2018 Architecture PC Build

[RupertL]

Hi Everyone,

I'm a 3rd year architecture student in Australia looking to setup a pc rig to make my life a lot easier. I've been trying to read through different recommendations (eg Revit GPU recommendations, etc.) but thus far have been confused by how varying all the different resources are in opinion.

I want it for programs such as Revit 2018, Photoshop, AutoCAD and the like. My budget is around $1000-1500 AUD (about 750-1250 USD). I already have peripherals (ie. keyboard, mouse & monitor), and intend to stay working at 1080p for now with the potential of upgrading in the future. I don't play any video games and don't intend to in the future.

I'm currently using a 2017 Macbook Pro but would prefer additional speed provided by a PC.

In my own efforts to find the right build I've found conflicting statements regarding the right CPU/GPU with most recommendations suggesting a faster single core (Intel) over number of cores (AMD). Because of this I was thinking of using an 7700k/8700k, unless a high tier AMD would be better. (Xeon cores also seem popular but I'm less sure on using those). I'll obviously need at least 16gb ram and will use an XMP ready build so I can oc to 3000mhz. The other key issue is graphics card, Revit recommends Quadros and the like (as I expected) but most user reviews put whatever was at the time the top running gaming gpu (970, 1070 etc.) ahead

(link to Revit https://knowledge.autodesk.com/certified-graphics-hardware)

Because of this conflicting information it's been difficult to make a decision so I'd really appreciate advice from other people that have dealt with similar problems or that are just generally good at this kind of thing.

I already own a copy of Win 10, a pc case, case fans, and a CPU cooler.

Thanks,
Rupert

 

[william p]

There are several reasons the more expensive Quadros ar being suggested. Some of them have ECC RAM on them. They're also certified to work with many CAD, Math and other technical type software. Accuracy,stability, and certified compatability are preferred to speed. There may be compatability/ certification reasons for Intel over AMD also. The higher cost of the Quadros also comes with IT level tech support that enterprise sytems require. I think you should be looking at a workstaion and not a PC. Maybe even a 2 CPU machine with 1 CPU to start with. The 2 CPU machines can run RDIMM RAM which can save some money and allow larger capacity if you're going to need many very large files.
I think you should be looking only at workstations, and only Xeons, and Only Quadro GPUs. The integrity of what you produce should take precedence over speed or cost as much as possible. I would be asking people who work in Architecture, or your instructors about what you reallly need for this.
The only thing that costs more than doing it right the first time.
Is doing it right the 2nd time.

 

[cryoburner]

Aside from having more of a focus on reliability, another difference would be that Nvidia artificially gimps the performance of certain features like wireframe rendering on their consumer-focused GeForce cards, to encourage professionals to spend more on their Quadro hardware, where they can mark the prices up higher. Depending on the software being used though, the consumer-focused cards can potentially offer better performance for the money in some usage scenarios. You would want to verify how well the software in question works with consumer cards though.

In that budget range, going with something like a dual-Xeon system of reasonable performance might not be entirely practical, and something like an i7-8700K based build would probably be fine. If you're not planning on overclocking the hardware though, the i7-8700 (non-K) would arguably be a better choice, as it has the same number of cores and threads as the 8700K, and its boost clocks are nearly identical. The main advantage of the 8700K is that it is unlocked for overclocking, but in a more professional environment where stability may be more of a concern, one typically wouldn't overclock their CPU anyway.

For some software that can make use of lots of cores, AMD's recent Ryzen hardware can potentially offer more performance at a given price level, but Intel's hardware still does offer slightly better performance per-core, which will likely be slightly better in most software, which tends to not utilize many cores. In most applications, there won't likely be a particularly noticeable difference between them though.

I agree about checking with instructors, or other people that actively use that particular software, perhaps in the Autodesk community forums, for example.

 

[william p]

Here is a video of something that happened at a local (to me) engineering school. On the left behind the crane you can see some engineers looking at the top deck of the bridge right where it breaks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucflj-MsJBI
I wouldn't want to be the guy who used a gaming video card to do the math on this project.
Gaming comuters are toys. You need to be looking at tools if you want to be taken seriously.
A workstation has some importatnt features that are left out of comsumer and gaming computers. They also have many options that don't exist there.
1-memory TYpe-ECC, and RDIMMs which have a lower level data integrity function that ECC UDIMMs don't. Basically you will know that what comes out matches what you put in. Yes it costs more and runs slower.
2- Memory capcity. Typically on a consumer machine you will have 4 RAM slots with 8GB Modules, maybe 6. How big is an image file of a 20 story apartment block? With UDIMMs the controller is on the CPU, with XEONs and RDIMMs it's on each module. You can have 12 RAM slots with 16GB Modules.
3- HDD options. RAID 5 comes to mind with parity checking of all data in and out of the drives. SAS which is full duplex so the drives can read and write large files simultaneously. Mirrroring so you won't lose your work.
4- The suggestion of a 2 CPU workstation has nothing to do with running 2 CPUs. This is where you can add a Pascal 16x PCIe GPGPU CUDA card for wind and earthquake simulations or other math intensive procedures. This is where SAS, RAID, RDIMMs and 40 PCIe lanes start to happen. You may not need all of this to start but the options will be there.
I can't tell you specifically what you need for architecture. My hobby is overclocking workstations, and making gaming computers out of them. From doing this I've gained a lot fo respect for what they can do. I would look for data integrity, certified compatatbility for your purpose, expandability. Let cost and performance fall where thay have to.
Every thing I've mentioned here could be built into a surplus Dell T5500 workstaion within your budget. Or the HP equivalent. Ther will also be a large data base to draw on if you have any problems. I use the T5500 as an example becuase I'm familiar with them. But there may be newer options out there.

 

[justin.m.beauvais]

So, I'm going to turn a number of ideas upside down for my build here: https://au.pcpartpicker.com/list/gsDyxG

Coming in at $1608 AUD for the entire build, I chose the i5 8600K for budget reasons. If you had the money you could go up to the i7 8700K, but the i5 will provide good performance. I went with the Cryorig H7 cooler because it is reputable and the 8600K doesn't come with a cooler, so it was necessary. The motherboard is an MSI Z370-A Pro, for budget reasons. It was the cheapest Z370 board listed on PC PartPicker and allows for overclocking to squeeze as much power out of the 8600K as you can. I picked 16 GB of GSkill Ripjaw V memory at 2400 MHz. This was a price based decision as well, but won't hurt performance too much because Intel machines are much less dependent on high speed memory to perform well than an AMD system. I picked a combo of a Crucial MX500 500GB SSD and a Seagate 2TB HDD for storage, but you can pick the drives you want. This was just the best setup, as far as drives go, in my mind as it gives you a reasonable, and fast, work drive, and a spacious storage drive for archives.

Now, this is where I flip everything upside down. I think you'd be better off with an AMD based RX 580 8GB than a Quadro. The RX 580 is MUCH better for rendering than anything NVidia has in its consumer GeForce lineup. Also, if PC PartPicker is to be believed, Quadros are flippin EXPENSIVE in Australia. The RX 580 will provide solid performance for the price, but if you can swing it, get a Quadro. The case and powersupply are basically placeholders for whatever you'd like. I picked them because these specific ones aren't bad for the price and will work just fine.

The main thing holding this build back is the budget given. CPU power is CPU power, it doesn't matter what type of CPU you use. The 8600K has a nice high clock and 6 physical cores. Getting something like a Xeon at those specs is needlessly expensive and doesn't provide a performance boost, in many cases it would be slower as Xeons are usually clocked lower. The main gain from Xeons is the expanded RAM capability and ECC memory. Neither of which you terribly need, and are pretty pointless to have at your budget. I picked a memory kit that was 16 GB but only takes up 2 of the 4 RAM slots, meaning you can expand it later. Contrary to popular belief, you don't need a monster dual CPU machine to do CAD on. This build should do you just fine to finish school and get you into the field, at which point you'll probably have a company machine to work on with better hardware that you don't need to pay for.

 

[cryoburner]

Now, this is where I flip everything upside down. I think you'd be better off with an AMD based RX 580 8GB than a Quadro. The RX 580 is MUCH better for rendering than anything NVidia has in its consumer GeForce lineup. Also, if PC PartPicker is to be believed, Quadros are flippin EXPENSIVE in Australia. The RX 580 will provide solid performance for the price, but if you can swing it, get a Quadro. The case and powersupply are basically placeholders for whatever you'd like. I picked them because these specific ones aren't bad for the price and will work just fine.

The only thing you might want to verify is that the software in question fully supports AMD graphics cards. There's some professional software that is accelerated using Nvidia's proprietary CUDA framework, for example. Again, it's something that could probably be verified by consulting with people who are very familiar with the software.

Here is a video of something that happened at a local (to me) engineering school. On the left behind the crane you can see some engineers looking at the top deck of the bridge right where it breaks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucflj-MsJBI
I wouldn't want to be the guy who used a gaming video card to do the math on this project.

I'm assuming they're not going to be performing stress testing simulations on an experimental bridge design using a single $750 to $1,250 computer. They didn't specify what sort of architecture they were working on, but it doesn't sound like they have been using "workstation" hardware up to this point.

In any case, that situation wasn't likely the result of testing the bridge design on any particular hardware, but rather the rushed construction process and lack of concern for public safety. The people in charge of construction brushed aside cracks forming on the bridge as not being of vital importance, and the road below was only closed for a few hours while the bridge was moved into place, with traffic reopened while work was still being performed on installing and testing it. The road below should absolutely not have been open while they were still installing a bridge overhead, particularly one being built using unproven techniques. The bridge utilized a new formulation of concrete, used an uncommon design where even its trusses were made from concrete, and employed a relatively new construction method where the span was built alongside the road and rotated into place. There were certainly a number of questionable decisions that went into the construction of that bridge, but I've heard no one make any claims that computer simulations were performed on improper hardware, or that doing so would have had any real effect on the outcome.

 

[william p]

Actually there was a change in plan for the location of the bridge. That required the trolley supporting one end of the bridge to be 11' further in than originally planned. There was probably an error in the calculation of the stress that would result from that, therfore the cracks. But in that situation every aspect of the design process will be examined very closely, and there will be a lot of incentive to lay the blame "elsewhere". I didn't post that to imply that a bad choice of computer hardware was to blame. I posted it to emphaszie that Architecture is not about making pretty pictures on a computer screen. It's about building things that can kill people if it's not done correctly. Every step of the process is important. My advice would be to start thinking that way right now.

 

[william p]

Here's what I would build. It's old surplus stuff but it was high end in the day and suitable for the purpose.
I would get a Dell T5500. Barebone single CPU (no 2nd CPU riser) about $150 USD. These come with an 875W PSU and support triple channel RDIMM DDR3 1333 ECC RAM
New Samsung 8GB modules are $30USD. so $180 for 6 of them. X5687 CPU 3.6GHz 3.89 Turbo 4 Core/8 Thread.$50 USD.
You will need to figure out what you need in size vs speed of HDD. But at least one Backup/ Parity drive. $150-200. SAS is supported by the chipset.
Then whatever 150 Watt Quadro you can find.
This leaves a 16X PCIe slot, and 2x 16/8x slots for other devices. 6GB Tesla C2070 CUDA cards are $200, the smaller C2050 3gb can be had for as little as $60. The 2nd CPU 8 pin CPU cable can be adapted to 8 pin PCIe and with the 2nd 6 pin PCIe you can power a 235W CUDA card. or add another CPU if that's what works for you.
The real budget build would be a T3500 ($75) bare W3680 ($80)with an overclock to 4GHz, It has 2- 16x PCIe slots. $250. The X5687 ($50) is an option there also. The 525W PSU just supports the CPU and 1x 150W GPU and native RAID support. Add HDD/SSD and GPU. The cost of new 8GB DDR3 1333 ECC UDIMMs right now would pay for the upgrade to the T5500. So shop for a system with RAM installed.
PSUs and motherboards for these are $50 parts. CPUs $40-$80
http://www.userbenchmark.com/System/Dell-Precision-WorkStation-T5500/78
http://www.userbenchmark.com/System/Dell-Precision-WorkStation-T3500--/2522