Workstation Advice - Pricing, etc.

quote:

---

I'm not looking to build anything

---

Assuming that this is a machine for yourself, that's a real shame, because if you are bargain hunting for a high-spec'd PC, you're going to find machines that are both overpriced and not quite suited to your specific needs. The building process is worth your time for this caliber of hardware.

It may also be worth your time to do some research into how each of your programs take advantage of certain hardware, which would allow you really hone in on a tailored build instead of leaning heavily one direction or going with something that seems balanced but is really just an exercise in mediocrity all around.

For example, you mention that "Processing power is a plus" rather than a priority, but are you aware that the bulk of your operations in these programs will be reliant on the raw performance of a single CPU thread? In 3ds Max, modeling and animating are also reliant on single-threaded CPU performance. Rendering is a multithreaded task on most of the programs, but did you know that only specific rendering engines will use GPU accerlation, and that Revit doesn't natively support it at all? Not to mention, GPU-accelerated rendering engines might be faster, but won't necessarily produce the same quality renders as a CPU-based rendering engine unless you up the render time/number of iterations and/or you have a workstation card with double precision support (depending on the complexity of a model).

Do you know exactly what features and tasks you'll be offloading to the GPU, and how often? If you are using GPU-centric third-party rendering engines, do you know whether they favor OpenCL or CUDA? That would dictate whether you'd be better off with an AMD or NVidia card. (not saying you don't need a decent graphics card either way, because you do need one for AutoCAD, and your use of autocad vs Revit or 3ds max, as well as the complexity of your models, will dictate how much you should favor GPU power over CPU.)

Also, do you know how large your project files will be? It would be helpful to know whether your build sessions are even touching north of 16GB of RAM, or, conversely, being limited by 32GB (less likely).

Knowing some of the above will give you a clearer picture of what you should be looking for.

If you're stuck with quad-core CPUs on socket 2011, you might as well save the cost of the extra cache, quad-channel memory, and additional PCIe lanes and just go with a Z97 build. A 4790K would have better single-threaded performance anyway. But prebuilt cookie-cutter workstations don't take that into account. They default to platforms that support server-grade components whether you have any use for them or not. The only benefit to going with the X platform (currently socket 2011-3) in your case would be for a 6-core Intel CPU, but that's only if you decide to stick with traditional rendering, and if you spend a lot of time rendering and less time modeling (which would be strange). Regardless of whether you use GPU-accelerated rendering engines or stick with multi-threaded CPU rendering, there's a pretty big cost associated with cutting down render times, and you have to decide how much you want to spend to, for example, turn a 5-minute render job into a 3-minute job.

quote:

---

I do need to look into the graphics card more, any recommendation on how to find that out?

---

Since you aren't building (and I understand why; always better in the long run to leave the hassle of warranty/support to your employer, and they would prefer it that way as well), your graphics card choices are going to be limited anyway, so mainly just stick to something that has a dedicated GPU of some sort (somewhere around the performance of a GTX 760 or higher would be just fine). If you aren't rendering much, the modeling portion will be all CPU, and overall responsiveness within the software will be RAM (but only as much as you actually use) and SSD (to some extent).

The main thing is, avoid any prebuilt workstations that come with those 6+-core Xeons, because in most cases your main concern needs to be per-core performance rather than core count.

quote:

---

It would be for my own business, but yes, those reasons for not building all apply still.

---

Hmm, in that case, you really ought to consider the merits of building your own. It's not like you don't get a warranty. The individual components have several-year warranties (some even have decade-long or lifetime warranties) and won't require you to send back the whole PC for service (assuming you don't shell out for on-site support with a pre-built). Hell, if you live in BR I'd show you the whole assembly process and how easy it is once you've seen it one time. I love doing high-end builds.

I wouldn't call that HP a decent value, but since I don't do timely research in the costs of prebuilt workstations, my assessment is only based on comparing it to a custom build. If you want to know if it will get the job done, it will, but I'm sure you already knew that.

I'm just turned off by the idea of spending so much on older architecture. The CPU and GPU are last-generation hardware. The latest enthusiast-class platform is now using DDR4, and even the lowest end i7 on that platform is 6-core. That, plus a GTX 970 (with roughly twice as much vram as the 770, 40-50% performance boost and 36% reduction in power consumption) can be put in a custom-built with 32GB of DDR4 for just over $1,600.

But building a targeted machine with an emphasis on single-core performance and ample, efficient GPU power is even cheaper than that and still destroys that HP.

I won't spend too much more time convincing you to consider building (I've written a lot in other threads about the advantages of self-employed professionals and hobbyists going the custom-built route for workstations), but check out those part lists above and compare their specs and prices to any prebuilt workstation. With prebuilts, what you're paying for is support, not quality, and as an self-employed individual, I strongly suggest you consider what kind of support you think you might need, with a realistic assessment of the expected quality of that support, and how much it's really worth vs. taking a few more hours of your own time to tailor and become intimately familiar with the most important tool in your business.

quote:

---

I've had decent luck with HP and have never heard a good thing about a dell. So who else is there? I had a think pad laptop before Lenovo bought them that was a solid machine, but heard they're not very good anymore.

---

They're all roughly the same. Same components sourced from the same fabricators and assembled in the same 2 or 3 factories. Thinkpads and other IBM PCs didn't even change manufacturers when Lenovo bought them. PC reviews are worthless. The only discriminators here would be customer service, and I have no idea who's the least shitty in that area. And I suppose Lenovo's recent security blunder with a shitty bloatware partner is worth laughing at, but bloatware is something you should anticipate removing from any prebuilt (except Apple I guess).

Wow, Thanks again for such extensive feedback. I really do appreciate the time you spent laying it all out there. This purchase, whether pre-built or custom, is a month or two away. I'll likely bump this thread when the time comes. I do live in BR, so if I decide to try the custom route I may get in touch with you, again, I appreciate the offer to help out. It does make sense value wise, even if I spend the same amount of cash. My only concern would be firmware, drivers, and all those things. It's probably easier than I think, and what would be nice benefit is to only install what I want on it. Not come with all the pre-loaded junk that's impossible to remove...

quote:

---

If you want to know if it will get the job done, it will, but I'm sure you already knew that.

---

Agreed. It's certainly better than the desktop I'm working on currently.

quote:

---

My only concern would be firmware, drivers, and all those things.

---

Your motherboard and video card will come with a disk with everything you need, but you probably won't even have to use them. The drivers on them will be outdated anyway, and Windows will probably download the new ones automatically.

quote:

---

It's probably easier than I think

---

It really is. The hardest part for me is always getting all the stuff on the front of the case (power&reset switches/lights, usb ports, audio jacks) plugged into the motherboard correctly.

quote:

---

what would be nice benefit is to only install what I want on it. Not come with all the pre-loaded junk that's impossible to remove

---

Most people don't have a clue how fast Windows can be without all that crap. I think you would be amazed.

quote:

---

Sometimes vendors like HP, ASUS, etc. use custom firmware that locks you out of using a manufacturer's generic drivers.

---

We've been switching to SSD in some of our CAD machines...Let it be known: HP and crucial drives, do not mix..HP and Kingston drives are mated for life

How much do you use the Adobe Suite? I ask because I'm questioning your 16GB of RAM, but only if you are trying to work within the confines of a $1000 budget.

EDIT: Never mind. I didn't notice you said you have an SSD already. Otherwise, I was going to recommend dropping to 8GB and adding more only if you discover that you really need it, and getting an SSD with the extra money.

CPU and cooler are good, of course. Appears to be a decent budget motherboard, just don't expect overclocking miracles (I assume you aren't trying to go too high on that anyway).

The 970 is good. However, if you are playing Skyrim with a lot of mods, you might be better off with a card that has higher memory bandwidth. If you're only playing at 1080P, then it's probably not important. I have a game going with a modest number of mods, but I'm running it at 4K DSR on a single 980, and I'm pretty much at 4GB vram usage constantly when outdoors. 980 has full-bandwidth 4GB, whereas the 970 has full-bandwidth 3.5GB and 0.5 with one disabled L2 cache/ROP module. Basically, it means if you are in a situation where more than 3.5GB of vram is needed, you get slightly more performance degradation (percentage-wise) vs. a card with full bandwidth. Not saying you should get a 980, but a R9-290X for the same price as a 970 would be more ideal -- again, only IF you are gaming at high res and running lots of texture mods in Skyrim, because Skyrim mods are not exactly optimized. Otherwise, stick with the 970 because it runs cooler and consumes less power, and will perform just as well as the 290x in everything else. Hell, I'm not even 100% certain that the 290X GPU wouldn't choke before memory is saturated. It varies a lot. So... maybe disregard all of that

Next, the Corsair 200R is an OK case, but only when it's on sale for dirt cheap. I wouldn't spend upwards of $60 on it because it's pretty bare bones for a Corsair case. You'll get better cable management options and airflow by spending literally a few more dollars on the Corsair 300R or 230T.

Finally, the PSU. Yes, the Corsair 430W can technically handle your setup. However, under a reasonable gaming load, you might draw 300W or more from the 12v rail, which is about 80% load on that rail. Consider that roughly 10-15% of the PSU's total available power is lost from heat. It's a bit too much stress on what I consider an "OK" PSU, basically the minimum quality unit I would ever recommend for a gaming rig (a budget rig that uses lower TDP components). I've seen that PSU on sale for $20-30 at times, and I wouldn't recommend paying $50 for it. Fortunately, you can get a Corsair CX600 for $54 after rebate, or the non-modular version for $43.

quote:

---

Pretty heavily. Most of the time I have PS, Illustrator, and VS all running simultaneously. I also use various Jetbrains apps, though not as often, which are all pretty memory intensive. I figured it was safer to err on having too much memory instead of too little.

---

Cool, just making sure. I have 16GB of RAM as well, and I use it just from the amount of Chrome tabs and programs I have running at once (I do a lot of internet research, for fun and for work).

quote:

---

I have a 512gb crucial SSD already.

---

Yeah, missed that part. My bad.

quote:

---

I'm guessing I'd just have to buy a mounting kit for that.

---

Not anymore. Any case worth a damn will have 2.5" drive compatibility. Most of the time, you're just screwing it into a 3.5" tray:


The 230T has tool-less SSD mounting options.

quote:

---

If it were up to you, would you change the motherboard and/or cooler?

---

Only if overclocking a lot. You'll probably be able to get an easy 500MHz boost with that combination, though.

quote:

---

Also, do I need a sound card?

---

Nope, unless you are going to be using high-end headphones, in which case you might consider an AMP/DAC combo rather than a sound card, but that's a different discussion.

quote:

---

Would you rate that a pretty decent $1,000 build then?

---

Yeah, it's pretty much how I'd do a build at that budget.