Workstation/Gaming Rig in 2013 - Impossible?

[johnbellas]

Fellow hardware enthusiasts~
I am faced with a dilemma that is not just my own, but shared by many others who demand what I've come to believe is a dying breed of machine:

I do professional 3D/VFX.
I also happen to love gaming.
I need a new computer.

I've spent the last 6 months masterminding what I hoped would be the ultimate workstation/gaming rig; basically something that exemplifies pure, uncompromising power.

For pro 3D (Maya, Mental Ray/VRay, ZBrush, Nuke, etc.), this equates to a good video card, and as many CPU cores as possible. On the CPU end, this means dual Xeon's. On the GPU end, it is widely perceived that Quadro's are best for this, however after many years of experience on all varieties of machine, I can say that a good gaming card is perfectly fine, at least for the kind of work I do. This would in turn suffice for gaming just fine.

In summary, the best solution is a system that pairs dual Xeon's with a gaming card or two, preferably GTX's. Simple, right? However, after much R&D, I have come to the conclusion that support for this kind of hybrid machine is dying out, and am afraid to make a shoddy investment.

As recently as a year ago, I could have scored an EVGA SR-X or SR-2, and been able to achieve this. Unfortunately the SR-2 doesn't support the latest Xeon's, the SR-X is no longer in production, and EVGA has no current or future offerings for such configurations. So then there's the Asus Z9PE-D8 WS; another board geared towards the same thing, however after reading several forums and reviews, the thing seems to be an ungodly nightmare when it comes to actually getting any sort of gaming card, or Quadro for that matter, to work with it. Same difference with the KGPE-D16. Again, Asus is silent on the issue, and a ton of people are left screwed. And seeing as how this is an investment for the future, I have no interest in getting a board that has dwindling support.

So it would seem that my dreams of a true powerhouse rig are being crushed, thanks to the wonderful influence of tablet architecture. I can either build a gaming-only machine, or a work-only workstation, but I certainly can't play on my workstation. This sort of market polarization hasn't existed since the 90's. Is this the harsh 21st-century reality I'm living in?

Please, anyone, chime in and confirm or deny this for me with alternate motherboards, because this is all too grim to bear.

 

[Excalabur50]

I think you may be wrong about your assumptions BTW Welcome to the forums, as Tom is about to build a folding machine using 2 Xeon's and twin graphics cards on an Asus board and if my memory serves me correctly they will be 780's so you shouldn't have any trouble building something similar to do what you need it to do. The board he will use is the Z9-PE-D8-WS

 

[NeverBackDown]

I would have advised a 280x in crossfire because of its OpenCL hardware acceleration support( a 7870 beats a Titan in OpenCL) but all these programs specifically say OpenGL, which is Nvidias strongpoint. So in this case a 780 in SLI and at least a 4930k 6 core CPU should be enough? I don't think a dual CPU config will help you that much. Then again i have no idea if these programs support that many cores or threads.

 

[johnbellas]

That's the thing; pro 3d/vfx programs such as Maya/Zbrush do indeed support all those cores/threads, and yes, those programs do tend to favor nVidia, as does the industry; otherwise I'd go for the AMD build. That's why I'm pressing to find a board that will support two Xeons; when money isn't an issue it's hard to reconcile a single 4 or 6-core proc on a workstation when I could have two giving me up to 20 cores that would all be doing work.

Thank you for the welcome Excalibur. I'm very curious about the dual Xeon folding build, as I would trust Tom's word over the other reviews; maybe he'll have some insight into these problems.

In the meantime, if you simply google 'Asus Z9PE-D8 WS', you will find a number of threads and reviews which all illustrate widespread gpu incompatibility, to the point where it appears to be an epidemic which can't be ignored.

 

[NeverBackDown]

You should wait to upgrade and see how tom feels about the board before buying. I would still go with the board he is using because it seems to be the newest dual socket 2011 board out and most likely, will stay that way for a long time since it is such a small market.


The Intel E5-2679 v2 CPU is the fastest one i can find. 12 cores and 24 threads with 30MB of L3 cache and then add another and CPU power will chew everything up for years to come.

Going to need a beefy PSU if you also plan in to throw 780 SLI. To be safe i would go with a 1000+ watt unit. The CPUs combined take up 260 watts at stock and the 780s combined take up about 600watts. Quality PSU will be able to handle it even at peak system load.

 

[alpenwasser]

From what I've read, you're not wrong about the Asus board. I have read from several people
on OCN that it seems to be riddled with quite a few issues, though it's been a while since
I last read about it, so I don't recall the specifics. Also, Tom has mentioned undesired
behavior in his latest subscriber vid.

How about proper professional stuff from Supermicro and Tyan? For example,this subsection of
Supermicro's site might be of interest to you.

It's a good thing you didn't get the SR-X, it's pretty shite board from everything I've read. I know
one guy who likes it for benching, but I've never seen it used in a production machine, and I think
for good reason (hence it being out of production I would wager). I myself have an SR-2, and
while it has some mighty potential, she's a fickle lady to say the least, and it's only due to the
disapointingly slow advances in the CPU market in the past few years that a dual X5680 rig
is still able to keep up pretty well with everything but the most high-end hardware even
though the CPUs are more than three years old technology by now.

I don't really think the divergence between the Desktop/Gaming and the Pro market has
drastically increased in the last few years. There's been distinct professional hardware
and consumer/enthusiast components ever since I can remember. Ever so often there's a
product that blurs the lines a bit (such as the SR-2, but in the end that's a consumer piece
of kit as well TBH, it just utilizes server/workstation CPUs), but in the end I can't recall
the last time the two markets were really properly overlapping.

So I wouldn't say the market for high-end workstations which also happen to be awesome
at gaming is dying, I don't really think that ever existed in the first place (or at least not that
I can recall). And the market for distinct high-end workstations and gaming machines seems
to be doing quite well from what I can tell. At least I doubt those 12-core Xeons would be
pushed to market if there wasn't one, and there's certainly a plethora of high-end gaming
hardware to choose from these days.

Personally I quite like the UNIX philosphy when it comes to building tools: Build a tool that
does one thing, and does it well. But of course, that's expensive when those tools are
high-end PCs, so your frustration is understandable.

I have been able to find one Supermicro dual-2011 board that actually supports 2way-SLI:
The X9DAE. I haven't read much about it and therefore don't know if there are any potential
pitfalls, but it might be worth a look.


EDIT:
To come back to the thread title: I think it's absolutely possible to have a combined
workstation/gaming machine in 2013, the question is how good do you need it to be
at the respective tasks. I consider it unlikely that it will be the absolute uber-beast
in either, but it might be pretty decent nonetheless. Just an estimate though, obviously
I haven't personally tried it.

 

[johnbellas]

Going to need a beefy PSU if you also plan in to throw 780 SLI. To be safe i would go with a 1000+ watt unit. The CPUs combined take up 260 watts at stock and the 780s combined take up about 600watts. Quality PSU will be able to handle it even at peak system load.

Sounds like we're in-sync; I was gonna do two EVGA gtx780 Hyrdo Copper's and an Antec HCP-1300 Platinum.

and it's only due to the disapointingly slow advances in the CPU market in the past few years that a dual X5680 rig is still able to keep up pretty well with everything but the most high-end hardware even though the CPUs are more than three years old technology by now.

My thoughts exactly; the reason my post has undertones of doom for pro/gaming hybrid machines is as you said, cpu's haven't really made a lot of progress speedwise in the past 3 years, and from my seat at a Hollywood production studio, this has been ever-more apparent as we keep a watchful eye on hardware for upgrades. Coincidentally during this same time, tablets & smartphones have become so mainstream you might as well call them appliances, and this has influenced software and hardware manufacturers to take steps toward an uncertain future where no one's quite sure what the desktop PC should be any more.

Of course, folks like us in this forum know exactly what we would like them to be, but our own market represents, by comparison, a minuscule ration of revenue for manufacturers now. That unsettling fact is the reason why cpu speed has stagnated in favor of efficiency, why Apple took 3 years to make a new Mac Pro, why desktop OS's are mimicking tablets, why Valve decided to make a gaming-only linux-based os, and I would speculate, why EVGA and Asus seemed to drop the ball on their Dual-Xeon boards. Not because of some direct freak effect or conspiracy, but a rather indirect sort of trickle-down syndrome where there's not as much perceived demand for niche markets that blur lines, hence, my best and only options in Q4 2013 seem to be Tyan and Supermicro, both straight-up server/workstation companies.

So I wouldn't say the market for high-end workstations which also happen to be awesome at gaming is dying, I don't really think that ever existed in the first place (or at least not that I can recall). And the market for distinct high-end workstations and gaming machines seems to be doing quite well from what I can tell. At least I doubt those 12-core Xeons would be pushed to market if there wasn't one, and there's certainly a plethora of high-end gaming hardware to choose from these days.

I will digress to say that yes, enthusiast gaming hardware is more alive than ever, especially now that the latest console architecture has followed in the PC's footsteps, which combined with Valve's steambox initiative, paints a very bright future in that regard. I am however still afraid that increased segregation of the professional machine will be a side effect, where rather than having my cake & eating it too, I'm forced into a narrower spectrum of gpu's, which I must cite for the sake of the thread, affects not just a niche market but professionals as well-- believe it or not, pro 3D programs like Maya and VRay are starting to become more compatible with GTX's in their realtime rendering views than they are with Quadro's. So although my initial mentionings were of a desire to game on a pro machine, the fact of the matter is that the line is finally starting to blur hardwarewise, and a machine that does both is indeed relevant, a least for 3D professionals.

Personally I quite like the UNIX philosphy when it comes to building tools: Build a tool that does one thing, and does it well. But of course, that's expensive when those tools are high-end PCs, so your frustration is understandable.

Interesting you mention it; my colleagues & I sometimes wonder if the future for 3D/VFX production will migrate over to Linux in spite of tablet-style os's; there is definitely something to be said for the minimalist trends in touchscreen software design, but there's no way in hell our tools could be transferred over to that.

 

[Lazlo]

And the market for distinct high-end workstations and gaming machines seems
to be doing quite well from what I can tell. At least I doubt those 12-core Xeons would be
pushed to market if there wasn't one, and there's certainly a plethora of high-end gaming
hardware to choose from these days.

I generally agree with you, but I would tend to say that the primary market for 12 Core Xeons are Servers. Like in Data Center Servers.

 

[NeverBackDown]

Do you think you could get by with a single 12 core CPU and 2 780s? Or will those extra 12 cores/threads really make all the difference? They have more single socket boards available for xeons hence my suggestion.

 

[johnbellas]

Do you think you could get by with a single 12 core CPU and 2 780s? Or will those extra 12 cores/threads really make all the difference? They have more single socket boards available for xeons hence my suggestion.

You know, I thought about that for a while, since I would have more mainboard options. Yes, the cores would always make a difference, as you're basically doubling your performance with a 2nd proc, however, with a single 12-core 2697v2 running at 2.7ghz average and 3.5 on turbo, you have to start pondering what makes more sense; $2200 for 12 slower cores, or $579 for a 6-core 4930k that could be overclocked to almost 2x the gHz. I know I proclaimed to want uncompromising speed, but I think for something like this, the Xeon's only pull their weight when you have two of them giving you a far lead.

 

[NeverBackDown]

2x the ghz? You realize that means a 6.8ghz overclock? Only way to get to that is through LN2 or Phase change cooling.

12core xeons will be faster than a 4930k if the software actually utilizes the cores/threads properly. Just because you add another physical cpu does not mean you get more performance, all depends on optimization.

I think the xeons can be OC'd slightly but not much, think 3ghz is the most you may get out of it.

 

[johnbellas]

I said ALMOST twice the ghz, assuming the Xeon runs at its base clock of 2.7ghz; people seem to have no problem getting their 4930k between 4.5 & 5ghz. Sure, that comparison immediately diminishes if the Xeon is running in turbo mode at 3.5ghz, but I understand that Turbo Boost is conditional and isn't necessarily active at all times?

How often I'm actually using all the cores is where I have to weigh things. Rendering in Mental Ray and modeling in ZBrush are two things I'd be doing that are made for multi-core, so I know I'd be getting my money's worth there.

 

[NeverBackDown]

In turbo boost any intel CPU means only one core will hit that clock and the others stay at stock. Pretty sure the xeons follow that same rule. Also games won't even benefit at all with 12 cores and low clock speed. Just way to much for it to process for. They are just starting to take advantage of a 4770k and a few threads so 12 cores in that respect is a unneeded-- let alone 24 threads!

 

[Lazlo]

In turbo boost any intel CPU means only one core will hit that clock and the others stay at stock. Pretty sure the xeons follow that same rule. Also games won't even benefit at all with 12 cores and low clock speed. Just way to much for it to process for. They are just starting to take advantage of a 4770k and a few threads so 12 cores in that respect is a unneeded-- let alone 24 threads!

On some boards you can set the boost multipliers manually to whatever you want.
I think with the newer cpus it's not just the one core that profits from the boost. But the second core has a lower boost and so on by default.

Personally I set the boost to x38 on all cores for my 4670K and have not had any problems so far.

 

[NeverBackDown]

On some boards you can set the boost multipliers manually to whatever you want.
I think with the newer cpus it's not just the one core that profits from the boost. But the second core has a lower boost and so on by default.

Personally I set the boost to x38 on all cores for my 4670K and have not had any problems so far.

Ah yes you are correct!

 

[alpenwasser]

My thoughts exactly; the reason my post has undertones of doom for pro/gaming hybrid machines is as you said, cpu's haven't really made a lot of progress speedwise in the past 3 years, and from my seat at a Hollywood production studio, this has been ever-more apparent as we keep a watchful eye on hardware for upgrades. Coincidentally during this same time, tablets & smartphones have become so mainstream you might as well call them appliances, and this has influenced software and hardware manufacturers to take steps toward an uncertain future where no one's quite sure what the desktop PC should be any more.

Agreed. And if we're being honest, the number of people for whom a true desktop machine
still makes sense is diminishing (at least as far as I can tell). Tablets are already pretty
powerful today (meaning sufficient for most office work and internet browsing), so if you
hook up a keyboard, a proper screen and an external source of power you have yourself
a pretty good substitute as long as you don't require high performance. My guess is the
balance will continue to shift in that direction in the coming few years, but yeah, that
really is just a guess.

Of course, folks like us in this forum know exactly what we would like them to be, but our own market represents, by comparison, a minuscule ration of revenue for manufacturers now. That unsettling fact is the reason why cpu speed has stagnated in favor of efficiency, why Apple took 3 years to make a new Mac Pro, why desktop OS's are mimicking tablets, why Valve decided to make a gaming-only linux-based os, and I would speculate, why EVGA and Asus seemed to drop the ball on their Dual-Xeon boards.

One thing about EVGA: Their entire M/B engineering team left some time after the SR-2
came out IIRC. For such a small company I'm pretty sure that's a really significant brain
drain and had to hit them pretty hard. I'd wager that in their case that's part of the reason
why they've brought out so few M/B's in the past few years, and why the ones they did
bring out were less than impressive, to say the least (maybe with the new X79 Dark they're
back on track though, we'll see).

But yeah, in general I'd agree that the enthusiast market is rather small and primarily
relevant for getting good PR for Intel and the other big companies. Wasn't there an Intel
rep (or engineer? not sure anymore) who asked how many people would be interested
in 12 core i7 extreme processors a few months back? Not sure what the response was,
but I'm sure there aren't that many people who would buy something like that, compared
to people who buy 12 core Xeons for their server farms and workstations.

Not because of some direct freak effect or conspiracy, but a rather indirect sort of trickle-down syndrome where there's not as much perceived demand for niche markets that blur lines, hence, my best and only options in Q4 2013 seem to be Tyan and Supermicro, both straight-up server/workstation companies.

Having played around with a Supermicro board in the past few weeks I must say though
that I'm quite liking what I've seen so far of the enterprise market. It just seems more mature
from a technical POV than its desktop counterparts I've had the pleasure with. Not that
mine is at all a representative experience, obviously, but it's just something I've noticed.

I will digress to say that yes, enthusiast gaming hardware is more alive than ever, especially now that the latest console architecture has followed in the PC's footsteps, which combined with Valve's steambox initiative, paints a very bright future in that regard. I am however still afraid that increased segregation of the professional machine will be a side effect, where rather than having my cake & eating it too, I'm forced into a narrower spectrum of gpu's, which I must cite for the sake of the thread, affects not just a niche market but professionals as well-- believe it or not, pro 3D programs like Maya and VRay are starting to become more compatible with GTX's in their realtime rendering views than they are with Quadro's. So although my initial mentionings were of a desire to game on a pro machine, the fact of the matter is that the line is finally starting to blur hardwarewise, and a machine that does both is indeed relevant, a least for 3D professionals.

Hm, interesting to hear about consumer GPU support in professional program suites. I guess
only time will tell.

Interesting you mention it; my colleagues & I sometimes wonder if the future for 3D/VFX production will migrate over to Linux in spite of tablet-style os's; there is definitely something to be said for the minimalist trends in touchscreen software design, but there's no way in hell our tools could be transferred over to that.

Hasn't Pixar been using Linux rendering farms for years? Although I suppose that doesn't
mean that their modeling and animation workstations are also running Linux, don't know
enough about that.

I suppose porting your software would be possible, just really, really expensive. If Linux
does at some point become a major player in desktop-ish applications and not just servers
and computing farms, I would estimate it's going to be a very long process over a 10, 20
years or even more.

I generally agree with you, but I would tend to say that the primary market for 12 Core Xeons are Servers. Like in Data Center Servers.

Hm, you might have a point. But still, considering that server parts (or very close siblings)
have been sold as workstation parts as well for as long as I can remember, I'd say you'll
still be able to count on them being available for building workstations in the coming years.

But yes, volume-wise I think you might be right, the bulk of these CPUs will be put into
servers and computing clusters.

 

[RoboChimp]

I have the Asus Z9 board and run two E5-2650 v1s and the GTX780 works fine, no issues with it, the only performance loss in gaming I've seen is because of the lower clock of Xeons( why I'm saving for higher end ones). Also, some games like Blood Dragon hate the 32 threads so I have to turn off hyperthreading. TF2 works no issues. Zbrush works, Maya works really well, Mental Ray renders like 2.5 times faster than my i7 970. I get pretty reasonable scores on benchmarks. I don't know what the fuss is about. If I'd gone with a 3930K I'd be getting 1.3 times faster renders in Mental Ray. If worse comes to worse why not get a 4960X machine and a Xeon server for rendering?
You could wait it out for Haswell-E Xeons in 2015 or so.

 

[johnbellas]

Finally getting back to this thread after a long delay...

If worse comes to worse why not get a 4960X machine and a Xeon server for rendering?

That's precisely what I wound up doing-- got a 4930k and overclocked it to 4.5ghz. After more consideration, the price to power ratio just doesn't make any practical sense with the Xeon's, despite my initial claim of money not being an issue. Basically I wound up achieving comparable speeds for a quarter of the price, and if I need more power, I can use the leftover cash to grab a few small rendering machines.

I have the Asus Z9 board and run two E5-2650 v1s and the GTX780 works fine, no issues with it, the only performance loss in gaming I've seen is because of the lower clock of Xeons( why I'm saving for higher end ones). Also, some games like Blood Dragon hate the 32 threads so I have to turn off hyperthreading.

All good to know. I think at this point I've seen as many success stories with this board and gtx's as I have failures, so I'm gonna form a conclusion that it's probably fine and the problems people have represent a minority.

One thing about EVGA: Their entire M/B engineering team left some time after the SR-2
came out IIRC.

That's crazy! But not too far fetched either; I think a lot of companies right now must be figuring out how to roll with the changes of the industry.

Hasn't Pixar been using Linux rendering farms for years? Although I suppose that doesn't
mean that their modeling and animation workstations are also running Linux, don't know
enough about that.

I suppose porting your software would be possible, just really, really expensive. If Linux
does at some point become a major player in desktop-ish applications and not just servers
and computing farms, I would estimate it's going to be a very long process over a 10, 20
years or even more.

Yes, they do use Linux for rendering, as do most of the other big studios. Some of them even use Linux on artists' workstations. It's really the best alternative of the 3 major OS's, provided you have the IT team to maintain it and tool writers to write interfaces for the artists.

Now that Valve is pushing Linux for SteamOS, it will be interesting to see if Linux starts to gain ground as an enthusiast/workstation OS, since the two sectors are starting to come together hardware-wise.