'might as well' buy a complete new system. VAT is 21% here, but deductable, as it's business.
So I want a fast machine to work on plus a dedicated render machine, which I can leave alone rendering tests and finals.
Seems like it's slightly more expensive here. A i7 5820 costs around €400.
What do you think of this? Plus an ssd+hd, and maybe some other stuff.
Sounds good but how much it is?
Between 1100 and 1300 euro's, depending on what I do extra.
Thinking of a graphics card Asus GeForce Fanless GT730 2GB DDR3, what do you think, good enough? They adviced a twice as expensive Gigabyte GV-N750OC-1GI, so I'm confused. I think the latter makes more noise and I am not a gamer.
SSD Samsung 840Pro 128GB and a WD Black WD2003FZEX (2TB) HD seem like a nice marriage to me.
And 4x4GB Crucial memory. Since the mobo has 8 DIMM slots, I can always expand with another set.
Any more advice before I empty my savings account?
While we're at it...
Do you know any issues with Terragen running on lap tops? Many lap tops that go beyond 12 GB RAM boast to be specifically designed to handle "most demanding games and programs" but still, I wonder...
I simply love working on lap tops, I like their flexibility but I am very afraid that there might be some issues. Heating for example. :( What do you think?
I am also planning to buy new computer soon. I am aiming for hybrid drive, 4-core processor and at least 12 GB RAM. Memory size is not that relevant to me tough.
Quote from: Dune on June 23, 2015, 04:06:15 AM
Between 1100 and 1300 euro's, depending on what I do extra.
Thinking of a graphics card Asus GeForce Fanless GT730 2GB DDR3, what do you think, good enough? They adviced a twice as expensive Gigabyte GV-N750OC-1GI, so I'm confused. I think the latter makes more noise and I am not a gamer.
SSD Samsung 840Pro 128GB and a WD Black WD2003FZEX (2TB) HD seem like a nice marriage to me.
And 4x4GB Crucial memory. Since the mobo has 8 DIMM slots, I can always expand with another set.
Any more advice before I empty my savings account?
That card should be enough to display TGs preview but nothing else. But since u are not a gamer u are set. Looking your renders I would recommend more memory for you. If you decide to put more and your new PC is supporting quad channel RAM set up best to fill up all 8 slots. Actually not sure if TG can take advantage of quad channel but maybe Matt can say something about that...
You may be right about the card, the vendor also says it's on the light side. So perhaps go for the other one. If TG can't handle that 4-channel memory, its no use for me', but I can't imagine it can't. Matt?
Regarding hybrid drives; if your ssd goes down, the hd part is also worthless, I'd say. So I'd rather go for 2 separate items.
I've got a 2008, but brandnew system for sale: asus P5Q iP45, asus videocard GeForce 8500GT silent 512MB, 4GB DDR2 memory, Core 2duo E8600 3.33GHz. Stood there as backup for my current machine, but hardly ever used. Hope to get some bucks for it still.
Quote from: Dune on June 23, 2015, 09:36:40 AM
You may be right about the card, the vendor also says it's on the light side. So perhaps go for the other one. If TG can't handle that 4-channel memory, its no use for me', but I can't imagine it can't. Matt?
Regarding hybrid drives; if your ssd goes down, the hd part is also worthless, I'd say. So I'd rather go for 2 separate items.
I've got a 2008, but brandnew system for sale: asus P5Q iP45, asus videocard GeForce 8500GT silent 512MB, 4GB DDR2 memory, Core 2duo E8600 3.33GHz. Stood there as backup for my current machine, but hardly ever used. Hope to get some bucks for it still.
Dune why dont u using the card u have already? the GeForce 8500GT silent 512MB?
Nevertheless I said that the card you planning to buy is enough for TG. It is on the light side for sure but TG will not make it sweat for sure. So I think u are fine with that also.
Your config sounds good Ulco, though I'd go for 8GB DIMMs for maximum future upgradeability. Get 32GB *now* if you can, or 16GB in 2x8GB config. IF the motherboard is quad channel for memory then do either go for 4x8GB (32GB total) or 4x4GB to take advantage. Quad channel memory is not something that an application needs to do anything whatsoever to take advantage of, it simply provides more memory bandwidth to the system as a whole. Sure you could say that some applications *benefit* more from multi-channel memory (i.e. applications that are more memory-bandwidth limited), but it's not something the app is necessarily doing to take advantage of it. Memory-bound applications should inherently benefit on such systems.
As for the graphics card, it will be acceptable for TG use and it's quite cheap. You can always upgrade later if you want more, so I'm in favor of the basic solution, especially if you can spend the extra money (rather than the 2x expensive card) on more RAM. :D
Laptops are not usually designed for long periods of constant 100% CPU use, so there *can* be heat issues. This can generally be mitigated with proper surface placement and potentially active cooling (laptop cooling stand with fans) if needed. Most laptops will do OK for occasional rendering if you ensure it's placed on a flat, hard surface (e.g. desk) and that air entry/exit paths are clear of obstructions.
- Oshyan
I've got the Samsung 850Pro 256 GB. I've had SSDs for years. I upgraded because larger capacity ones are now cheaper. Have another spinning drive if you need more space. Once you have an SSD you will never go back. However, make sure you are prepared in case the SSD dies. They aren't like disk hard drives where you get warning. They instantly fail. I had one do this a few years back. Fortunately it was under warranty.
As for graphics cards, I think the cheapest graphics card that works on current systems will do the job for Terragen. If it's good enough to make the desktop run smooth then it's good enough for Terragen. Graphics cards have advanced hugely recently which is beneficial if you don't need a high powered one because it will be dirt cheap. I have to upgrade mine but that's because I use other apps like Modo and 3D Coat which absolutely rely on decent GPU to handle huge meshes, even more so with some other apps that can actually render on the GPU. This is useless with Terragen though.
Newer SSDs are pretty darn reliable. But everyone should have a good backup system/process in place, regardless of whether you're using an SSD or HD. As long as you have good backup in place, you're set.
- Oshyan
Thanks guys, almost there. I'll go for 4x8GB in case I need 64. I already need 32, as yesterday I was croprendering part of the museum wall (the reduced size of 16000x8000) and that already needed 15GB, so with all the houses and people it'll crash for sure. Renderfarm should work fine, but I want to be able to do my own also.
The samsung 850 pro behaved very good in tests. And I always back up stuff, triple in fact.
I can rip stuff out of my older machine, but I'd rather try selling it as a whole, it's a good working (hardly used) machine for those who don't need that much, and now for half price ;)
Samsung 850, you barely can't fail with that choice. I'm happy with mine too.
I saw a test on SSD. It was a "Let's see when it will die" test. A program was 24/7 writing/deleting data on the drive. The drive died after 4-5 weeks. Now they calculated how much data was written all together. Then they calculated that an average user might move 2-3 gigs per day so they divided the total amount of data with this and calculated that the drive could be used more than 50-60 years. So yes SSD is definitely getting there.
That's the test I was referring to, yes. I'll do that one.
Archonforest, I'm curious what test you saw. The one I saw had the drives die after over a *year* of writing data, and after nearly 2 *petabytes*...
- Oshyan
So what happens if it suddenly dies? You stick a new one in, partition it if necessary (I'd have 2 on the SSD perhaps: one for software and one as 'working' area), install all soft again, and the remaining partitions on the HD are still intact.... My worry is the partition structure.
Quote from: Oshyan on June 24, 2015, 07:01:57 PM
Archonforest, I'm curious what test you saw. The one I saw had the drives die after over a *year* of writing data, and after nearly 2 *petabytes*...
- Oshyan
I was looking for it but I cannot locate the page anymore. I read that article almost a year ago so not sure if I can dig that up with ease.
Dune, I would recommend doing image-based backups on a regular basis, along with frequent incremental file-level backups. This way you just get an equal-or-larger size SSD to replace whatever failed, then restore a system image, combined with the most recent file-level backup. This gets you all your partitioning back, etc.
Of course partitioning is potentially archaic as a strategy, depending on your intentions with doing it.
- Oshyan
Thanks Oshyan, but could you please elaborate on your last sentence? I learned a long time ago that it's wise to partition. And I probably need to again, as the tgd files will look to import objects from a certain drive letter and folder. My library is in partition H, for instance, while working from E, and when a commision is finished I move the tgd files to drive G.
Many (if not all) SSD's come with cloning software.
So if you would like to have your SSD replace your E, G and H drive then it should be possible to clone those to your brand-new SSD.
Usually -but not necessarily- this goes via a 2xUSB cable and after the cloning process you disconnect the HDD and replace it directly with the cloned SSD.
Thanks Martin. I will have a large HD for those partitions and files plus an SSD for software. So probably I need to have the SSD as one partition, install win 7 plus all softwares, then divide the new HD into D...H for TG to be able to read the object files from the proper partitions/folders. Then copy all files from my backup disk or use an image.
I am always reluctant to start working on these new setups, as I hate to mess it all up, but usually I get it done.
It sounds like for path preservation reasons it would be useful to have partitions as you describe, Dune. But other than that reason, there is less and less need IMO to have separate partitions. One reason that is still somewhat valid is to separate your OS+applications and your data so that you can do full image backups to restore your system with while keeping the size down by avoiding big chunks of data. This is a valid strategy but is essentially already a reality in an SSD+HD system where the large HD is your data drive while the faster SSD is your OS+applications drive. No need to partition the HD if you ask me, there's no benefit to moving data from one partition to another after work is completed vs. just moving it from one *folder* to another.
If you have other reasons for partitioning your drive(s) then perhaps you can explain and I'll see if I think it still makes sense. Mine is just one perspective, of course. :D
- Oshyan
The paths are the main reason now (and an important one, as all my files hark back to this setup, unfortunately), but one of my previous reasons was that defragmentation isn't really necessary on partitions where I gather all finished works and library data. Working means a lot of fragmentation, but on one smaller partition it's quicker defragmented.
It would be easy if TG could locate the files by itself ::)
I wonder if it would work to name folders like the partitions.... but I guess not.
SSDs don't need defragmentation and newer OSs (Win 7+) handle defrag in the background automatically anyway, so it's not something to structure your entire partition scheme around anymore.
Repathing is still a problem, certainly. Having TG "locate files by itself" would involve a probably lengthy automated search routine for each file (it could handle things a bit more intelligently by looking in the last folder it found a resource when searching for the next one, but this would only work a portion of the time). It would basically mean a long wait for relinking files, and it would still probably need manual intervention to confirm it's the right file since all TG stores is the name and path, and there may be many similarly named files. Basically, it's possible to do semi-automatically, but it may not be much better than what we have now, and would involve development time to implement. So I'm not sure it's worth it. Having people be responsible for managing their paths is, generally speaking, the best compromise. TG *could* do a better job of finding files in subfolders and whatnot though.
Using folders named like the path/drive wouldn't work (you can't actually name a folder D: for obvious reasons, hehe). But you *should* be able to map a *folder* to a *drive letter* in some way and *that* might actually take care of your pathing issue...
- Oshyan
Thanks Oshyan. Seems like you're stuck on a system once initiated :( I have to think about how many files I need to change paths in, whether it's worth getting rid of the partition system. I'd consider setting it up as one big partition, and it might be easiest to just change the 'H:folder\folder\name' into 'folder\folder\name' in a text editor before starting a tgd up.
Guys i am not sure if i understand the problem.
I put all my project files under the same folder structure every time.Like c:\scenes\ etc.
When i copy that folder to another drive there is no problem. When there is only one project to copy i copy it with the same structure.
Only that folder under the main folder;like D:\scenes\new project\ or E:\scenes\new project\ etc.
I had nor problem with this to find files on many different computers.What do i miss?
If you mean that you have some files in one drive and other project files on other drive that is a problem.
That is hard to use. I would stay away from that and use always one folder structure that is on one drive every time.
It can get very hard to use anyway.
At least i would use the gather project option in Terragen after the project ended and put all the files in one folder at the end.
You might end up with more then one file from the same files,but in the long run it is easier to use.
When you need 1 year later the same files they are all there.
In the past i remember that i changed,removed or deleted files that were in other places that actually belonged to some projects.
When the files are under the same folder structure that doesn't happen. The handicap is you need more place but i am ready to take this then the other options.
I only use the gather project option for files to upload to a render farm, not for every small project or test, otherwise I'd end up with numerous identical files. So I'm really stuck with a basic object and texture library that I always refer to.
I wonder what happens if I just make 2 partitions and call the second one H... (which is where my library is).
Quote from: Dune on June 28, 2015, 10:06:46 AM
I only use the gather project option for files to upload to a render farm, not for every small project or test, otherwise I'd end up with numerous identical files. So I'm really stuck with a basic object and texture library that I always refer to.
...
You will always have problem with that approach.But it is up to you of course Ulco.
I would at least use the same content management like in Lightwave.
D:\Content\images\*
D:\Content\objects\*
D:\Content\scenes\*
That would be easier to use.And you would have still only one file of everything.
Anyway. I don't know your HD requirements etc.
Thanks Kadri. I'll be mulling over this.
I am getting to this thread a little late.
If you don't mind refurbished, then you should consider one of these as a starting point.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Z600-Dual-Xeon-X5660-6C-2-80GHz-12-core-8GB-2TB-HDD-nVidia-FX1700-/121710911634?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item1c56892092 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Z600-Dual-Xeon-X5660-6C-2-80GHz-12-core-8GB-2TB-HDD-nVidia-FX1700-/121710911634?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item1c56892092)
I purchased one similar to this here in the States, but mine is Dual Xeon x5650 2.66GHz. I paid $575 USD and added a couple of older Quadro FX2000 Vid cards that a Tech at the station I work for gave.
These things have 12 cores, 24 threads and smash time renders of my i7 2600.
I personally have No Problem with Refurbished computers. They are literally thousands off the original price and have been owned by Professional Companies that took care of them. I have 4 Refurbished computers and except for upgrades the only problem I have had came from 2007 Q6600 that I just installed a new Power supply and New Heatsink and Fan.
Check it out it may be just what you want for a starting point.
Hey Thelby, thanks! I was just reconsidering my next purchase, so you're nicely in time with this idea. I'll check it out.
I was considering the following total:
Fractal design define S €85,39
Gigabyte GV-N750OC-1GI graphics €119,34
WD Black WD1003FZEX €82,99
Crucial 2x(!) sets 4x4 memory 127,90 x2 = €255,80
Gigabyte X99-UD4 mobo €229,90
Scythe Mugen 4 PCGH €44,90
Intel Core i7-5820 / 3.3 GHz processor €404,90
Be Quiet Pure Power L8 430Watt €64,90
Samsung 850 Pro 128GB SSD €99,90
and some dvd reader, or I won't get win 7 in place ;)