@Kenbro For CPUs, AMD is considered better then Intel right now (Thanks to the Ryzen series having better overall cost vs performance ratio), but when it comes to GPUs (video cards) NVIDIA is still considered the better brand overall (unless you're using Blender).
This thread is great, a lot of really good info on here. I'm after some recommendations for a build and to be honest I'm a bit overwhelmed by the options!
A little bit about me and my needs - I've built several PCs over the years but haven't really paid any attention to the tech for at least the last 5 or so years. My current PC uses an i7 4790K (4.00GHZ), 16GB of 1600 MHz RAM and I've got a GTX 970. This build is around 5 years old and I'm noticing some really severe slowdowns in certain applications. I know I could probably keep it going for another couple of years with some upgrades, but it'd also be really convenient to have 2 PCs for a different workspace so I'm committed to a brand new build.
I work in most of the typical art applications but Zbrush is where I'd really like to see gains. Currently tools which are in total ~50Mil points get very slow to work with, and if the active subtool exceeds 5Mil points it's so sluggish I can barely work. I see artists working into individual pores on a face, my PC is currently just not able to handle this kind of detail!
I figured this was due to insufficient, slow RAM but weirdly most of my issues (at least in the resource monitor) appear to be CPU based. This is a bit awkward because the latest lineup of CPUs don't really beat out my 4790K in single thread speed. Maybe Zbrush has changed but historically I've always been told to go for a fast clock speed and not worry too much about multiple cores? The new AMD's look like great value for money, but I worry I'd actually end up losing speed over my existing 4790K...
Essentially, I'm looking for a build that runs Zbrush as well as possible, with a budget of ~£2000 (although flexible). I know I'm looking for at least 32GB of 3200 RAM, but I'm a little stuck on the CPU specifically. I'd really appreciate any help!
@Grumpus Assuming you go for one of the better Ryzen CPUs, performance should be the same or better in all cases compared to your 4790K. Here's a comparison of it vs the 2700X (which is about to be replaced by the new 3000 generation of Ryzen CPUs):
As you can see, per-thread they're basically on-par with each other, but the 2700X has double the cores/multi-threaded performance. That said, the 4790K is obviously an older CPU atp so what we should actually be comparing to is Intels top of the line 9900K (which costs $500), but AMDs direct competitor to that the 3900X (also $500) wont be out until July 7. Still, from what has been shown the 3900X should be the better buy overall.
So personally, I'd go with something like this given your budget:
$500 CPU: Ryzen 5 3900X
$700 GPU: Geforce RTX 2080 8GB
$300 RAM: 64GB (4x 16GB)
$250 SSD: 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus
$50 HDD: 2TB
$??? MOBO: An X570 motherboard (we'll have to wait until they're out to know which is best)
$100 Tower: Fractal Design Meshify C
$100 Power: Seasonic FOCUS Plus (750W, Gold rated)
Also, you might be able to get somewhat better performance in ZBrush by maxing your your compact memory size if you haven't already (preferences > mem > compact mem).
I work in most of the typical art applications but Zbrush is where I'd really like to see gains. Currently tools which are in total ~50Mil points get very slow to work with, and if the active subtool exceeds 5Mil points it's so sluggish I can barely work. I see artists working into individual pores on a face, my PC is currently just not able to handle this kind of detail!
I figured this was due to insufficient, slow RAM but weirdly most of my issues (at least in the resource monitor) appear to be CPU based. This is a bit awkward because the latest lineup of CPUs don't really beat out my 4790K in single thread speed. Maybe Zbrush has changed but historically I've always been told to go for a fast clock speed and not worry too much about multiple cores?
I'm also still rocking the 4790K and like you said it's hard to find a reason to upgrade if you are looking for single thread top speed.
Zbrush however is an outlier in my experience - I have a slightly slower 6-core Xeon here that noticeably beats my 4790k with the exact same scene files and there's a thread on here somewhere with a Zbrush benchmark that suggests that this is the one application that scales well across cores - probably because unlike the rest of them it does only rely on the CPU to render the viewport.
However, the greatest benefit to performance (and stability with larger scenes) I've found in ZBrush is memory. 64 vs 32 GB make a difference for me here. And sadly that 4790K is on a platform that cannot address more than 32. The only good to reason to upgrade in general - at least from what I can see.
In your case a quick fix might be to get 32 GB though. 5 million per subtool - I have no issue handling that on the 4790k. (in my current scene file on the machine with 64 GB my main subtool consists of 44 millions and it all runs fine, the other box is struggling with it).
So personally, I'd go with something like this given your budget:
$500 CPU: Ryzen 5 3900X
$140 MOBO: ASUS B450-F Gaming ATX
If you're pairing the 12 core with a B450 (or even x470 for that matter) board you'll want to make sure it has an adequate VRM setup.
If you're into tweaking as well you might benefit from tweaking your ram using the ryzen dram calc too. Or at the very least remember to go into your bios and enable XMP profile. And it helps if you start with quality ram too (samsung b-die or micron e-die)
From what I understand the B450 and X470 should be fine with the X3900X, at least AMD has listed them as all being compatible (unlike B350 and X370 which are selectively supported). But yea it'll be better to get an X570 board just to be 100% sure, edited the above post to reflect that.
A little bit of a predicament here. I need a new build within the next two weeks, but Ryzen 3rd Gen is around the corner. Unfortunately, I don't have any existing hardware that I can use as a tempory solution as I'm moving country in two weeks and my current one won't be joining me.
So, this is probably a bit of a ridiculous question, but should I opt for a 9900k or is it worth buying a cheap AM4 based CPU for temporary use until the 3900x is available? I'm currently using a 4770k which comfortably handles my workload, so any AMD equivalent would suffice for the meantime.
@ElectricEchoesThe Ryzen 1600X or 2600 would be a slightly better then your old CPU, and both go for about $150 new these days. If you go that route make sure you get an X400 motherboard since it'll they'll be the most compatible with the new Ryzen 3000 series (X500 would be ideal but wont be out within your timeframe).
The 9900K is a great chip, but keep in mind that it's known to run very hot and under load it uses far more power then Any of the Ryzen CPUs.
(Edited due to mistakes pointed out by m4dcow's post below)
@ElectricEchoes The Ryzen 1600X would be a slightly better then your old CPU, and goes for about $120 new these days. If you go that route make sure you get an X400 or X500 series motherboard so you can be sure it'll work with the new Ryzen 3000 series CPUs when you upgrade.
There is also the issue that 500 series boards won't be available until the 3000 series chips are.
So maybe the option is to get a X470 board and a cheaper CPU could be 1st or 2nd Gen (1XXX or 2XXX series) and then buy a higher end 3000 series when they come out. That is of course if you want to go the AMD route.
Really solid advice, thank you @PolyHertz / @thomasp Looks like the best course of action is to go for the build Polyhertz suggested, but to also upgrade my current PC's ram (I hope to still use it a fair bit but wouldn't be my main workstation).
Looks like the ROG Strix X570-E is maybe the MOBO to go for too, but like you said will have to wait and see!
Hey guys! Looking to add a 32" monitor to my setup. I have one 24" 1920x1200 right now. Probably two 24" monitors setup would be pretty good but I prefer having all the tools/panels for the same program on one screen. I've already seen a 27" 2560x1440 but it doesn't look a great upgrade for me. And one issue was that almost everyone has a scaling of 125%, I've tried 100% scaling and it was way to small. So scaling to 125% kind of cancels the UI space I should gain from upgrading to a 27" monitor. Regarding 24" vs 27" , the later will add around 12 mm vertical physical space and 75 mm horizontaly which is not so much for an upgrade in my opinion.
So I'm curios did anyone use a 31-32" 1440p monitor for 3d work? Does it feel 1440p is enough for a 32" monitor? After seeing a 27" monitor at 100% scaling it looks like 1440p it would be a better fit for a 32" monitor.
Or UHD (4K) would be a better choice? Is sharpness such a big difference between QHD and UHD? I've seen a Phillips VA 4k monitor but I wasn't impressed by the resolution, but the physical size is what I need. I didn't observed color shifting on this VA. I didn't have an opportunity to see a 32" 1440p for comparison.
Also how are VA panels this days? Is color shifting better, at least while working from the normal position? Contrast is a plus for VA's. I have an IPS panel and contrast is not great.
Also I will be sitting at a distance of 75 cm (30") from the screen. The price between 32" 2160p and 32" 1440p is 2 times more (or even x 2.5) I'll be using it for 3d modeling, texturing and rendering. And I'm keeping current monitor, Dell 24" IPS, as a second monitor.
So, I know I want a 32" monitor but not sure if I should spend more money on a UHD panel and if a VA panel would be also good enough for my needs. (I know I could buy it and return it if I don't like it, but I'm waiting for some opinions, and I want to avoid this trouble if possible ).
I'd recommend checking out curved ultra widescreen displays. A single one of these beats a dual screen setup for flexibility. Lack of bezel and gap as well as lack of color and resolution mismatches are a blessing. Also takes up less space overall. Just make sure it's a matte type, I've seen some that look almost reflective and that's a very irritating effect when you move the head.
For reference, I have the LG34UC99 here. That one is only good for a really sturdy desk like mine or on a mount because on shakier ground the default stand wobbles a bit. Geniuses...! No complaints about the picture though.
@thomasp Doesn't bother you being a curved monitor for modeling and texturing? Also is Wacom Intuos tablet working fine on your ultra wide monitor? 34" ultra wide has not enough screen space vertically, it's just a wider 27" monitor. But I've just found 38" ultra wide from Dell and LG which have around 3 cm more vertically and higher resolution. Thank you for your feedback!
@thomasp Doesn't bother you being a curved monitor for modeling and texturing? Also is Wacom Intuos tablet working fine on your ultra wide monitor? 34" ultra wide has not enough screen space vertically, it's just a wider 27" monitor. But I've just found 38" ultra wide from Dell and LG which have around 3 cm more vertically and higher resolution. Thank you for your feedback!
The curved shape has not been an issue at all for me and Wacoms have always been a compromise ever since I moved on from a single regular aspect CRT and a tablet with matching aspect ratio: I have a medium size Intuos connected to this setup and have mapped only a vertically squashed strip of the drawing area.
I use the setup mostly for all things 2D, video and painting/texturing and the aspect mismatch is barely noticeable. Getting a large Intuos and mapping it in this fashion would be an improvement though.
And screen space: I thought you wanted a 1440p screen? Yes it's basically like a 27 inch monitor vertically and comes with extra space horizontally to avoid needing that second monitor. 38 inch sounds even sweeter but I did not have the room for it (3 computers sharing that desk).
Just wanted to add that AMD announced the Ryzen 9 3950x, 16 core processor yesterday during their E3 conference. 749$ Price, releases in mid September this year.
Also, really appreciate this thread as I'm planning to build a new computer this year! It's been very informative.
For 4K, some programs have a GUI that feels crowded on 1080p/1200p monitors (Mari comes to mind), and being able to access features without scrolling as much is nice. 144hz on the other hand is more of a gamer thing.
Mari indeed looked like a dark grey sprawl of palettes and buttons last time I checked but doesn't 4k translate to 1080 actually usable vertical pixels, just 'brute-force' antialised (penalising the GPU) - unless you run at native resolution and either have a huge screen in front of you - or use a magnifying glass?
Honestly I have not yet seen the point of it all and I'd be rather worried of taxing the GPU needlessly when doing our kind of work. 1440p or 1600p look sharp enough to me.
Also what's the effect of 4K when running Zbrush I wonder? 4x as many pixels that have to be rendered by the CPU, that can't be good.
Since you guys are talking about resolutions. I also wanted to ask you for advice. I was thinking about getting a new monitor. I wanted 27" but I heard that 1920x1080 for 27" is too low. Is it true ?
If I can only afford 1920x1080 should I go for 24" ? Thanks
So with monitor size and resolution, distance from the monitor plays a big role. For a normal desktop situation where the monitor is within sitting arm reach, I'd avoid 27" 1080p unless you have poor vision. If you want effectively a larger monitor, put it closer to your face.
Personally I hate working in 3d applications in 1080p after using 1440p for 5+ years. More resolution makes a huge different in apps like Subtance Painter and Unreal Engine 4. But still 2- 1080p monitors is better than 1- 1440p.
I'm trying to build a new workstation for some heavy zbrushing and rendering ( Keyshot and Arnold ), and some Substance Painter. I already have a Threadripper 2970wx( been using Intel for a long time, hope I won't be disappointed ), and a MSI RTX 2070 ARMOR OC 8GB, so I want to build a PC around that.
Since on almost all my previous builds I had some troubles with the CPU cooling, I want to be extra cautious about that, while for the motherboard and power source I want something reliable that will withstand some heavy duty workloads.
hi, Can anyone guide me . AMD 5 3600,RTX 2060 super or AMD 7 3700x,GTX 1660ti Out of these two which one is better for using maya,zbrush,substance painter.(these only fits my budget) Thank you
2060 super is probably going to be the better build overall (especially for texture baking in Substance). 3700x will give better performance in ZBrush and CPU-bound renderers, but I don't think the trade off is worth it.
I've seen some reports from users that the new Ryzen systems may not be all that stable (yet?). Certainly lines up with my Athlon experience from back in the day.
Ryzen looks very promising for sure but I think if you need a dependable system right now then it's probably better to stick with Intel - the performance gap for our kinds of workloads isn't that great anyways and you'd buy something that is properly supported now instead of potentially playing beta tester.
Has anyone tried running R9 3900x in Zbrush? I wanna upgrade my R7 1700 to R9 3900x but I am not sure if it's worth it. 4 more cores and a lot better single core performance (frequency).
Hey, I wanted to upgrade my pc... well I wanted to do a 'soft' upgrade rather than another scratch build that'll cost a bomb. I'm looking to upgrade to a Threadripper 1950x and have a few questions about what I can keep from my old build (only made 1 build so sorry if the questions are obvious ) My current set up was made in early 2016 and is:
I know I'll need to upgrade the obvious MOBO and was thinking the MSI X399 SLI PLUS. But apart from that I'm not sure and wanted to get a little help on these questions:
Would I need to upgrade my PSU to something that can handle the Threadripper 1950x?
Would my Noctua Air coolers be fine for the Threadripper, there seems to be much debate as to which is better for the Threadripper, AIO vs Air, so I'm unsure if I'd need to upgrade my current Air Fans to Water Coolers (not a huge fan of them or the sound!). BTW I'm not overlocking/playing games, just wanted to upgrade to speed up my look dev process.
Finally would I need to upgrade my PC Tower? Are the x399 boards bigger or is it just the CPU slot thats different?
Ryzen 3900x is better than 1950x, it is not worth to buy 1950x anymore. New 3900x has really low TDP (Watt) and has amazing single core and multithreaded score. 3900x has less cores than 1950x but has better scores than it. New CPUs are 7nm and have low TDP and higher frequency because of the +15% IPC.
Hey everyone, so I'll be buying a new laptop soon and I don't know much about computers. So maybe you can help to choose one. The ideal price would be around 1500€.
Was going to treat myself to a new laptop in the next few months. Just wondered if this base setup might be slightly deprecated(pricewise by newer components) in the next 6 months? Cheers.
Intel Core i9-9900K 8-Core NVIDIA RTX 2080 8GB GDDR6 G-SYNC 17.3" 4K WVA 60Hz LED 64GB DDR4 2666MHZ (4 x 16GB) 1TB SATA 3 M.2 SSD 512GB SATA 3 M.2 SSD
@musashidan was unaware they even existed and I live in the damn country : / been searching for a portable option myself, also looks like their prices are all listed in Aussie $$$ as well, so cheers thanks for the link.
EDIT:
Probably a build via either the Alpha X or prime S series may suit, getting the most bang for my buck.
I would go with only RTX cards, I can bake AO maps in 1s with Ray tracing on my RTX 2080, Unity also supports RTX cards etc. AMD isn't great for Game Dev.
I am on a budget (2000 CAD) and was wondering if its better to buy a better processor (3900x - $700 CAD /2070 - $550 CAD) or a better GPU (2080 - $850/Ryzen 3700x - $420 ). I was wondering whether anyone thinks its worth to aim for a 2070 instead of committing to the 2080 since this GPU generation is kind of weak in terms of value and has the same VRAM as the last generation. I use mostly substance painter, with some Zbrush, marmosette, and 3dsmax. and would like to get into 4k textures if this changes anything.
I was also wondering about RAM - the suggested guide just suggests more is better - 32gb+, not what speed we should aim for. Am I correct in assuming we should aim for the max speed possible for the CPU we buy in addition to 'more is better'? Or if I get slower speed, will this have any impact on performance using these programs? Should I be looking to overclock ram?
I was also wondering about RAM - the suggested guide just suggests more is better - 32gb+, not what speed we should aim for. Am I correct in assuming we should aim for the max speed possible for the CPU we buy in addition to 'more is better'? Or if I get slower speed, will this have any impact on performance using these programs? Should I be looking to overclock ram?
Ryzen 3 takes a performance hit on RAM speeds below 3200mhz, and doesn't benefit, sometimes Ryzen 3 regresses on speeds over 3800mhz. Target 3600mhz, 3733mhz and 3800mhz RAM with the lowest CAS you can find. You can always over/under clock and tighten timings, so if you can't find RAM in the desired speeds you can spend some time getting it where you need it to be or closer.
I would go with Intel if you use your PC for work. 8700k should be enough if you aren't rendering, later you can even upgrade to 9900KS (5ghz on all cores) Buy some very cheap ram, intel will work great even with cheap ram. AMD is just too expensive because if you need 32 or 64gb ram you will spend a lot of money to get 3200/3600mhz ones with good timings etc. But If you really need AMD (cheap CPU) you can just buy Ryzen 2600/2700x cheapb450 Tomahawk MAX (for future upgrade to 3900x) New ryzen CPUs are just too problematic at this point in time.
RTX cards are really great for Substnace because they speed up your baking time, you can literally bake AO in 1s.
I would go with Intel if you use your PC for work. 8700k should be enough if you aren't rendering, later you can even upgrade to 9900KS (5ghz on all cores) Buy some very cheap ram, intel will work great even with cheap ram. AMD is just too expensive because if you need 32 or 64gb ram you will spend a lot of money to get 3200/3600mhz ones with good timings etc. But If you really need AMD (cheap CPU) you can just buy Ryzen 2600/2700x cheapb450 Tomahawk MAX (for future upgrade to 3900x) New ryzen CPUs are just too problematic at this point in time.
Everybody who has actually tested the cpu's on the market recommends the exact opposite of what you have said.
Because everyone believes more cores = better active work or better "productivity". Productivity sounds "cool" but it is too broad of a term and people love to overuse it when it comes to CPUs. Productivity doesn't mean more cores = better.
I prefer active work over faster CPU rendering time. Just people should start using their brain instead of checking useless rendering benchmarks. Intel is just way better for active work for example in blender. Not sure why sometimes intel is even faster by 30%, could be low latency or not sure what.
I am only talking about best of the best when it comes to both a single core peformance and a 8 core/16 threads (a sweetspot for most people) CPU - Believe me, many people who bought 12+ core CPU won't use 12cores at all or very rarely. I use zbrush, photoshop, blender etc. and mu CPU usage is around 30-60% at best. Sometimes 70-90%.
If you just want both a good and a cheap CPU go for ryzen of course, ryzen cpus are really great for rendering or multi-theaded tasks/apps.
You are still way off base. When it comes to productivity AMD is now ahead of Intel, yes even in 8 core 16 thread scenarios. There is no point in buying Intel unless the majority of your time on your computer is spent playing games.
As I said, Intel is ahead when it comes to single core performance, do your research. I don't care that at 4ghz AMD is faster, it doesn't mean anything because intel has higher frequency anyway. Do you understand it? One more thing, ryzen is not 4.6Ghz (single core), they lied about this. It is at best 4.4-4.5 (4.5 hard to get anyway)
I have Ryzen 1700 atm and I will be switching to Intel or I will wait for ryzen 4000 (they should have the same single core performance and more cores than intel) because apps I am using prefer single core performance over 12 useless cores. People should really stop watching some stupid "benchmarks" videos where 90% of benchmarks are useless rendering benchmarks. (in case you aren't rendering with your CPU ofc)
If I won't use 12 cores but 8 at best, why on earth should I go with ryzen over Intel when I need the best single core performance? Just explain it to me, I am confused. If you won't use 12 core why should anyone buy this CPU?
If you don't need the best of the best single core performance, Ryzen will be great. The difference between these CPUs is small in most apps but the price is very different. As I said, if you want the best of the best at single core = go for intel. If money is not a problem for you! Ryzen 3900x is still around 30% slower in for example blender in some cases.
Maybe someone can't understand it, if you render with CPU, ryzen is AMAZING. If you use as many cores as you have, ryzen is AMAZING. If you want an "overall" all around CPU, ryzen is king. All I am saying is Intel is still a single core performance king. That's all. Is that so hard to understand? Srsly? Do your research, I am no saying Intel is the best, it is not.
Replies
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X/2384vs3958
As you can see, per-thread they're basically on-par with each other, but the 2700X has double the cores/multi-threaded performance. That said, the 4790K is obviously an older CPU atp so what we should actually be comparing to is Intels top of the line 9900K (which costs $500), but AMDs direct competitor to that the 3900X (also $500) wont be out until July 7. Still, from what has been shown the 3900X should be the better buy overall.
So personally, I'd go with something like this given your budget:
Also, you might be able to get somewhat better performance in ZBrush by maxing your your compact memory size if you haven't already (preferences > mem > compact mem).
So, this is probably a bit of a ridiculous question, but should I opt for a 9900k or is it worth buying a cheap AM4 based CPU for temporary use until the 3900x is available? I'm currently using a 4770k which comfortably handles my workload, so any AMD equivalent would suffice for the meantime.
The 9900K is a great chip, but keep in mind that it's known to run very hot and under load it uses far more power then Any of the Ryzen CPUs.
(Edited due to mistakes pointed out by m4dcow's post below)
https://www.techspot.com/news/80288-amd-x570-chipset-wont-support-first-generation-ryzen.html
There is also the issue that 500 series boards won't be available until the 3000 series chips are.
So maybe the option is to get a X470 board and a cheaper CPU could be 1st or 2nd Gen (1XXX or 2XXX series) and then buy a higher end 3000 series when they come out. That is of course if you want to go the AMD route.
Looks like the best course of action is to go for the build Polyhertz suggested, but to also upgrade my current PC's ram (I hope to still use it a fair bit but wouldn't be my main workstation).
Looks like the ROG Strix X570-E is maybe the MOBO to go for too, but like you said will have to wait and see!
I've already seen a 27" 2560x1440 but it doesn't look a great upgrade for me. And one issue was that almost everyone has a scaling of 125%, I've tried 100% scaling and it was way to small. So scaling to 125% kind of cancels the UI space I should gain from upgrading to a 27" monitor.
Regarding 24" vs 27" , the later will add around 12 mm vertical physical space and 75 mm horizontaly which is not so much for an upgrade in my opinion.
So I'm curios did anyone use a 31-32" 1440p monitor for 3d work? Does it feel 1440p is enough for a 32" monitor? After seeing a 27" monitor at 100% scaling it looks like 1440p it would be a better fit for a 32" monitor.
Or UHD (4K) would be a better choice? Is sharpness such a big difference between QHD and UHD?
I've seen a Phillips VA 4k monitor but I wasn't impressed by the resolution, but the physical size is what I need. I didn't observed color shifting on this VA.
I didn't have an opportunity to see a 32" 1440p for comparison.
Also how are VA panels this days? Is color shifting better, at least while working from the normal position? Contrast is a plus for VA's. I have an IPS panel and contrast is not great.
Also I will be sitting at a distance of 75 cm (30") from the screen.
The price between 32" 2160p and 32" 1440p is 2 times more (or even x 2.5)
I'll be using it for 3d modeling, texturing and rendering. And I'm keeping current monitor, Dell 24" IPS, as a second monitor.
So, I know I want a 32" monitor but not sure if I should spend more money on a UHD panel and if a VA panel would be also good enough for my needs. (I know I could buy it and return it if I don't like it, but I'm waiting for some opinions, and I want to avoid this trouble if possible
I think I'll go with the 2600 and a good X470 board that'll handle the 3900x.
34" ultra wide has not enough screen space vertically, it's just a wider 27" monitor. But I've just found 38" ultra wide from Dell and LG which have around 3 cm more vertically and higher resolution.
Thank you for your feedback!
Also, really appreciate this thread as I'm planning to build a new computer this year! It's been very informative.
Personally I hate working in 3d applications in 1080p after using 1440p for 5+ years. More resolution makes a huge different in apps like Subtance Painter and Unreal Engine 4. But still 2- 1080p monitors is better than 1- 1440p.
Can anyone guide me .
AMD 5 3600,RTX 2060 super
or
AMD 7 3700x,GTX 1660ti
Out of these two which one is better for using maya,zbrush,substance painter.(these only fits my budget)
Thank you
3700x will give better performance in ZBrush and CPU-bound renderers, but I don't think the trade off is worth it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ccmmr3/ryzen_3000_launch_problem_compilation/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cd7pqb/warning_samsung_nvme_ssds_also_subject_to_whea/
Ryzen 5 2600
Asus b450m-a
gskill ripjaws v 16gb(8x2) 3000mhz
gtx 1060 6gb
kingston a400 240gb ssd
Is it good enough for zbrush?
CPU - 6th gen i7 6700k, 4 core, 8 thread
RAM - Kingston HyperX Fury 2133 MHz DDR4 32GB RAM
MOBO - ASRock Fatal1ty Z170 Professional Gaming i7
PSU - Corsair CP-9020072 Platinum Series 750W
CPU Cooling - Noctua NH-U14S with 2 AF-A15 140mm fans (love them)
SSD 1 - Samsung 850 500GB SSD - Running Windows 10
SSD 2 - Samsung 860 1TB SSD
HDD - Seagate Baracuda 4TB
GPU - Geforce GTX 1080
Corsair 780T Graphite Tower
I know I'll need to upgrade the obvious MOBO and was thinking the MSI X399 SLI PLUS. But apart from that I'm not sure and wanted to get a little help on these questions:
Would I need to upgrade my PSU to something that can handle the Threadripper 1950x?
Would my Noctua Air coolers be fine for the Threadripper, there seems to be much debate as to which is better for the Threadripper, AIO vs Air, so I'm unsure if I'd need to upgrade my current Air Fans to Water Coolers (not a huge fan of them or the sound!). BTW I'm not overlocking/playing games, just wanted to upgrade to speed up my look dev process.
Finally would I need to upgrade my PC Tower? Are the x399 boards bigger or is it just the CPU slot thats different?
Many thanks to anyone who can help me out
http://hwbench.com/cpus/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-vs-amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x
You can also wait for Ryzen 3950x that will destroy any TR CPU. It will launch in September this year.
There are rumors that new TR CPUs will also launch later this year.
I would wait and see how it goes. Don't waste your money yet! Please.
So maybe you can help to choose one. The ideal price would be around 1500€.
NVIDIA RTX 2080 8GB GDDR6 G-SYNC
17.3" 4K WVA 60Hz LED
64GB DDR4 2666MHZ (4 x 16GB)
1TB SATA 3 M.2 SSD
512GB SATA 3 M.2 SSD
It's a custom build by an Australian company called Metabox. Prime X series.
https://www.metabox.com.au/store/Prime-X-Range
@musashidan was unaware they even existed and I live in the damn country : / been searching for a portable option myself, also looks like their prices are all listed in Aussie $$$ as well, so cheers thanks for the link.
EDIT:
Probably a build via either the Alpha X or prime S series may suit, getting the most bang for my buck.
1 with a larger case: https://www.topachat.com/pages/configomatic.php?c=swusf%2BS%2FiO0AKMdA7IHC8VHDBjB5cqg3mLeWvWAVqN4%3D#ae51
2 with a smaller case: https://www.ldlc.com/configurateur-pc/#aff764
I was also wondering about RAM - the suggested guide just suggests more is better - 32gb+, not what speed we should aim for. Am I correct in assuming we should aim for the max speed possible for the CPU we buy in addition to 'more is better'? Or if I get slower speed, will this have any impact on performance using these programs? Should I be looking to overclock ram?
RTX cards are really great for Substnace because they speed up your baking time, you can literally bake AO in 1s.
I prefer active work over faster CPU rendering time. Just people should start using their brain instead of checking useless rendering benchmarks. Intel is just way better for active work for example in blender. Not sure why sometimes intel is even faster by 30%, could be low latency or not sure what.
I am only talking about best of the best when it comes to both a single core peformance and a 8 core/16 threads (a sweetspot for most people) CPU - Believe me, many people who bought 12+ core CPU won't use 12cores at all or very rarely. I use zbrush, photoshop, blender etc. and mu CPU usage is around 30-60% at best. Sometimes 70-90%.
If you just want both a good and a cheap CPU go for ryzen of course, ryzen cpus are really great for rendering or multi-theaded tasks/apps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmxkpTtwx1k
I have Ryzen 1700 atm and I will be switching to Intel or I will wait for ryzen 4000 (they should have the same single core performance and more cores than intel) because apps I am using prefer single core performance over 12 useless cores. People should really stop watching some stupid "benchmarks" videos where 90% of benchmarks are useless rendering benchmarks. (in case you aren't rendering with your CPU ofc)
If I won't use 12 cores but 8 at best, why on earth should I go with ryzen over Intel when I need the best single core performance? Just explain it to me, I am confused. If you won't use 12 core why should anyone buy this CPU?
If you don't need the best of the best single core performance, Ryzen will be great. The difference between these CPUs is small in most apps but the price is very different. As I said, if you want the best of the best at single core = go for intel. If money is not a problem for you! Ryzen 3900x is still around 30% slower in for example blender in some cases.
Maybe someone can't understand it, if you render with CPU, ryzen is AMAZING. If you use as many cores as you have, ryzen is AMAZING. If you want an "overall" all around CPU, ryzen is king. All I am saying is Intel is still a single core performance king. That's all. Is that so hard to understand? Srsly? Do your research, I am no saying Intel is the best, it is not.