6 Replies Latest reply on Jul 19, 2012 9:12 AM by Harm Millaard

    CPU cores or Cuda Cores ?

    S_76

      Hi I need to buy a new PC and Im between two configurations:

       

      Same Hard drives, Raid, amount of Ram etc.... :

       

      OP A:      2x Xeon E5 2687W 3.10 GHz   +  2x GTX 680 or 1 GTX 690

       

      OP B:      i7 3960X 4,40GHz Stable OC   +  Quadro 5000 + Tesla C2075

       

      The two options have the same cost, more or less.

       

      I going to use this Workstation 60% After Effects 20% Premiere 20% Cinema4d

       

      Thanks in Advance

        • 1. Re: CPU cores or Cuda Cores ?
          Harm Millaard Level 7

          Sounds like an ill thought-out configuration.

           

          OP A:      2x Xeon E5 2687W 3.10 GHz   +  2x GTX 680 or 1 GTX 690

           

          A complete waste of money for the dual Xeons and the dual 680's.

           

          OP B:      i7 3960X 4,40GHz Stable OC   +  Quadro 5000 + Tesla C2075

           

          Good processor, but an utter waste of money on the Quadro plus Tesla card.

           

          If I were in your shoes, I would go for an i7-3960X, OC @ 4.5+, single 680/4GB, 64 GB memory and a stellar disk I/O system with an Areca ARC-1882-iX/24 controller with 4 GB cache and BBM.

           

          Quadro 5000, even with Tesla do not perform better than a GTX 570 for less than 10% of the price with PR.

          GTX 690 is only used for 50% by PR, and a second 680 is not used by PR. There are currently 10 Quadro 5000 systems, some of them with Tesla C2075 cards in the Benchmark Results and none of them convince with their results. How could they with only 448 CUDA cores?

           

          Caveat: AE and Cinema4d may put the graphics solution in another perspective, but from a PR perspective, all your ideas are an utter waste of money.

           

          Have a look here: Adobe Forums: Planning / building a new system. Part 1

          1 person found this helpful
          • 2. Re: CPU cores or Cuda Cores ?
            S_76 Level 1

            Thanks for the super-fast answer.

             

            You mentioned a stellar disk I/O system with an Areca RAID controller, wha do you think about the PCIe SSD'S, specifically this one:

             

            OCZ RevoDrive 3 X2 Max IOPS PCI-Express SSD

             

            Thanks again

             

            PS: Amazing machine you have! (building a system thread)

            • 3. Re: CPU cores or Cuda Cores ?
              ECBowen Most Valuable Participant

              Considering your workflow is so predominantly AE and Cinema 4D then the 2x Xeon E5 2687W 3.10 GHz is definitely the way to go as long as you get 64GB of ram. The amount of ram is critical for that configuration to give you the performance you are looking for with AE and Cinema 4D. The video card choice should be the 680 4GB card and wait to see what the new Quadros bring to the table later this year. If you even need a Quadro at all it would only be because of 10bit Color Workflow and Preview. I am not sure why you are looking at the 2nd Geforce card.

               

              If the SSD will be the OS drive then no I would not get the PCI-E SSD. That would be a complete waste for those since the performance would be so far above what you need for an OS drive. If you will be using the SSD for Uncompressed Frames with Cinema 4D then yes that would be an excellent choice.

               

              Eric

              ADK

              1 person found this helpful
              • 4. Re: CPU cores or Cuda Cores ?
                Noel Carboni Level 7

                I'm not a regular here, but please allow me to barge in with some additional thoughts...

                 

                Note what processor configuration currently tops this list:  http://www.cpubenchmark.net/multi_cpu.html

                 

                Something to look into instead of a RevoDrive at a lower cost...  Build a RAID0 array of SATA3 SSDs.  In April I built a 2 TB array of 4 Vertex 3 480 GB SSDs and it screams (1.7 GB/second max, no lines, no waiting).  With that much space everything goes on drive C: while working on it, and onto my big secondary spinning drive array when not active.  I have 1 TB of free space on the SSD array at the moment.

                 

                -Noel

                • 5. Re: CPU cores or Cuda Cores ?
                  S_76 Level 1

                  Thanks Noel for the answer.

                   

                  I manage your option but I dont know nothingabout Raid controllers, Harm Millaard  recomend me the Areca ARC-1882-iX/24 but its to expensive for me.

                   

                  I take look at the LSI MegaRaid 9260-8i and the Marvell 88SE9485

                   

                  i READ some reviews on the LSI SAS HBA 9207-8i and HighPoint 2720SGL RocketRAID

                   

                   

                  Which Raid controller card do you used? is its PCIe 3.0 ?

                   

                  tHANKS

                  • 6. Re: CPU cores or Cuda Cores ?
                    Harm Millaard Level 7

                    Lets just put your options roughly in perspective:

                     

                    Option A.

                    • CPU € 4K, mobo € 500, GPU € 1K (2 x 680/2GB)
                    • Total € 5500, plus all the rest.

                     

                    Option B.

                    • CPU € 800, mobo € 300, GPU + Tesla € 4300
                    • Total € 5400, plus all the rest.

                     

                    My alternative suggestion.

                    • CPU € 800, mobo € 300, GPU € 600 (680/4GB), Areca ARC-1882iX/24 Raid Controller € 1100
                    • Total € 2800, plus all the rest.

                     

                    the Areca ARC-1882-iX/24 but its to expensive for me.

                     

                    Which solution is more economical? Oh, keep in mind that my alternative suggestion is better than your option B and also better than option A if the emphasis in on PR work. As Eric explained, option A may be better than my alternative if your use is mainly C4D and AE, but at a price.

                     

                    There is no doubt that AE can profit more from dual Xeons than does PR, but is that worth it? I have limited experience with AE, but for me, I'm more occupied with the creative side of things in AE than with rendering or exporting. That is at least a 90-10 ratio, so 90% of my time is spent on the creative part where I don't profit from the super fast dual Xeons. It is only on that 10% of my time that I could possibly profit from dual Xeons.

                     

                    But, then the question arises, with the distributed rendering capabilities of AE, the 'render farm' concept, is it worth to invest in a single super powerful PC or is adding a second machine acting as a render cow more worthwihle?