November Workstations

Lots that's new this month. Since the last workstations update, I've written about laptops, updated the explanation of workstation methodology and discussed my issues with GPU rendering technology.

If you're not familiar with my workstation recommendations, please read my updated explanation of methodology and explanation of computer parts. Even if you buy from a vendor like Dell, HP or Boxx, knowing about these issues will help you make an informed decision.

ATI's New GPUs

In the last couple of weeks, ATI began the Radeon 6000 series rollout with the Radeon HD 6850 and Radeon HD 6870. These cards are fantastic, but a bit misunderstood. The problem is, ATI's making some minor modifications to its naming scheme, so while you'd expect the 6850 to replace the 5850 and the 6870 to replace the 5870, the new cards are actually slower than the old ones with the similar names. The 6850 is actually an alternative to the 5830, and the 6870 should be considered a replacement for the 5850. What the new cards give you over their older (actual) counterparts is lower price, lower power consumption and heat production due to a simplified architecture, and a more efficient altialiaser. If you want a reasonable consumer level card for a budget system or for gaming, these cards rate a very strong buy.

The side effect of all this is that many other models have come down in price, notably the Geforce GTX 460 and GTX 470.

The Workstations

I'm going to try to write a bit less this time, since a lot of the usual spiel is in the update explanation of methodology.


Non-3D Workstations

The Intern
click here to view/purchase the parts list on Newegg

With a three-core AMD CPU, 4GB of RAM, a Radeon card with DirectX 11 and 1GB, and 64-bit Windows 7, this build will fit the needs of both your intern, your bookkeeper and your senior partner who doesn't use CAD. You can build something cheaper, but I don't recommend it.

The Photoshopper
click here to view/purchase the parts list on Newegg

This is a quiet, power efficient box that meets the needs of photographers, graphic designers and marketing staff.

The two RE3 (Raid Edition) hard drives have improved life expectancy over normal hard drives, necessary for reliable use in a RAID 0, which is the goal here. Use RAID to improve read/write speed on those large PSD files. Even with the RE3 drive, I would be remiss not to say that you really do need an external backup system. In an office environment, this can be as simple as a nightly backup of project files to the server.

Note the use of an i5 instead of an i7. Why? The i5-680 is a dual core with most of the same architecture as the i7, and a base clock of 3.6GHz that goes over 3.8GHz with Turbo Boost! How else are you going to get that without overclocking? (If you do overclock, by all means go to the i7-875k, upgrade the memory to DDR3-2000 and go nuts.) Don't worry, there's no shame in the i5 - I own two myself - and two cores is all you need for this sort of work. Creative Suite apps don't make efficient use of many cores or of Hyperthreading.

Whatever else you do, an X-Rite Eye-One Display 2 is indispensable, and a Wacom Intuos4 Tablet is a very good idea. Consider an IPS display from the Displays section below.


3D Workstations

The Budget
click here to view/purchase the parts list on Newegg

An interesting thing happened this month. The price on the AMD 1090T CPU went through the floor. I can't explain why this happened, but as of this writing Newegg is selling for less than the 1075T, which is slower. In these situations, I ask myself, what would Jeremy Clarkson do? At $230 you can't not use this CPU in this class of machine. So, for the time being anyway, the Budget gets the same CPU as the Midrange.

Choice of video card is more difficult. The Radeon 5750, Radeon 5770 and Geforce 450 are all viable options, and pretty close in price. I've gone with the Radeon 5770 this month because it's a bit quicker than than the others, though the Geforce is a bit cheaper and uses a bit less power, so you could really go either way and not be making a bad decision.

The Midrange (Regular Edition)
click here to view/purchase the parts list on Newegg

The Midrange features AMD's higher end 3.2GHz six-core CPU. (If you're an overclocker, this CPU has its multiplier unlocked, but you'll want faster RAM to take advantage of it.) The motherboard is a solid Asus choice, using AMD's best chipset, that can take two video cards at full speed as well as the latest peripherals (USB 3.0 and SATA3 6.0GB/s).

Since the regular edition of the Midrange doesn't need CUDA, the video card is a no brainer. For this money, for a video card to drive your 3D viewports and AutoCAD or Revit without doubling as a space heater for your office, the v5800 is the best thing. By not caring about CUDA, you get a lot of advantages in the viewport department. Serious Cinema4D users should also opt for this configuration, as the only way to make Cinebench run significantly faster is to step up to the much more expensive FirePro v8800.

There's a new hard drive in here, a Seagate "hybrid" drive which adds 4GB of flash memory storage to a normal 500GB hard drive. This will give you an improvement in booting and accessing your most used software. I didn't want to blow the budget here, but for speed, one thing you can do is substitute the hard drives used in the Photoshop workstation and make them a RAID 0, or replace the Seagate drive with one of the SSDs used in the Maxer or High End systems. The WD Green drive adds substantial storage with modest power, noise and heat numbers, and hard drives with conservative specs are generally more reliable than ones that run faster and hotter.

The High-End (Regular Edition)
click here to view/purchase the parts list on Newegg

Normally I recommend the FirePro v7800 in this class. Unfortunately that's out of stock for a while at Newegg, so this month I've included the Quadro 4000, which is more expensive and faster at some tasks - but you wouldn't be making a mistake if you got a v7800 from another source.

CPUs are a bit more constrained at this level. There's no real alternative to a 6-core i7, and there are only two of those. I'm sticking with the i7-980X for its speed advantage over the 970, which makes it a slightly better value in terms of rendering speed per overall system price, and the overclocking advantage of its unlocked multiplier, for those who are into that kind of thing.

Install your OS and software on the SSD and use the 1TB drive for your working files. For a bit more speed, order two of the 1TB drives and put them in a RAID 0. (Remember, RE drives are "RAID Edition" for a reason.)

The Maxer
click here to view/purchase the parts list on Newegg

Coming in just shy of the $8,000 target, this beast features dual 3.33GHz six-core CPUs, allowing it to render twice as quickly as the High End system. The chassis and motherboard are designed to go together, and for use with X5600 series CPUs.

As for video cards, this was a tough one. I'm sticking with the FirePro v8800 mainly because I don't see a compelling reason to switch and it's a better value than the Quadro 5000, but a FirePro v7800 2GB, Quadro 4000 2GB or Quadro 5000 2.5GB would be valid choices, depending on needs.

Oh, one more thing. These Xeons use triple-channel memory and each CPU has its own memory controller. When using two of these CPUs, there are six memory channels, so the RAM used must be matched DIMMs in multiples of six. This configuration uses a set of 12 DIMMs.

If this box can't handle your scene, you're doing something wrong. Estimated Cinebench rendering score: 17.


3D Workstations for CUDA Users

The Midrange (CUDA Rendering Edition)
click here to view/purchase the parts list on Newegg

In many respects this machine is similar to the regular Midrange. In fact, if you're not using Vray RT-GPU, iray or another CUDA rendering packae, this build is worse than the one above because the FirePro video card is better for driving viewports in 3D apps. But with this version, what you get is:

-A motherboard that supports up to three video cards
-Dual Geforce GTX 460 cards with 2GB RAM onboard
-More power!

The 2GB GTX 460 is a great option for running software like this. It's the most memory you can put on a card that's not a Quadro, at only $260 each. A single Quadro 4000 card would cost $780 and while it would likely outperform this configuration in viewport performance, it would not run a CUDA renderer nearly as well.

If you want even more power, two GTX 470 or GTX 480 cards can be used with this configuration; however, a 1000 watt power supply would be highly recommended. Three GTX 480 cards, the configuration Chaosgroup used in their demo? The cost/benefit is against you, but you can do it; a 1200 watt power supply is needed. The drawback is neither the 470 nor the 480 are available with 2GB.

The High-End (CUDA Rendering Edition)
click here to view/purchase the parts list on Newegg

Similar to Midrange version for CUDA rendering, this config is worse than the regular High-End if you don't use a CUDA rendering solution.

I seriously considered including four GTX 460 cards in this system, but in the end the principle that it's best to put the same amount of power in fewer CPUs translates well to GPUs and two GTX 480's 580's wins out. Still, with this MB you can do it, and part of the reason I've included such a high end MB is future-proofing; you can add a third GTX 480 580 card, or a fourth (you might need a second power supply, which is a tricky thing to do) or at some later date upgrade to multiple cards of some hypothetical future type. A 1500 watt power supply and a motherboard that can fit four video cards ensure that your GPU selection will not be held back.

[Edit: The next update will be mid-month, but now that the market for GTX 580's has simmered down slightly I've included them instead of the 480's.]


Render Nodes

The Render Node
click here to view/purchase the parts list on Newegg

If you run the numbers, you'll find that with current pricing it's possible to make a render node based on either an i7-980X or dual 12-core Opteron 6172's with reasonably similar amounts of rendering power per dollar. The Opteron box will cost a bit more than 50% more and render a bit less than 50% faster. If you want one render node, buy the one that fits your budget, but looking at the hypothetical comparison between two Opteron boxes and three i7 boxes, the two box solution has obvious advantages in saving space and electricity that will likely outweigh the three box solution's minor price/performance advantage.

I've provided the parts list for the Opteron solution. To build the i7 solution choose the High End but substitute the Opteron build's cheap video card, hard drive and peripherals, and the case and power supply from the Midrange system - with a single hard drive and low end video card, that case and power supply is enough to support the high end CPU.

But don't buy more than a couple of these. They quickly start to take up too much space and require too much maintenance. To add many nodes' worth of rendering power, you want a render farm. A farm is a collection of machines meant for rendering with, it's a must for complex animations and it should be done as a unit, based on racks, blades or other compact solutions and made for you by a company like Boxx. Get this if you want to add one or two render boxes, making individual nodes more practical than a farm.


Displays

A while back, one of my friends sent me a link to this article debunking pretty much every metric and slogan used in HDTV marketing. The market for LCD monitors is no less confusing, so concentrate on three things:

-Screen size.

-Resolution. This is not the problem it is in laptops, but what would you rather have - a 22" screen that's 1680x1050, or a 21.5" screen that's 1920x1080?

-IPS/PVA or TN. What you want here is an IPS or PVA panel, not a TN panel. Inexpensive monitors are TN panels, which have much worse color gamuts and viewing angles than better screens. A consumer LCD monitor likely isn't even processing and displaying color in 8 bits per channel, and if you move your desk chair 6 inches to the side the levels change.

So, here are a few options, all good quality IPS displays usable for professional graphics work:

-Eizo 24" CG243W. Let's get this out of the way first. This is a very expensive monitor with freakin' fantastic color quality. This monitor is appropriate for use in high end video, photography and publishing production environments. It is not necessary for most visualization are graphics work, but if you want the best that's available to you without costing more than your car, this is it. Pairs well with The Maxer.

-HP 22" ZR22W. This takes the spot that the Dell 2209WA used to occupy in my recommendations: a budget friendly model that beats a TN display and pairs well with the Intern and Budget systems. However, the newer HP model is a better panel, has a higher resolution and costs less. It's a winner at the lower end.

-HP 24" ZR24W and HP 30" ZR30W. As the names suggest, these are larger models from the same line as the ZR22W. All are great value options and significant steps up from consumer grade displays. You can size you ZR to your budget.

-In 27", I've previously recommended the Dell 27" U2711, but that's become hard to find. An excellent alternative is the NEC PA271w. With improved color reproduction and a resolution usually found in 30" displays, this Dell is a step up from the entry level IPS displays but more reasonable than the Eizo. Best with the High End or the Maxer.

-NEC 30" 3090WQXi. NEC's answer to the 30" Apple monitor. H-IPS panel for high end color and good viewing angles. A step up from the 30" HP, and a step up in price.

As usual, whatever you choose, calibrate it! We're not talking about one of those software functions where you look at the gray square and try to make it the same value as the lines, we're talking about a dedicated hardware calibration device. I use the Eye-One Display 2, but some users prefer the Color Munki, which can also be used with printers and projectors. I can't stress the importance of this enough - without calibration, you'll never be able to match your prints to your screen, whether you're using your system for 3D rendering, graphic design or photography.

GPU Rendering. Again.

The Month of Not-the-GPU

If GPU rendering has you confused, don't worry. You're not alone, and anyway, it's just not important yet. This is all getting talked a bit to death and I've probably written more about it on CGArchitect than about any other subject.

Here's how it stands. There are two categories of GPU rendering implementations right now, both somewhat useful but neither a complete solution to most architectural renderers' needs. These are brute force raytracing and game engine type interactive output.

Executive Summary

Don't make plans to give up on traditional rendering. As it stands, the usefulness of GPU solutions is quite limited.

Brute Force

First, brute force. This includes Vray RT-GPU, iray, Octane, Arion and probably others. Here's what I wrote in a recent CGArchitect thread on the subject:

Here's the problem with relying on the GPU to do "unbiased" (as if a little bias is such a bad thing, whatever those [PR people] were saying on that hype video about [that new CUDA render project] that we all saw, and no complaining, you know it's true) rendering. You compare a CPU and a GPU, architecturally, the CPU handles fewer simultaneous operations which can be quite complex, while the GPU handles many simultaneous operations that are not at all complex. Factors working against the GPU are lack of complexity, and the limitations of the concept of many in computation. GPUs have more transistors than CPUs, but only by a factor of two or three. A lot of those GPU transistors are going toward managing all the protocol for that absurd number of simultaneous operations. So the number of transistors that can be actively used for doing tasks isn't very different.

What this all adds up to is that the assertion that a Geforce card has far more computing power than an i7 is absurd on its face. What it has is much more very specialized capacity for doing a pretty small number of things.

Which is why it can, by hook (just monte carlo brute force it, you've got freakin' 800 threads) or by crook (just put the damnable model through DirectX already like we should have been doing years ago) either very quickly produce an image that you can't really use in a high end presentation, or very slowly produce one that you can. Which you've been able to do for years.

So don't put all your eggs in the GPU basket. Somebody's going to have to make some kind of breakthrough before they'll be useful for the same tasks as CPUs, and there is no way to tell when or if that will happen.

What I mean by all of this is that brute force GPU rendering has limitations that keep it from being as good as we'd hope for production rendering work. In practice, a skilled user of Vray, mental, Final Render, Cinema4d, etc., will make a better result that renders faster than a user of a brute force GPU renderer. If you've been hoping for a killer app, this is not it.

Brad Peebler from Luxology made a good video on this a few months back.

Game Engines

Direct3D, part of Microsoft's DirectX software, is a powerful 3D output engine built into Windows and modern video cards. There is a new generation of software emerging that brings in your models and puts them into a system based on the type of interactive 3D environment, using Direct3D, that most popular Windows video games use. This has the advantage that it uses the GPU for exactly the purpose for which it was designed, and actually requires no rendering at all. All 3D output is generated on the fly, allowing walkthroughs to be fully interactive.

This type of software includes Twinmotion 2 and Lumion. It runs on any good video card supporting DirectX. Current implementations will run on DirectX 10.1 hardware, but DirectX 11 hardware is better - a good new series Quadro, Geforce 4xx series, Radeon 5000 or 6000 series or current generation FirePro will be equally useful.

Unfortunately, there are a few downsides here as well. First, your clients will want to run the walkthrough on their own computers, which might not be sufficient, and you'll be forced to explain technical issues. Second, you don't get the full GI lighting and advanced rendering effects you're used to using. Third, interactive walkthroughs aren't run through Photoshop or video editing/compositing packages. No post - you need direct output that is presentation worthy. And fourth, the software is not well matured - Lumion is not in release as of this writing, and Twinmotion users are complaining of bugs, though this should all clear up in the near future.

Workstations Explanation (Updated)

I realize it's been a while since I wrote the original article on workstation methodology, and a lot has changed since then. Here it is again, reflecting the changes and new additions.

Many Options

A typical workstation configuration article contains several options, which can get a bit confusing, so what you want to consider are your budget and your needs. If you're buying for a firm, go over your staff and their tasks to determine the most computationally demanding tasks each team member works on. A typical firm will want a mix of these configurations - perhaps your bookkeeper, assistants and interns will have Intern systems, your marketer will need a Photoshopper, anybody doing mostly CAD will get a Budget while 3D and BIM users get a Midrange box and your heaviest 3D users and animators will need a High End or Maxer. A Render Node or two can be added if needed, but if you really want to farm animations, try Boxx or outsource.

Here are some of the system types that are typically included


For Light Use:

The Intern: This is the low-end system an architecture firm can buy for an employee who is not expected to do 3D work or work in Revit or with very large Photoshop files. It's great for CAD, Microsoft Office and light SketchUp work but should not be used for running a complex BIM package or 3DSMax. The price point will be as low as possible without resorting to sub-standard parts.


For Marketing, Photography and Other Adobe Type Use:

The Photoshopper: This is the system for users with heavy graphics needs that don't involve 3D and BIM. Adobe type use doesn't rely rendering or 3D display, it requires running operations with one or two threads on very large files. The Photoshopper is optimized for that type of work.


For BIM and 3D Use:

The Budget: This will be the least expensive system using commonly available parts that can handle the common tasks in architectural visualization work, including modeling and rendering, and work with substantial, multi layered Photoshop files and large desktop publishing documents. Price should come in around $1000.

The Midrange: This is the system that most professionals working full time in 3D modeling, Photoshop, CAD and BIM should consider. It should be powerful enough for all common 3D modeling tasks, for rendering still images and for running sequences of stills or basic animations overnight. Price should come in under $2000.

The High End: For users with larger budgets requiring the most power (within reason), this configuration will use high-end parts such as dual CPUs, workstation class video cards and solid-state disks. It should be up to the most demanding complex modeling and animation tasks, and because it has dual CPUs should render approximately twice as quickly as the midrange system. The price point can float, but expect it to be above $3000.

The Maxer: Several months ago I brought down the cost of the high end system by making it single CPU. Using the new (at the time) 6-core i7 made it cheaper and faster - but some CGArchitect readers were actually disappointed. It seems I'd been underestimating the market for $8,000 workstations. So this is the configuration for that class of high-end, one might say "Texas-size," user. This is why there's more than one reason it's called The Maxer. No, it's not the most expensive thing you can buy - I'm not trying to get you to throw your money away on needlessly expensive parts like SLI'ed Quadro cards. At the high end of the price/performance curve you double the price to add 1% to the performance; this system falls that 1% short of the top.


For Rendering Only:

The Render Node: This is for when you want an extra box or two to farm your renders to. Don't try to make a proper "farm" out of these - they take up too much space - for that, try Boxx or outsource.And don't try to make a workstation out of this sort of hardware, it's not good enough at single threaded operations to justify its use in anything but a render node or a server (and architecture firms don't usually need this sort of processing in a server).

A number of render nodes can be put together to make a render farm. I'll provide some information on how to do so, and to give you a baseline for comparison, but when you get to this level of complexity it often turns out that you're better off buying from a specialty company like Boxx. (See the link on the right, and tell them we sent you.)