Digital Art Zone

 
   
2 of 3
2
Buying/building a new PC
Posted: 30 September 2012 12:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2003-10-09
_ PJF _ - 29 September 2012 04:59 PM

The performance difference between the i7-3960X ($1008) and the FX-8150 ($190) is a lot more than fractions of a second:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3960x-x79-sandy-bridge-e,3071-22.html

Really? I didn’t see anywhere that broke down the performance improvement percentages to give any weight to your claim that it’s alot more then fractions of a second. However when I made that comment I was thinking of a different type of test rather then your link’s comparrisson test of a bunch of random apps most of which I don’t use. It’s a shame the random apps didn’t include Bryce then it might be more relevent?

_ PJF _ - 29 September 2012 04:59 PM

Now whether the benefit of the Intel is worth the money is a fair and subjective point - but the benefit is real. Of course, the 3960X is not the smart way to buy Sandybridge-E Hex core - that crown belongs to the 3930K at about $570. Very similar performance at nearly half the price. Still three times the AMD Bulldozer cost but bringing things much closer under the law of diminishing returns.

Well there are many examples both great and small in price differences. I picked one example which was top of the line for both brands. Now of course if you start comparing top of the line with one brand and 2 or 3 steps back from top of the line of another, sure you’re going to be able to skew the price difference more favorably to the brand of your personal preference.

_ PJF _ - 29 September 2012 04:59 PM

Examining the Intel CPUs at a similar price level to the FX-8150, things get interesting. The older i5-2500k ($198) has always given the AMD a run for its money:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-hotfix-bulldozer-performance,3119-6.html
The current i5-3570k ($230) is more efficient still, and compatible motherboards can be had with useful “future” technology like Thunderbolt.

Funny I didn’t read it that way at all. Spin it all you want but when you compare competing model to competing model of CPU Intel is more expensive and in a significant way. It always has been and likely always will be. Now granted Intel can and does often beat the competition on performance tests but in the levels we’re talking about, to be blunt, it’s not likely to be noticed by someone who is asking for advice on parts for a system someone else is going to build for them. No offense meant to the OP I’m just saying it like it is. Depending on how old his old system is any of the CPU’s mentioned so far could seem like an amazing improvement.

It’s a tough call recommending for someone and there are alot of factors to consider. I like to keep recomendations as close to the latest and greatest because that in theory will provide the greatest support longevity wise. Things move so fast that computer stores can’t afford to keep too much of the older technology around. If you start with a somewhat dated system and a year or two later a key part like a CPU goes bad you could find yourself having to replace more then just that one part.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2012 08:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
New Member
Avatar
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2004-12-05

Here’s my 2 cents.

I bought a HP Pavilion for 450 euros yesterday; the PC has an AMD-A8-3820 APU with HD Graphics and a 1GB AMD RADEON HD6450 graphics card on board.

I’ve tested the PC with Carrara 7 Pro (32 bit version), and the renders are pretty fast. It took four seconds per frame, and the old computer has a 1 GB Geforce GT220.

The same render on the old computer took 28 seconds per frame.

Also I simply copied the poser directory to my new PC, and it didn’t give issues.

Both computers work on a 64 BIT version of Windows 7 Pro.

 Signature 

The story of life is hello and good-bye until we meet again (a quote from Jimi Hendrix)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2012 08:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3338
Joined  2004-10-01

In my experience, render will not be faster with a new computer. Because you start to use the more advanced options which you didn’t before because it took a week to render. Now it renders as fast as the simpler scenes before. smile

 Signature 

**  [ Stuff by David Brinnen and myself**  [ My DAZ 3D Gallery**  [ My Website**  OPC 4565 **

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2012 08:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  822
Joined  2008-09-17
chohole - 29 September 2012 04:06 PM

Well something is putting little red wiggly lines under all my British words. As I hadn’t noticed it before I assumed that it was something that Win 7 had done.

Probably your browser doing that.  I’m Canadian & also use proper English for spelling & fireFox will automatically spell check.

 Signature 

Resistance is futile.  You will be DAZzimilated


Old post count: 5719

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2012 09:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3338
Joined  2004-10-01

Yes, my Chrome here and Firefox at the shop both correct for American spelling.

 Signature 

**  [ Stuff by David Brinnen and myself**  [ My DAZ 3D Gallery**  [ My Website**  OPC 4565 **

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2012 03:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  134
Joined  2003-10-09
LordHardDriven - 30 September 2012 12:04 AM

Really? I didn’t see anywhere that broke down the performance improvement percentages to give any weight to your claim that it’s alot more then fractions of a second. However when I made that comment I was thinking of a different type of test rather then your link’s comparrisson test of a bunch of random apps most of which I don’t use. It’s a shame the random apps didn’t include Bryce then it might be more relevent?

You couldn’t see anywhere? How strange; it’s so obvious. You can either apply the percentage advantage to a long time frame, or simply read through the linked article for the raw data. Out of the “bunch of random apps” (actually a carefully chosen range to represent the likely uses of the CPUs) there are three 3D rendering programs.

The Blender render took 42 seconds with the i7-3960X, and 56 seconds with the FX-8150.

The 3DSMax render took 1 minute 56 seconds with the 3860X, and 3 minutes 10 seconds with the 8150.

The Solidworks render took 1 minute 47 seconds with the Intel, and 3 minutes 24 seconds with the AMD.

Those aren’t fractions of a second. There isn’t a Bryce result, no; but given that Bryce makes big use of floating point operations whereas the AMD emphasises integer operations, my estimation is that Bryce will be at the top end of any advantage scale. Extrapolate those results out to typical Bryce render times and they become a significant improvement.

Worth the money? Buyer’s call. But the advantage is real and easy to see. To double-down on the claim of “fractions of a second” is simply to relay misinformation.

 

Funny I didn’t read it that way at all.

Why not? What results led you to conclude that the FX-8150 is significantly different to the i5-2500K? In the link I gave, the two are shown close with an advantage to the 2500K. Other results in various tests show the two close with the advantage going the other way. Given that the 2500K was older and cheaper than the 8150 when the latter launched, it’s fair to say that it’s always given it a run for its money. The AMD was quickly discounted whereas the Intel remains close to its launch price despite the arrival of its successor.

This should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following PC developments.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-24.html

 

Spin it all you want but when you compare competing model to competing model of CPU Intel is more expensive and in a significant way. It always has been and likely always will be.

Not spin - objective facts derived from testing - with links. AMD has occasionally been price / performance competitive at the high end of the desktop market. Now it’s only price / performance competitive at the entry level - where it blows Intel’s i3 out of the water.  This is nothing to do with brand preference - just facts. The A8 is such a good entry CPU for 3D rendering (i.e. floating point calculations) that it outperforms its own replacement - which is based on the integer favouring architecture “Piledriver”, the Bulldozer replacement.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224-11.html

 

Now granted Intel can and does often beat the competition on performance tests but in the levels we’re talking about, to be blunt, it’s not likely to be noticed by someone who is asking for advice on parts for a system someone else is going to build for them. No offense meant to the OP I’m just saying it like it is.

Well, no, you’re not. The original poster specifically asked what would be the very best setup for Bryce and what would be the minimum / efficient. Any useful answer will include those parameters along with some guide as to the price / performance trade off. Advice that a $1000 CPU based system will give you mere fractions of a second advantage over a $200 CPU based system is not useful because it isn’t true.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 October 2012 07:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3338
Joined  2004-10-01

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/ is a most comprehensive list of CPU performance. Take the price and divide it by the rating and you get a rough bang to the buck value. The question is, do I want the fastest render machine or the most efficient one concerning cost and performance? Often the budget decides but even then you can find the best performance for the price. Comparing power consumption versus render speed, my cheap i3 is better than the more expensive i7 but the i7 is faster than the i3 by a factor of 2.

 Signature 

**  [ Stuff by David Brinnen and myself**  [ My DAZ 3D Gallery**  [ My Website**  OPC 4565 **

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 October 2012 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Member
Rank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2012-03-25

The Intel i7 3770 CPU is best bang for the dollar.

IMPORTANT:
No matter how good the CPU you get the other critically important thing is the motherboard; a bad choice and install of apps (that may come with the board) can cause CPU spiking which in effect is a performance killer. Thereby it’s important to not only get the best bang for the dollar ‘CPU’ but also a decent motherboard for example; Z77 either Asus or Gigabyte are great value bang for the dollar AND don’t install the included crapware; and don’t have apps such as; EasyTune running in the background!! Oh and also turn off power management!!!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 October 2012 01:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2003-10-09
_ PJF _ - 30 September 2012 03:47 PM

You couldn’t see anywhere? How strange; it’s so obvious. You can either apply the percentage advantage to a long time frame, or simply read through the linked article for the raw data. Out of the “bunch of random apps” (actually a carefully chosen range to represent the likely uses of the CPUs) there are three 3D rendering programs.

The Blender render took 42 seconds with the i7-3960X, and 56 seconds with the FX-8150.

The 3DSMax render took 1 minute 56 seconds with the 3860X, and 3 minutes 10 seconds with the 8150.

The Solidworks render took 1 minute 47 seconds with the Intel, and 3 minutes 24 seconds with the AMD.

Those aren’t fractions of a second. There isn’t a Bryce result, no; but given that Bryce makes big use of floating point operations whereas the AMD emphasises integer operations, my estimation is that Bryce will be at the top end of any advantage scale. Extrapolate those results out to typical Bryce render times and they become a significant improvement.


Worth the money? Buyer’s call. But the advantage is real and easy to see. To double-down on the claim of “fractions of a second” is simply to relay misinformation.

Well first of all you keep focusing on the fractions of a second comment which I already stated was based on the notion it was a different kind of test that measured the actual speed. I can only presume it’s your blind devotion to the defense of Intel that has caused you to ignore that and keep focusing on the fractions of a second comment. You’re estimation and extrapolation based on programs not even remotely similar to bryce? In other words it’s your opinion that Intel is the better choice for Bryce but you have no hard evidence to support that opinion.

_ PJF _ - 30 September 2012 03:47 PM

Why not? What results led you to conclude that the FX-8150 is significantly different to the i5-2500K? In the link I gave, the two are shown close with an advantage to the 2500K. Other results in various tests show the two close with the advantage going the other way. Given that the 2500K was older and cheaper than the 8150 when the latter launched, it’s fair to say that it’s always given it a run for its money. The AMD was quickly discounted whereas the Intel remains close to its launch price despite the arrival of its successor.


This should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following PC developments.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-24.html

My conclusion comes from the 4 tests, two where Intel wins, two where it loses. That does not say to me that the Intel is better. At best it says to me they’re equal. Also you’re making alot of your case on the results of the AMD processor when it was first released about a year ago. I could point to past releases of Intel where they failed badly at release but then a few months later improved performance with hotfixes.

_ PJF _ - 30 September 2012 03:47 PM

Not spin - objective facts derived from testing - with links. AMD has occasionally been price / performance competitive at the high end of the desktop market. Now it’s only price / performance competitive at the entry level - where it blows Intel’s i3 out of the water.  This is nothing to do with brand preference - just facts. The A8 is such a good entry CPU for 3D rendering (i.e. floating point calculations) that it outperforms its own replacement - which is based on the integer favouring architecture “Piledriver”, the Bulldozer replacement.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224-11.html

Sorry I’m still seeing spin. Extrapolations based on your estimations aren’t objective facts, they’re subjective opinion with links that seem to support your opinion but really don’t. Then here now you try to further muddy the waters by comparing APU’s to other APU’s that aren’t even released yet. You also completely ignore from your own link this little tidbit “APUs aren’t being positioned as great solutions for workstations”. So why exactly are we now talking about APU’s? APU’s are in their infancy and if you look at computer technology historically things in their infancy quite often don’t do as well as the hype, even with Intel. RDRAM comes to mind. So yeah if you want to play that game of make the company look bad by highlighting it’s mistakes that can go both ways. AMD has always beat Intel price wise and still does, it’s only the performance arena where AMD hasn’t been as competitve as many would like

_ PJF _ - 30 September 2012 03:47 PM

Well, no, you’re not. The original poster specifically asked what would be the very best setup for Bryce and what would be the minimum / efficient. Any useful answer will include those parameters along with some guide as to the price / performance trade off. Advice that a $1000 CPU based system will give you mere fractions of a second advantage over a $200 CPU based system is not useful because it isn’t true.

It’s one thing to extrapolate and make conjecture on what an artical says but please don’t do it with what I said. I didn’t advise the OP to buy what I put up for a configuration, I said that’s what I would buy and that my choices weren’t strictly centered around what would be best for Bryce. I also told him that to answer his question for the very best and the minimum efficient was impossible with the limited info he provided. Further I made the point that CPU preference was very important to being able to answer his questions because if a person is an AMD only person then it would be a waste of time and energy to try to convince them they should go with Intel. Just as it would be a waste of time to try to convince an Intel only person that it would be better for them to go with an AMD. I’m not here to sell particular brands, I don’t get kickbacks from companies if I convince someone to switch to thier brand. So I’m not going to play that game like you’re trying to do and that is why the very first thing I said to the OP was, “Well it kind of depends on a couple of things. First of all are you and Intel only person, and AMD only person or are you open to either option?” Also the comparrison of the AMD CPU to the Intel CPU that I made was just an example of the point that competing model to competing model AMD is significantly cheaper. Let me put that in simpler terms so maybe you can grasp it this time, that was an example of the differences between Intel and AMD not a reccomendation. I had hoped it might draw the OP out into stating his CPU preference so I might be better able to answer his question based on his criteria. I certainly wasn’t looking for some Intel fan to get his panties all twisted up into a knot because I mentioned AMD is cheaper. Nor thru that Intel fan’s response, try to trample over my opinion rather then answer the OP’s question with his own opinion.

Frankly your whole response here has pretty much ignored the OP’s question and focused on attacking my opinion. Presumably because you didn’t like what I said to you in another thread where once again you were arguing minutiae while disrespecting someone else’s opinion, much like you are doing here now. That and clearly you’re biased in favor of Intel.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 October 2012 02:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8381
Joined  2007-11-06

Let’s keep it civil and refrain from personal attacks, please.

 Signature 

PostgreSQL CMS FAQ

Product Updates: Non-Genesis/G2 DIM Zips starting July 2013
Non-Genesis Items with Metadata
Plugin Version Numbers for DS 4.5
Updated Genesis Products

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 October 2012 06:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  134
Joined  2003-10-09

Ah - ad hominem, strawmen and misrepresentation. Progress is clearly being made.

“...your blind devotion to the defense of Intel…”

“...I’m not going to play that game like you’re trying to do…”

“...some Intel fan to get his panties all twisted up into a knot…”

“Nor thru that Intel fan’s response…”

“...clearly you’re biased in favor of Intel.”

Thanks for those giggle-worthy attempted distractions, I really did laugh out loud. Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever in my posts of an irrational emotional attachment to the Intel brand. OK, I’ll admit “[AMD] at the entry level - where it blows Intel’s i3 out of the water” is a bit ambiguous. But hey…


Tomorrow, if I can be bothered, I’ll address the strawmen and misrepresentations. I have to say it’s quite something to be misrepresented for the purpose of being accused of misrepresentation.

And all because… fractions of a second.

:mrgreen:

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 October 2012 02:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2003-10-09
_ PJF _ - 01 October 2012 06:11 PM

Ah - ad hominem, strawmen and misrepresentation. Progress is clearly being made.

“...your blind devotion to the defense of Intel…”

“...I’m not going to play that game like you’re trying to do…”

“...some Intel fan to get his panties all twisted up into a knot…”

“Nor thru that Intel fan’s response…”

“...clearly you’re biased in favor of Intel.”

Thanks for those giggle-worthy attempted distractions, I really did laugh out loud. Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever in my posts of an irrational emotional attachment to the Intel brand. OK, I’ll admit “[AMD] at the entry level - where it blows Intel’s i3 out of the water” is a bit ambiguous. But hey…


Tomorrow, if I can be bothered, I’ll address the strawmen and misrepresentations. I have to say it’s quite something to be misrepresented for the purpose of being accused of misrepresentation.

And all because… fractions of a second.

:mrgreen:

Ah so you’re going to keep trolling the op’s thread just for the purpose of attacking someone’s personal opinion all while continuing to mistake an example for a suggestion. How mature of you.

It’s really quite funny in a pathetic sort of way, I mean the only real justification for your attack on my opinion is that you don’t want the OP to be misinformed. Yet you’ve not responded to the OP or his question. Maybe rather then considering coming back to do additional trolling you should consider actually addressing the question the OP asked?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 October 2012 02:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2003-10-09
fixmypcmike - 01 October 2012 02:30 PM

Let’s keep it civil and refrain from personal attacks, please.

Oh so trolling is okay just so long as one keeps it civil? rolleyes

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 October 2012 02:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15143
Joined  2003-10-09

Actually I think the poor OP has got totally discouraged by all the “discussion” and has abandoned this thread., which is not at all fair, as I am not certain he ever really got the sort of answers he needed.

So a return to topic would be in order.

 Signature 

Chohole’s Space        Neil’Vs Freebies and stuff        E Summer Bryce Rendering Challenge        July Freebie Challenge
My DAZ 3D Gallery    11915

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 October 2012 09:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Active Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  506
Joined  2004-06-12

For the benefit of the OP, all I will say is this:

- I always used to buy Intel and have never had an Intel break down on me.
- My current Black Edition AMD 3.4 Quad is my first AMD after recent disgust with Intel quality.
- Intel often have an edge in speed, but at the cost of other things.
- Intel processors generally run way hotter than AMD.
- AMD build is way better than Intel.
- AMD stock cooler is way better than Intel.

The differences between these two manufacturers become more obvious when you look at the specs and compare it to what you actually get for your money.  I’m no expert and cannot say for sure, but basically I think the deal is that Intel are only getting the speeds because they are prepared to “push” the limits of the design more than AMD are, and that’s why they run hotter than AMD.  This became more obvious to me when (out of curiosity) I was looking into overclocking.  The impression I got from overclockers is that although the Intel’s give you a good out-of-the-box performance, they are incapable of beating the equivalent AMD if you overclock an AMD.

My current opinion is exactly the same to this day: Intel are producing crappy-built slabs and coolers that run at ridiculous temperatures compared to AMD, so it’s a case of do you want a hot-running system or do you want something that is clearly running within more realistic tolerances?

Regards Peter, he is indeed a fan of the Intel machines, but to his credit, he is water-cooled as a result :mrgreen:

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2