Loading...
> >

Recommendations for a rendering PC? (Iray)

2456

Comments

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513

    I also want to point out another advantage of having a decent number of cores is that even if some of the things you run only support a couple cores, you can do other things at the same time with the rest of the CPU and not really take a performance hit. So maybe you have World Machine Standard which is locked to two cores, you can build multiple maps at the same time in the background and still do other things.

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,928
    edited October 2017
    ebergerly said:

    As I've said before, sometimes the best recommendation for some users is to cut down your scenes to a more manageable size rather than spending big bucks on hardware. Smaller scenes are more responsive overall, in loading and previewing and rendering and memory usage. I tend to build my own environments (rooms, buildings, etc.) so that I can limit what's in my scene. But others like to buy pre-made environments that take a bunch of resources, in which case more, better, and faster might be a good idea. It depends. 

    ...for myself, when I have a vision for a scene in my head, that is what I am going to create, I'm not going to pare it down.  I use to paint in "epic" style often on big canvases, I approach 3D CG the same way as this is now my visual art media.  I'm not into portraits or just small vignettes.  If say a city scene needs to be expansive, gritty and cluttered, I make sure it is expansive, gritty and cluttered.  I'm also not saying I don't use some tricks (like for example rescaling buildings, landforms etc, down and adding a bit of haze to make them look further away than they really are, or hiding/not using geometry that will not be seen). 

    This is why I am weighing out going with a CPU based system using dual multi core Xeons vs. a more "conventional" one built around a high VRAM GPU.  Yeah, GPU rending  will always be faster, until you run out of VRAM.  For about the price of a single 16 GB Quadro P5000 I could build a pretty decent dual CPU high memory render system.

    Post edited by kyoto kid on
  • ebergerlyebergerly Posts: 3,255
    agent unawares said:

    I also want to point out another advantage of having a decent number of cores is that even if some of the things you run only support a couple cores, you can do other things at the same time with the rest of the CPU and not really take a performance hit. So maybe you have World Machine Standard which is locked to two cores, you can build multiple maps at the same time in the background and still do other things.

    Just keep in mind the OP can buy a quad core i5 and save something like $200 off the Ryzen 7 1800x in the proposed machine. That may be perfectly find for his needs. Or not. 

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    ebergerly said:

      

    drzap said:
    ebergerly said:

    drzap, I'll let others debate you on that one because it just ain't the case. 

    Anyone who knows anything about 3D work won't debate with me.  It is a fact.  The majority of work done in the industry is done on the cpu.  GPU rendering is a new technology and has limitations.  You are smart not to debate this one.

    Maybe in some cases it's true, but not as a general statement. DAZ Studio's Iray renders with GPU. Blender's Cycles renderer uses GPU. I think the new Eeevee also uses GPU. I'm sure some big studios use big farms of CPU's to render, but this isn't a forum for movie studios. 

    No, it's true. There are programs that still only use CPU and will probably never support GPU (and I'm going to say Terragen again because well, I like it, but also I'm going to say ZBrush). It's just that hobbyists are really grabbing onto GPU rendering. It's a new thing and a great thing, but it is not at all "the" thing where you can assume it's all anyone cares about yet.

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    edited October 2017
    ebergerly said:
    agent unawares said:

    I also want to point out another advantage of having a decent number of cores is that even if some of the things you run only support a couple cores, you can do other things at the same time with the rest of the CPU and not really take a performance hit. So maybe you have World Machine Standard which is locked to two cores, you can build multiple maps at the same time in the background and still do other things.

    Just keep in mind the OP can buy a quad core i5 and save something like $200 off the Ryzen 7 1800x in the proposed machine. That may be perfectly find for his needs. Or not. 

    It might but for roughly the same price I am going to continue to suggest he choose Ryzen which will have several times the number of threads...

    EDIT: I am going to point out I am still suggesting the 1700 over the 1800X as it is, really, truly, the same chip.

    Post edited by agent unawares on
  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 108,351

    Can we please not turn every "what system shouild I get?" thtread into a battle? By all means presetnm alternative views and considerations, but please do so clearly and in a way that avoids personal comments.

  • drzapdrzap Posts: 795
    edited October 2017
    ebergerly said:

      

    drzap said:
    ebergerly said:

    drzap, I'll let others debate you on that one because it just ain't the case. 

    Anyone who knows anything about 3D work won't debate with me.  It is a fact.  The majority of work done in the industry is done on the cpu.  GPU rendering is a new technology and has limitations.  You are smart not to debate this one.

    Maybe in some cases it's true, but not as a general statement. DAZ Studio's Iray renders with GPU. Blender's Cycles renderer uses GPU. I think the new Eeevee also uses GPU. I'm sure some big studios use big farms of CPU's to render, but this isn't a forum for movie studios. 

    I noticed you only used free software as your comparison.  These programs hardly makeup a majority of 3D work.  Your experience is very limited.  iRay is a hybrid renderer.  That means you can use the gpu and cpu similtaneously and benefit from them both.  The biggest market in 3d belongs to  3dsMax, Maya, and C4D.   AutoCAD has the most marketshare but I'll leave that out.   Max and Maya's production renderer is Arnold, a cpu renderer.  I think C4D has a native cpu renderer but I could be wrong.  Even with a gpu render, if the file is too big for the vRam (a very real possiblity), it will drop down to the cpu.  That's not to mention the many FX plugins that are available for these programs. If you are serious about 3d work and don't have a beefy CPU, then you're not really serious about 3D work.

    Post edited by drzap on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,928

    ...Carrara also does not natively support GPU rendering. Not even sure if Luxus for Carrara does as it hasn't been updated for a while.

  • GatorGator Posts: 1,320
    To get back to OP's question the Ryzen should be fine. If my quick look is right, the i5 is like 200-250, I don't think it would be worth skimping on that for the amount saved. The extra cores will be handy in other apps and multitasking. Unless this is a box that will just sit there and strictly be used for rendering with Iray.
  • ebergerlyebergerly Posts: 3,255

    And IF the OP uses Max or Maya or Carrara then maybe it's important to have a CPU with many cores. That's my point. It depends on the OP's usage, not what we think is awesome. Until we hear exactly what apps he will use, we don't really know what to recommend. 

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    kyoto kid said:
    ebergerly said:

    As I've said before, sometimes the best recommendation for some users is to cut down your scenes to a more manageable size rather than spending big bucks on hardware. Smaller scenes are more responsive overall, in loading and previewing and rendering and memory usage. I tend to build my own environments (rooms, buildings, etc.) so that I can limit what's in my scene. But others like to buy pre-made environments that take a bunch of resources, in which case more, better, and faster might be a good idea. It depends. 

    ...for myself, when I have a vision for a scene in my head, that is what I am going to create, I'm not going to pare it down.  I use to paint in "epic" style often on big canvases, I approach 3D CG the same way as this is now my visual art media.  I'm not into portraits or just small vignettes.  If say a city scene needs to be expansive, gritty and cluttered, I make sure it is expansive, gritty and cluttered.  I'm also not saying I don't use some tricks (like for example rescaling buildings, landforms etc, down and adding a bit of haze to make them look further away than they really are, or hiding/not using geometry that will not be seen). 

    This is why I am weighing out going with a CPU based system using dual multi core Xeons vs. a more "conventional" one built around a high VRAM GPU.  Yeah, GPU rending  will always be faster, until you run out of VRAM.  For about the price of a single 16 GB Quadro P5000 I could build a pretty decent dual CPU high memory render system.

    You can always build around CPU but with a way to expand GPU rendering capabilities later. I really think this tends to be the best way to go as replacing entire motherboard and CPU is very much less fun than replacing the video card, and it's easier to sell an old GPU.

  • drzapdrzap Posts: 795
    scott762_948aec318a said:
    To get back to OP's question the Ryzen should be fine. If my quick look is right, the i5 is like 200-250, I don't think it would be worth skimping on that for the amount saved. The extra cores will be handy in other apps and multitasking. Unless this is a box that will just sit there and strictly be used for rendering with Iray.

    I agree.  The i5 and i3 were designed for a general purpose office computer or entry level gaming, not for a 3d user.  Splurge on cpu and gpu.  get a power supply appropriate for you load and the other things are a relatively painless upgrade if need be.

  • drzapdrzap Posts: 795
    Richard Haseltine said:

    Can we please not turn every "what system shouild I get?" thtread into a battle? By all means presetnm alternative views and considerations, but please do so clearly and in a way that avoids personal comments.

    Hey, that's half the fun!

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    drzap said:
    Richard Haseltine said:

    Can we please not turn every "what system shouild I get?" thtread into a battle? By all means presetnm alternative views and considerations, but please do so clearly and in a way that avoids personal comments.

    Hey, that's half the fun!

    No fun and games until someone loses an eye!

  • ebergerlyebergerly Posts: 3,255
    edited October 2017

    To the OP's question about that particular computer, and worries about being scammed...

    Since the company appears to be in Costa Rica, I'm not familiar with them so I'm not sure if they'll give you a good deal. Especially since the price doesn't appear anywhere I can find on their website (my Spanish is non-existent smiley)

    As far as the CPU, it *may* be overkill for your needs, and is basically a Ryzen 7 1700 with a faster clock speed, but costs about $100 more as I recall. It also has 8 cores/16 threads which you may or may not need. You may be better off buying a less powerful CPU and saving a few hundred $$. 

    The GPU is a GTX 1070, and those cards are a bit overpriced lately. You might consider a 1060 or 1080 depending on your budget, or if you are willing to pay $300 more get the 1080ti, which should render in 1/2 the time of the 1070 and allow you to load larger scenes. 

    The 16GB of RAM might be fine for you, it depends on what you're doing with your computer. 

    If you can give some more detail about exactly what you'll use your computer for in the next few years, and your budget, I think we can make some much better recommendations.  

    Post edited by ebergerly on
  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    edited October 2017

    Hellboy is from Costa Rica.

    EDIT: I'm just saying he probably has a preference/better deal getting his PC from the same country.

    Post edited by agent unawares on
  • drzapdrzap Posts: 795

    and no 3d user knows what they will be doing with their computer in the next few years, which is why it is never smart to skimp on the heart of your computer (CPU).

  • ebergerlyebergerly Posts: 3,255
    edited October 2017
    drzap said:

    and no 3d user knows what they will be doing with their computer in the next few years, which is why it is never smart to skimp on the heart of your computer (CPU).

    I tend to agree with that. On the other hand, I realize that some users have a tight budget and want to get the best hardware for their needs within that budget. And sometimes $100 here or there is important. In that case you have to put your thinking cap on and get down to the details beyond "the latest and greatest". And some might go thru hobbies as quickly as I do, and maybe in another year the computer will be gathering dust. It depends.  

    Post edited by ebergerly on
  • drzapdrzap Posts: 795
    ebergerly said:
    drzap said:

    and no 3d user knows what they will be doing with their computer in the next few years, which is why it is never smart to skimp on the heart of your computer (CPU).

    I tend to agree with that. On the other hand, I realize that some users have a tight budget and want to get the best hardware for their needs within that budget. And sometimes $100 here or there is important. In that case you have to put your thinking cap on and get down to the details beyond "the latest and greatest". And some might go thru hobbies as quickly as I do, and maybe in another year the computer will be gathering dust. It depends.  

    I don't think that applies to the original poster.  He is happy with his mac, yet he is buying a dedicated PC for 3D work.  If he is going to this extent, it would be foolish to gimp on the microprocessor.  That just doesn't make sense.

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,928
    edited October 2017
    agent unawares said:
    kyoto kid said:
    ebergerly said:

    As I've said before, sometimes the best recommendation for some users is to cut down your scenes to a more manageable size rather than spending big bucks on hardware. Smaller scenes are more responsive overall, in loading and previewing and rendering and memory usage. I tend to build my own environments (rooms, buildings, etc.) so that I can limit what's in my scene. But others like to buy pre-made environments that take a bunch of resources, in which case more, better, and faster might be a good idea. It depends. 

    ...for myself, when I have a vision for a scene in my head, that is what I am going to create, I'm not going to pare it down.  I use to paint in "epic" style often on big canvases, I approach 3D CG the same way as this is now my visual art media.  I'm not into portraits or just small vignettes.&orosumerGPUsay a city scene needs to be expansive, gritty and cluttered, I make sure it is expansive, gritty and cluttered.  I'm also not saying I don't use some tricks (like for example rescaling buildings, landforms etc, down and adding a bit of haze to make them look further away than they really are, or hiding/not using geometry that will not be seen). 

    This is why I am weighing out going with a CPU based system using dual multi core Xeons vs. a more "conventional" one built around a high VRAM GPU.  Yeah, GPU rending  will always be faster, until you run out of VRAM.  For about the price of a single 16 GB Quadro P5000 I could build a pretty decent dual CPU high memory render system.

    You can always build around CPU but with a way to expand GPU rendering capabilities later. I really think this tends to be the best way to go as replacing entire motherboard and CPU is very much less fun than replacing the video card, and it's easier to sell an old GPU.

    ...exactly. Should Nvidia decide to see AMDs bet and match it with a 16 GB HBM 2 prosumer card of their own down the road (though as I mentioned rather unlikely unless they make major upgrades to their Quadro line so it isn't "eclipsed") then that would be a game changer.
    Post edited by kyoto kid on
  • drzapdrzap Posts: 795
    kyoto kid said:
    agent unawares said:
    kyoto kid said:
    ebergerly said:

    As I've said before, sometimes the best recommendation for some users is to cut down your scenes to a more manageable size rather than spending big bucks on hardware. Smaller scenes are more responsive overall, in loading and previewing and rendering and memory usage. I tend to build my own environments (rooms, buildings, etc.) so that I can limit what's in my scene. But others like to buy pre-made environments that take a bunch of resources, in which case more, better, and faster might be a good idea. It depends. 

    ...for myself, when I have a vision for a scene in my head, that is what I am going to create, I'm not going to pare it down.  I use to paint in "epic" style often on big canvases, I approach 3D CG the same way as this is now my visual art media.  I'm not into portraits or just small vignettes.&orosumerGPUsay a city scene needs to be expansive, gritty and cluttered, I make sure it is expansive, gritty and cluttered.  I'm also not saying I don't use some tricks (like for example rescaling buildings, landforms etc, down and adding a bit of haze to make them look further away than they really are, or hiding/not using geometry that will not be seen). 

    This is why I am weighing out going with a CPU based system using dual multi core Xeons vs. a more "conventional" one built around a high VRAM GPU.  Yeah, GPU rending  will always be faster, until you run out of VRAM.  For about the price of a single 16 GB Quadro P5000 I could build a pretty decent dual CPU high memory render system.

    You can always build around CPU but with a way to expand GPU rendering capabilities later. I really think this tends to be the best way to go as replacing entire motherboard and CPU is very much less fun than replacing the video card, and it's easier to sell an old GPU.

     

    ...exactly. Should Nvidia decide to see AMDs bet and match it with a 16 GB HBM 2 prosumer card of their own down the road (though as I mentioned rather unlikely unless they make major upgrades to their Quadro line so it isn't "eclipsed") then that would be a game changer.

    If I had a choice between a box of cpu cores and a box of gpu cores, I would choose the cpu cores.  Those PCIE slots aren't going anywhere.  You can do work without the gpu.  I think your dual Xeon plan is solid.  When the current gpu's are outdated, you can get one cheaper and plug it in.  I quite agree with agent aware's PC building philosophy.  The thing that is hardest to replace should be the most future-proof.

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,928
    edited October 2017
    ...the other nice part is the design makes use of slightly older generation components so I can stay with W7. I still plan to use a less powetful GPU for driving the dual displays but again I don't have to even go SOTA with that.
    Post edited by kyoto kid on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,928
    ...I'm looking at Broadwell as DDR3 is now legacy and just about every 64 or 128 GB kit is propeietary to specific branded system. There is very little out there for "white box" builds and what there is are primarily single sticks which can cause stability issues as they are not made from the same silicon batch.
  • Kevin SandersonKevin Sanderson Posts: 1,643
    edited October 2017

    Hellboy, the OP, is a PA, and has been around for a few years. I'm sure he'll use it to make some great art.

    Post edited by Kevin Sanderson on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,928
    edited October 2017
    ...I can get two 10 core 2660s for about 1,300$ which gives me 40 threads
    Post edited by kyoto kid on
  • SotoSoto Posts: 1,450
    edited October 2017

    Thank you very, very much for all the info!

    To add more details on my needs:

    My top priority is to render as fast as possible in DAZ Studio with Iray. Imagine having to render a big quantity of images in a deadline. Doing a big series of promo images... not just occasional renders. That`s it.

    On second place, I`d like to be able to handle big 3D projects if needed (modeling, rigging in ZBrush and DAZ Studio). For instance, I did a fiber mesh hair, the hair load fine in the scene, but the weight map brush is not responding due to the heavy poly count.

    On a faaaaar away third place, I`d say gaming, but this is 0 priority. I wouldn`t spend anything extra on that alone.

    My iMac will continue to be my main machine, I just love it and can work fine with it most of the time. This other one would be for the heavy duty tasks described.

    So, while I don`t want to spend more than needed, this is an investment, and not a luxury. I am willing to spend a bit extra IF it is worth it, but without going crazy! This is the premade PC I showed in the original post with changes. I can`t do big changes to the original setup in order to mantein the "combo" price. But here is the quote they gave me, all opinions are welcome. :)

     

    IMG_4643.jpg
    2777 x 1080 - 617K
    Post edited by Soto on
  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513

    That looks great to me. yes

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,928
    edited October 2017
    ...looks great except for the 8 GB system memory. I'd at least go with 16. Keep in mind that Windows and system utilities will take just over 1 GB of systen memory. Also W10 will limit that 1080 Ti to about 9.1 GB as it reserves VRAM for its own purposes. I have 12 GB of physical memory and run into processes dumping to even much slower swap mode.
    Post edited by kyoto kid on
  • SotoSoto Posts: 1,450
    kyoto kid said:
    ...looks great except for the 8 GB system memory. I'd at least go with 16. Keep in mind that Windows and system utilities will take just over 1 GB of systen memory. Also W10 will limit that 1080 Ti to about 9.1 GB as it reserves VRAM for its own purposes.

    Thanks! It’s 32 GB, the 4 on the right is the quantity of  8 GB memories ;)

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,928
    ...ah OK that's much better.
Sign In or Register to comment.