1100-1300 budget for 3d animation

swissperc

Honorable
Sep 19, 2013
5
0
10,510
0
I'm currently a 3d animation student so having a setup at home that I can use is a lot better than only having the school's lab to do work on.As of right now I'm on a laptop and maya gives me the fatal save error every time I open it. This laptop doesn't have the greatest anything and its a few years old now. So this has lead me to the following conclusion.

I need a desktop to run programs like Maya, 3Ds Max, etc.

I hope to buy it by the end of December.

I was planning on using my HD tv as a monitor for a few weeks after buying the desktop until I can recover from the cost of the pc lol, Although if ya'll don't think that will work let me know please.Also I've looked at some monitors but I'd welcome any advice ya'll have on the subject.(my budget for that is going to be around 300$)

I don't need an OS.

As for where I plan on buying from, I had hoped someone could recommend a few good sites to buy individual parts from.I plan on building my own this time and my friend who has some experience with computer stuff said he would help me put it all together.Traditionally I've just purchased computers from websites like Alienware.com and Dell.com. So I don't really know where to get individual stuff except like TigerDirect.com lol.

I'm also a gamer so ideally I want this rig to be able to play games as well.(this is not nearly as important though)

I appreciate all the advice and help you all can provide!
 

jakerocksit

Honorable
Aug 30, 2013
8
0
10,510
0
pcpartpicker.com

They will hook you up. You can go there and build a custom rig within the site.
Now what all DO you need? And on a $300 budget for the whole desktop, and you want 3D animation capabilities? Idk bout that.
 

swissperc

Honorable
Sep 19, 2013
5
0
10,510
0


The budget for the computer should be around 1100-1300 as stated in title. The three hundred will be for my monitor but I don't intend on buying that until after. I had asked for advice and recommendations on all parts and all monitor choices.
 

bambiboom

Dignified
Apr 7, 2012
2,462
0
13,960
606
swissperc,

While 3D animation needs a good specification in every subsystem, you can have quite a good workstation for 3D modeling and animation for the budget.

I had a situation where I was running renderings on my main system (Dell Precision T5400) and set up a 2004 Pentium 4 with a Quadro FX 570 (256MB) on a bedroom 32" 1080p LCD and surprisingly, the results were not too bad. The further away I sat the better! The TV had a DVI port and I could run the sound from the soundcard (M-Audio 2496) to audio in in the TV.

The following system idea is based on a quad core Xeon E3, ECC, error correcting RAM RAID capable server /workstation Intel C216 motherboard supporting 32GB, dual LAN, USB 3.0, 6GB/s drives, and mounted in a case that can accommodate three 5.25" drives and six 3.5" drives. The E3-1230 was chosen as it is has a healthy clock speed (3.3 / 3.7GHz), is hyperthreading (the 1220 is not), as a V2 (Ivy Bridge) as it is 69W instead of the Haswell (V3) 80W, but mostly because there are at the moment more server / workstation motherboard choices using LGA 1155 than 1150.

All the parts prices quoted are from Newegg, but Amazon sometimes has better prices and is worth checking as are Tiger Direct and Superbiiz

BambiBoom PixelSnaffler Cadamodanimagrapharific iWork WalletJoyScream XV £®$©™?$_9.21.13

1. CPU > Intel Xeon E3-1230 V2 Ivy Bridge 3.3GHz (3.7GHz Turbo) 4 x 256KB L2 Cache 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1155, 69W Quad-Core Server Processor BX80637E31230V2 > $235 (On Passmark CPU benchmarks, this CPU is rated as No. 50, scoring 8880 )

2. Motherboard > ASRock C216 WS ATX Server Motherboard LGA 1155 Intel C216 > $183

3. Memory > 16GB Kingston (2X 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 ECC Unbuffered Server Memory w/TS Model KVR16E11/8 > $154 ($77 each) (Using 2 X 8GB allows expansion to the full 32GB)

4. Graphics Card > PNY NVIDIA Quadro K2000 2GB GDDR5 DVI/2DisplayPorts PCI-Express Video Card > $420

5. Storage > Western Digital WD Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive> $90

6. Case > Antec Three Hundred Two Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case $70 ( 3 external 5.25", 6 internal 3.5", USB 3.0)

7. Power Supply > SeaSonic S12II 620 Bronze 620W ATX12V V2.3 / EPS 12V V2.91 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Active PFC Power Supply > $65 (This power supply is somewhat oversized to accommodate a future 150W graphics card)

8. DVD burner > ASUS DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Black SATA 24X DVD Burner - Bulk - OEM > $20

___________________________________________________________
Total= $1,237

The Quadro K2000 seems a bit disporprtionately expensive for the system, but given your applications use of CUDA, viewports, and the special Quadros drivers, the K2000 will be very useful, high performance, and stable.

Cheers,

BambiBoom
 

nharmon220

Honorable
Sep 20, 2013
7
0
10,520
1
Hey bambiboom,

I've been browsing the forums for just about all day yesterday looking for a setup similar to what swissperc was asking about. I use maya, photoshop, mudbox, etc. types of software and would need a good setup for this. I was curious, since I've seen you reply to a good number of the similar setup questions involving rendering, as to your take on this setup:

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1Ah3U

It was proposed by g-unit1111 for a 1500 budget and under. More specifically, is a quadro really better than a Firepro? I can't seem to tell considering the differing user comments among the forums here against the general research provided by googling the product and what tech sites say.
In the above build, is there anything that can be swapped to make it more in the 1300 range? I wouldn't mind the extra increase though if the parts justify it.
 

bambiboom

Dignified
Apr 7, 2012
2,462
0
13,960
606
nharmon220,

In my view, this type of workstation is really difficult for under about $2,200 because 3D animation and rendering are among the mos demanding applications and twenty years of CAD and graphics work has made me such a firm believer in the Xeon > ECC . Quadro system. This is closely related to the application I use and of course will be different for your uses. About two years ago, after more than ten years with Quadros, I was tempted into a GTX 285- same 512-bit GPU and close cousin of the Quadro KX 5800. and it was a disaster- renderings crashed after 25 minutes, artifacts, bizarre shadows, viewports didn't work in Solidworks and so on. This situation is shifting gradually- Maya is an Autodesk application that does very well on Firepro, so you would need to analyze your applications proportionally to decide on the optimal card.

Although it's changing somewhat (Maya is more and more OpenGL-oriented for example), Autoesk, Adobe, and especially Dessault (Solidworks and Catia) are both quite firmly on the CUDA optimized list and there are some applications from those companies that will work poorly on Firepros and as was my experience next to useless on GeForce. You might like to look at a recent article this site that compared 14 workstations cards >

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493.html

> very instructive on this subject. You may note that Maya is one application that does run well on Firepros, and very poorly on GeForce- a $175 Firepro V4900 is faster than a $1,000 GeForce Titan. In Blender- intensively CUDA centric, the situation is reversed, the Titan is fastest and the Firepros aren't even bothered to be listed. This is what I mean by having the hardware decisions be software-driven.

Gaming hardware can go quite a ways in workstation applications, but unless a person has deep experience with the software, they won't know whether they or others will hit the image quality ceiling or not. My tendency now is to err on the side of caution, especially when dealing with very demanding applications. It's also a matter of proportion> Maya is close to $6,000, Mudbox is $800, Adobe CS is $2,600, and professional working time can cost $200 /HR, which to me means it's worth a fast, reliable system with the hardware made to use it.

And that's difficult on a strict budget. One way to do this is to take the route I did which was to buy a used high-end system and gradually upgrade it. For example, for your use something like >

Dell Precision T7500 2x 3.33GHz QC W5590 24GB 2x1TB Win 7 Pro
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dell-Precision-T7500-2x-3-33GHz-QC-W5590-24GB-2x1TB-Win-7-Pro-Tower-PC-/121159451044?pt=Desktop_PCs&hash=item1c35aa81a4

> which has dual 3.33GHz quad core Xeons, 24GB RAM, Quadro FX 1800, 2X 1TB drives and sold for $990. To that, for very good 3D, buy a good used Quadro 4000 (2GB) -or V7900 if you decide on Firepro. A good used Quadro 4000 is- these days about $300-400 so for your $1,300 you have a $6,000 optimized 3D workstation system with fast CPU for modeling, 8 cores / 16 threads for rendering (rendering can use all of them), plenty of RAM, and a very good graphics card for the 3D modeling. as you might know, dual CPU's also have the benefit of providing more PCIe lanes. This also saves researching, ordering, assembling, configuring, and troubleshooting of building. Yes, there is some mileage on that system, but these systems are made for the long haul of constant use in the most demanding applications- excellent build quality. I've been running a similar system of the previous generation (Precision T5400 with dual quad core Xeons) -purchased for $550 when two years old and spent another $500 almost 24/7, for nearly 4 years with amazing reliability. No guarantees of course, but something to consider.

As for the recommendation by our friend g-unit1111, as mentioned, experience has directed my views quite firmly run towards a Xeon > ECC > Quadro or Firepro configuration for the applications you mention.

Cheers,

BambiBoom

[ Dell Precision T5400 (2009)> 2X Xeon X5460 quad core @3.16GHz > 16 GB ECC 667> Quadro FX 4800 (1.5GB) > WD RE4 / Segt Brcda 500GB > Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit > HP 2711x 27" 1920 x 1080 > AutoCad, Revit, Solidworks, Sketchup Pro, Corel Technical Designer, Adobe CS MC, WordP Office, MS Office > architecture, industrial design, graphic design, rendering, writing



 

nharmon220

Honorable
Sep 20, 2013
7
0
10,520
1
After doing some more digging from what you told me, it would seem Quadro would be better suited to the task.

As for the Xeon debate, while I did find that the majority of users had Xeons in their workstations, I also found some forum threads and a few random users saying the i7 's are comparable. Have you used an i7 yourself? Since the majority side with Xeons, that will be my first choice, just curious though in regards to the capabilities of the i7 if you've had firsthand experiences.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/DELL-PRECISION-T7500-2x-XEON-3-33GHZ-QUAD-CORE-CPUS-24GB-MEM-2x-1TB-FX3800-/171079304140?pt=Desktop_PCs&hash=item27d51f03cc

That link is a similar make to what you linked to me. Outside of getting a Quad 4000 (and are the "versions" i.e. the "k" types, something to save up for?), would that setup be fine on its own then or do you see anything that would be better to directly update? (one thing I noticed when searching is the minor price difference between 2 X 1 TB mem vs the 2 X 2TBs. Ive read that the 2 TB's are a little more unstable for some reason, but I always thought the more mem in something the better?) And in regards to RAM there were also some minor price differences with the 24g vs 48g. While I know the more RAM the better, is the 48 worth the price or is it simply overkill and a waste of money?

Thank you for all your help thus far! (and sorry Swissperc for kind of highjacking your thread, but since we're looking similar builds, figure the info still helps you too :p)
 

bambiboom

Dignified
Apr 7, 2012
2,462
0
13,960
606


nharmon220,


After spending a lot of time evaluating graphics cards, I came to the same conclusion concerning Quadros. My situation is a bit different though, as I tend to use software for years- I use AutoCad 2007, Solidworks 2010, Adobe CS4, Corel Technical Designer is X-5- only one version behind, but before that I was using Corel Suite 12 - at least five years old- from the early XP days. I also use WorpPerfect X-4- five years old. The Quadro FX 4800 (380-bit, 1.5GB, 192 CUDA cores))I use has specific drivers for Solidworks 2010 and CS4. there was even a specialized FX 4800 called the "CX" that was optimized for CS4. Software makers that were so CUDA-centric are changing towards more OpenGL, but the more modern Quadros are also strengthening their Open GL support so they will run everything.

As to specific Quadros, I am convinced the great graphic card today is the Quadro K5000, but that is also $1,800. Tthe new Quadro K6000 (12GB) will be a landmark, but that ground-breaker is also $5,000. The K5000 is reputed to be especially great for 3D animation and video editing. I recently decided I would find a card that would run Sketchup a bit better - it's amazing how slow a 50MB model can get- and decided on a Quadro K4000, which has many of the K5000 attributes except a different GPU, 4GB to the K4000's 3GB and twice as many CUDA cores. I'm not fully committed, but at the moment I'm thinking is to wait until used K5000's are less than $1,000- they sell for as little as $1,100-1,300 now. I also like a wider bandwidth and the K5000 is 256-bit while the K4000 is 192-bit. Wikipedia has a good, quick guide to compare Quadro features >

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Quadro

In my use actually, a Quadro 4000 (2GB) would probably be sufficient, but as I will be eventually upgrading software and new rendering software (thinking of vray) is OpenGL and DirectX 11, the Quadro K4000 is more future-looking. I imagine a K4000 working very well in your applications. Again, the choices are so dependent on applications and proportions of use. If the budget is a problem another tactic would be to have a Quadro 4000 to start - get a bargain on one- $275 or so, and then replace it in eight months or a year with a K4000, 5000 , or even K5000.

The Precision T7500 listing looks quite good. The Xeon W5590 is rated on Passmark dual CPU benchmarks as no.33 with a score of 10,691. The dual X5460 (4-core 3.15GHz) is no.60 at 8,170. If you see one reasonably, the CPU to have in a T7500 is the Xeon 5680 six core 3.33GHz, rated no 16 at 14,291 (dual)- really really good. For comparison a single E5-2687W (8-core, 1,934) is a 3.1GHz, rated no. 1 and scores 14,586, so the computation power of a dual x5680 is theoretically higher than a single E5-2576W and will have 12 cores / 24 threads as compared to 8 cores / 16 threads- 50% more cores/ threads. The Quadro FX 3800 is one of the better old series Quadros- fantastic in 2D, and is still quite sought after used ($90-$175). It seems that the X800 Quadros- FX 1800, 3800, 4800, and 5800 were the top in their times. If I had that T7500, I would put my FX 4800 in and buy either a Quadro 4000 or K4000 relatively soon but in your use- have a 4000, K4000, 5000, or K5000 on Day 1. By the way, Quadro 5000's are very good cards that are becoming very reasonable used, but for once I will advocate the future looking "K" series.

With regards to RAM, the more the merrier. Keep in mind that with a dual CPU, the RAM is divided symmetrically between the two CPUs. so having 24GB is the same as having 12GB on a single CPU machine. My (generous) formula for RAM is to take 3GB for Windows 7, 2GB for each application, 1GB for Internet, and 2GB for open files between all applications. As I often will have > AutoCad 2D, Sketchup Pro, Solidworks, two applications in Corel Technical designer, Adobe CS or rendering, Wordperfect, and Mozilla Firefox, simultaneously, that score = OS 3GB, Applications 13GB, Files 2GB, or a total of 18GB.

This was a voyage of discovery and the reason my Precision T5400 came with 4GB grew to have16, and why the HP z420 I purchased recently has 24GB of ECC 1600 (supports 64GB). The Precision T7500 with dual CPU's supports 192GB of RAM (DDR3 1333 ECC) and my suggestion would be to have 32GB to start (= 16GB each CPU) and consider an eventual 64GB total. The 48GB system might be sufficient as is (= 24GB each CPU) and not need to be increased- again it's how many applications you run at once. Remember the RAM has to be the same speed and type and is located in the slots in a particular pattern of size and pairs

http://www.dell.com/support/Manuals/us/en/19/Product/precision-t7500

Drive size> Because of the way they're made, the larger the HD, the better they perform- higher memory density means access is faster. I started with an IBM 486 in 1993 that had an 85MB HD- that's Mega's and not Gig'a's and ever since have been a HD conservative. I added up all the files I've ever created since 1993- excepting music- and the total is only 108GB. I can easily have a 500GB drive with Windows, applications, and every file I've every done. On my new computer, I'm have a 250Gb Samsung 840 SSD and I plan to have the OS, applications and nearly all the files on that one drive, and back up to a 500GB mech'l drive. If that drive were a 1TB, then all the music files too. 3D models and animations and video though can eat drive space quickly. But, I do like the idea of having a RAID 1 that backs everything up and keeping a system image for quick recovery. Precisions have good RAID controllers. What size drive(s) do you have now?

[The Good Old Days > In 1993, I filled the 85MB drive and bought the largest then made-a 528MB for $570. At that rate per MB, a new 1TB drive would cost more than $1,100,000! ]

i7's > I've never been around i7's. I've never gone into an architectural, engineer's, graphics designer's, or industrial designer's professional office that used anything but either Xeon or Mac, except in the office business computer and those often have dual core Intel or AMD. There are very few programs that use more than one core plus hyperthreading -Sketchup, Solidworks, Inventor, and Revit are mostly single-threaded and rendering is one of the few that can use them all. There are some recent sound processing applications- Sonar- that can us multiple cores It appears to me that effects processing has some computational similarities to rendering. The i7 and Xeon E5 are close cousins and you can see the counterpart CPU's- an i7-3820 and E5-1620, and i7-3930X and E5-1650, and so on. Xeon E3 are similar to Core i5. There are no i7 8-core, equivalents of the Xeon E5-2XXX series which are the current models that can be used in pairs, nor the Xeon E7's which can be used in 4 and 8 CPU systems. Imagine having 8X Xeon E7's at $4,600 each (that's 80 cores / 160 threads) and a system with 4,096GB of RAM ,.. Actually the Intel 4000 and now 4600 integrated graphics does remarkably well in 2D, but as it's not sufficient in 3D, one may as well use a Xeon which doesn't have the IG.

Sorry for such a long ramble.

Cheers,

BambiBoom





 

nharmon220

Honorable
Sep 20, 2013
7
0
10,520
1
Due to budgeting, I will have to skimp on the GPU and just get a 4000 for the time being, but I can easily do as you suggested and update it in under a year for the better k versions.

The Xeon 5680 is definitely way outta the budget range, but they did look very alluring :D

All of my system is outdated (having purchased it in 2009 and not a workstation but more of a gaming setup as I failed to understand the differences of a rendering machine against a display machine :p) The current HD is only 500GB..not terrible by any means, but since all I'm seeing now when I browse for new is majority TB, I know it'd behind. One more question then about the Drives then, do I even need an SSD? I haven't seen any listings including an SSD, only HD's. In this case, would the 2 X 1 TB's be sufficient? or to make up for a lack of SSD, get the 2 X 2 TB HD?

Thanks for all the feedback, been learning a lot here!

P.S. could you explain the RAID bit please? I've seen you mention it before in other replies, but all I could gather was that it was a settings thing you setup for the HD when you installed systems.
 

bambiboom

Dignified
Apr 7, 2012
2,462
0
13,960
606
nharmon220,

Really, the Quadro 4000 would not be a frustrating graphics card, and I believe I could probably get along permanently with one. The other good feature is that many were sold and they are reasonable used, but still easy to resell as the 3D performance is quite good. On Passmark Performance Test, a new Quadro K2000 (2GB, about $420) produces a 3D score of about 1600, while a Quadro 4000 makes about 1900-2000 , so a 4000 will keep up. My Quadro FX 4800- $1,200 new, produces a 3D score of 1097 and that is among the higher scores for a 4800.

If you're a little patient, you'll see this kind of thing >

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-NVIDIA-Quadro-4000-WS095AT-2-GB-GDDR5-SDRAM-PCI-Express-x16-Graphics-/221264681185?pt=PCC_Video_TV_Cards&hash=item33846718e1&nma=true&si=LZ%252FOrZttkcxV0ZHSUzW%252BLR1SKFo%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

> a Quadro 4000 sold for $230 just a week or so ago. Quite a few are going in the $250-280 range.

Yes, the X5680 is one of those amazingly good performers and for a long time, I thought would someday have a dual X5680, T7500. The X5680 was very expensive new- $1,660 each, so those dual T7500's expensive- $7,000? new. Used X5680's are still $800+ on Ebay and if you're adding a CPU to a single CPU T7500, you have to buy the CPU / Memory riser/ Fan unit- another $250. On the TX400 series Precisions, you just plug in the second CPU and add a heatsink. I bought a good X5460 (quad core 3.16GHz) for $55 and the heatsink was $35 ! Still, the E5590 is also 3.33GHz and very competent.

Drives and RAID > I often think some people buy storage unnecessarily. I did an accounting of all the files I've made since 1993- and I keep everything and find that I can load Windows 7 Ultimate, all my applications, and all the files since 1993 onto a 250GB SSD. It was a bit disappointing in some ways, as that includes about 16,000 CAD files, 1,100 graphics file, 1,200 PDF's, 22,000 images, 11,000 pages of documents. With all these 3 and 4 TB drives about, I began to think I've been a bit lazy! Those numbers are excluding the sound recording files on a separate, dedicated sound computer of about 350GB. In summary, have a good look at you real needs, and you may find that 1TB will do very well.

Larger ones do have a greater memory density and can be noticeably faster. Even larger SSD's are faster. One technique to make a mech'l drive faster is to do what's called "short shifting. It's very easy- just make a partition for the OS and applications that is about 30% larger than the total file size. The limited partitions size means that the system files are contained on the drive closest to the outer rim traveling the fastest- and the access is faster. I use Western Digital RE4 drives on my T5400 i this way and on Passmark the disk score is 924- quite high for a 3GB/s mech'l drive.

I feel that on most workstations, an SSD is not necessary. The OS and application starting and large transfers are faster, but once the files are in RAM, the speed is the same. One thing that does prompt me to try an SSD is that large Sketchup files (25MB or more) seem to take forever to save on my system- it seems as though I'm constantly waiting for the ten minute auto-backup. Again, as Maya files are likely to be very large, an SSD might be worthwhile just for file saving time.

RAID > There are two basic kinds of RAID "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Devices" I think it means, and one is for performance and the other is for file protection. RAID 0 uses two identical drives and does what is called "striping" in which the files are split between the two drives. The performance is very good, because the drives alternate reading and writing only half the stuff each. The disadvantage to RAID 0 is that if one drive fails, the other only has half of each file so you lose everything, plus there are two drives say of 1TB, but a total still of 1TB. To protect the RAID, there is RAID 1 that uses "mirroring" so that the pair of identical drives are continuously copied one to the other. If one drive fails, the other is intact, you plug in a new drive, and the RAID automatically rebuilds the array- back to two identical drives. this has two disadvantages also - two 1TB drives give you 1TB, and the mirroring does make them a bit slower. To solve all the problems, there are many RAID configurations ( i don;t know what they all are like RAID "50" that combine the RAID 0 striping with RAID 1 protection. I think that if you have three drives, you can do a RAID 5 or 1+0 which = both performance and protection, but this time, three 1TB drives gives you-1TB.

If RAID sounds like fun to you, the T7500 has an onboard RAID controller, but even better, has a pair of PCI-X slots (that was a transition from PCI to PCI-e. For about $15-20, you can buy a used LSI SAS/ SATA RAID controller- about $300 originally, and these have outstanding transfer rates- LSI claims 2X+ as fast as the onboard controller. I have an LSI 3080 4- port that I've yet to try, but it has a lot of promise for a $12 purchase! These are very inexpensive as only previous series servers- and workstations such as Precisons and HP z-series have the PCI-X slot. Passmark benchmarks are full of top performers using these LSI controllers and if you have a T7500 you might consider an LSI controller with three mech'l drives instead of an SSD. Make partitions and have a partition with a system image and you'd have> great performance , constant backup, and easy recovery- never be out of commission more than an hour or so. Of course , that can added after everything is settled.

Anyway, sorry for another long ramble!

Cheers,

BambiBoom

 

nharmon220

Honorable
Sep 20, 2013
7
0
10,520
1
so I think I've found a decent one here which is the same as the first but with 48g of RAM: http://www.ebay.com/itm/DELL-PRECISION-T7500-2x-XEON-3-33GHZ-QUAD-CORE-CPUS-48GB-MEM-2x-1TB-FX3800-/200945088822?pt=Desktop_PCs&hash=item2ec942b936

Which that setup I would inject a Quadro into upon getting. But am still a bit confused on what a better HD/SSD (if any) setup is better.
Since that one only has the 1TB HD, in your opinion, how large an SSD drive would you think would be appropriate? and in comparison, would it be better and cheaper to just do the trip HD's?

The information I pulled for SSD's ranged from (to paraphrase): "Yeah, they're awesome and they made my applications run faster" to " "I saw no difference in the rigs when SSD was applied." The main feature I'm seeing in benefit for SSD's is that they are more stable and have better longevity than HD's. Not to mention quieter, which would be a nice plus.

If you could dumb down your partition explanation for me, I'd appreciate that ^_^; Is this a physical partition or something you program when setting up the RAID system? (or if an SSD is better than HD, would using the RAID system even apply here?)

Once again, thanks for the indepth explanations! Really helpful and educational :)
 

nharmon220

Honorable
Sep 20, 2013
7
0
10,520
1
well, I found what I believe to be a good deal for the quadro: http://www.ebay.com/itm/271285348846

New for 405 compared to the used going for around 375-400 for most of what I saw doesn't seem to bad. (and the seller has a few more in stock if you were interested swissperc).

From reading around some more on the forums here, it simply seems pretty standard for comps to have the SSD's. If you know of a particular brand that's better than others Bambiboom I'd appreciate the recommendation. I haven't bought it yet (just in case I can find a slightly better deal while waiting to figure out the SSD question) but the previously linked T7500 is what I'm going to get.
 

swissperc

Honorable
Sep 19, 2013
5
0
10,510
0
Hey thanks for all the help and information guys, I have a couple questions still though.
What kind of cooling set up should I get? Its more than likely I will be overclocking.

Also what monitor would you guys recommend? I am getting one sooner than originally thought, and the budget will be around 300$. I plan on going dual screen once I have the actual computer built though.
 

nharmon220

Honorable
Sep 20, 2013
7
0
10,520
1
I don't have an answer for your cooling question, perhaps Bambiboom might stop back here now that it's closing in on the weekend.

As for monitors, if you're getting dual setup for 300 bucks, you might want to do what I did since I capped myself at that limit too. I use a dual setup already but they are now old monitors, though my main is an ASUS VH198T and it's still a very good display for the price. Currently though, after digging, you really want a model of Dell in the U series as they have received the best reviews. I cannot afford dual U series, so what I did was get a decent mid-range priced one and am going to compliment it with a newer ASUS. Ebay is the best bet to check around for a good priced U series. I managed to snag A Dell U2312HM for a flat 188. Mind you, that's not the best deal, but they generally sell for 199-220ish depending on where you find it. There's not much leeway in price offering for it from the few I tried to get lower. Though, if you go used, you might get one around the 140-160 range. For the ASUS I just went with this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005BZNDOO/sr=1-1/qid=1380170945/ref=olp_tab_new?ie=UTF8&colid=&coliid=&condition=new&me=&qid=1380170945&seller=&sr=1-1

As it's a secondary monitor, I'll just use it to host the render setup boxes, graph editors etc. and use the main to view the projects.
 

Similar threads