[SOLVED] Build a Threadripper system for <$3000?

[Macenstein]

Hey all, I am looking for some advice. (you can skip down to the specs I want if you don't want to read my life story)

I'm currently using an old 2013 Mac Pro trashcan for After Effects and Cinema 4D. While my company is waiting for the new Mac Pro to arrive, we've all sort of admitted to ourselves that while we'd love to stay Mac, the odds are this thing is going to be WAY over priced for the performance, at least if you want to spend under $18k. I think above that it starts getting competitive with other ludicrous HP systems.

So anyway, I was mentioning to my boss how I just built my son an $1100 gaming PC, and I had brought home an After Effects project from work to see how it would render. It took 5 minutes to render on my son's PC what takes 8 min 15 sec on the Mac Pro. Obviously this is a 6 year old machine but its a 2.7 Ghz 12 core XEON with 64 GB of RAM. Not a total junker. And I think this 40% boost in rendering time is likely all processor, as my son has a 4 GHz Ryzen (he also has a RTX 2070s so maybe CUDA helped a bit).

ANYWAY, my boss said well, if you can get a 40% boost for $1100, then maybe spec out a machine for like $2500 and see what you can get as an intermediate system, and maybe we then either max it or just build another later once we see what Apple comes out with.

SO my problem, as always, is I suffer from MAJOR feature creep when I try to build anything. I always say, well, for $300 more you can get THIS, and you plan to keep this for 3 years so it'll totally pay for itself... so I am looking for some help on how to keep the budget down. That being said, this machine WILL be used to make money, and I could probably got to $3200 or so if needed.

The type of work I do benefits from cores, threads, and RAM to feed them. Plus I'd love an RTX card to get back to NVidia.

------
So here's what I am hoping to have:
RTX 2080 Super
Threadripper
32 GB of RAM, or preferably 64 GB
M2 boot drive

plus room to add on down the road if possible, like another RTX 2080S

Any chance this is possible, and any chance you could help me find compatible parts?
Thanks for any help.
- Mike

 

[jojesa]

I would suggest AMD Ryzen 9, since many Cinema 4D calculation tasks (deformers, generators, cloners, etc) are using only a single CPU-core.
This will give you the fastest possible core speed, while having 12 cores and 24 threads.

12-Core AMD Ryzen 9 3900X $530
Corsair LPX Vengeance 64GB (2x32GB) 3200MHz RAM Kit. $325
ASUS Pro WS X570-ACE motherboard $380
Intel 2TB 660P PCI-e M.2 SSD $204
WD 6TB Red HDD $157
NVidia Quadro RTX P4000 $870 (it might be fine with a $400 Quadro P2200)
EVGA SuperNOVA P2 850W (80 PLUS Platinum) $185
NZXT H710 - ATX Mid Tower PC $140 (or get one you like)
Scythe Mugen 5 Rev B. cooler $50

 

[SgtScream]

If it must be threadripper, i'd wait because a whole new line of threadripper processors will soon be released. If you end up going main stream like the above suggested 3900x, then now would be a good time to pull the trigger.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyDfhrHYz4w

 

[Macenstein]

I would suggest AMD Ryzen 9, since many Cinema 4D calculation tasks (deformers, generators, cloners, etc) are using only a single CPU-core.
This will give you the fastest possible core speed, while having 12 cores and 24 threads.

12-Core AMD Ryzen 9 3900X $530
Corsair LPX Vengeance 64GB (2x32GB) 3200MHz RAM Kit. $325
ASUS Pro WS X570-ACE motherboard $380
Intel 2TB 660P PCI-e M.2 SSD $204
WD 6TB Red HDD $157
NVidia Quadro RTX P4000 $870 (it might be fine with a $400 Quadro P2200)
EVGA SuperNOVA P2 850W (80 PLUS Platinum) $185
NZXT H710 - ATX Mid Tower PC $140 (or get one you like)
Scythe Mugen 5 Rev B. cooler $50

hmmm.. that's interesting.
Thanks!

So is there a reason you went with the Quadro RTX P4000 over an RTX 2080 Super?
userbenchmark seems to imply the 2080 would be much faster? (I don't know if they are a good source but they seem to be) .

Thanks

 

[jojesa]

hmmm.. that's interesting.
Thanks!

So is there a reason you went with the Quadro RTX P4000 over an RTX 2080 Super?
userbenchmark seems to imply the 2080 would be much faster? (I don't know if they are a good source but they seem to be) .

Thanks

It is not only about faster hardware on a work enviroment, but stability.
Even though GeForce cards will work well in Cinema 4D, Nvidia recommends using Quadro workstation cards in professional graphics applications.
But if you are a game developer (or will be playing games), a GeForce card like the RTX 2080 will make more sense.

 

[Macenstein]

It is not only about faster hardware on a work enviroment, but stability.
Even though GeForce cards will work well in Cinema 4D, Nvidia recommends using Quadro workstation cards in professional graphics applications.
But if you are a game developer (or will be playing games), a GeForce card like the RTX 2080 will make more sense.

yeah I don't plan to game on this. (well, maybe Minecraft) but I just can't find any benchmarks where the RTX 2080 Super isn't decidedly faster. I do understand the argument of a slower "workstation class" card is sometimes better, but that's sort of why I am here in the first place. Apple is using only XEONS and ECC RAM etc and making a somewhat underpowered (for the price) system, and while I am sure it will crash less, I don't know that an RTX 2080 Super is going to crash every hour, or even every week or two. Plus I'm a fan of Autosave.

This will be one of those hard decissions. The P4000 seems on par with a 2070... As I said, I get tricked by speed and specs and price, so when I see faster for cheaper, I start thinking.. well, I could maybe put TWO RTX 2080 Supers in it... when I start seeing Octane Benchmarks where they start layering cards for big gains it gets tempting.

Thanks for your opinion/advice.

 

[jojesa]

...but I just can't find any benchmarks where the RTX 2080 Super isn't decidedly faster. I do understand the argument of a slower "workstation class" card is sometimes better, but that's sort of why I am here in the first place. Apple is using only XEONS and ECC RAM etc and making a somewhat underpowered (for the price) system, and while I am sure it will crash less, I don't know that an RTX 2080 Super is going to crash every hour, or even every week or two. Plus I'm a fan of Autosave.

This will be one of those hard decissions. The P4000 seems on par with a 2070... As I said, I get tricked by speed and specs and price, so when I see faster for cheaper, I start thinking.. well, I could maybe put TWO RTX 2080 Supers in it... when I start seeing Octane Benchmarks where they start layering cards for big gains it gets tempting.

Thanks for your opinion/advice.

Benchmark results no always translate into real world usage.
In a business setting stability is always more important than speed.
A 100% of business users I have dealt, prefer stability instead of a little bit of speed.
They cannot afford even one crash, where they get set back and stop making money or might need to shed money to a tech to address the issue.

That might explain a slower system with a Xeon and ECC RAM.

 

[Macenstein]

Benchmark results no always translate into real world usage.
In a business setting stability is always more important than speed.
A 100% of business users I have dealt, prefer stability instead of a little bit of speed.
They cannot afford even one crash, where they get set back and stop making money or might need to shed money to a tech to address the issue.

That might explain a slower system with a Xeon and ECC RAM.

Yeah, I've been using exclusively Apple for nearly 20 years, so maybe I'm spoiled?
I've never had a real "crash" I guess. Occassionally have to reboot. Once had a hard drive die. Nothing major. I just assumed by now PCs and tech in general have gotten good enough that crashes, at least catastrophic ones that require actual tech intervention, were not overly common, more of a myth long-time Mac users use to justify staying with the platform.

Am I wrong? Are PCs super glitchy still? My only experience is my son's gaming PCs and he seems to love it.

 

[jojesa]

Yeah, I've been using exclusively Apple for nearly 20 years, so maybe I'm spoiled?
I've never had a real "crash" I guess. Occassionally have to reboot. Once had a hard drive die.

Your Apple system is stable, because Apple goes for stability instead of speed.
That is exactly the point I'm trying to convey.
If you build a Windows PC with stability in mind it will be as stable as an Apple computer.

Nothing major. I just assumed by now PCs and tech in general have gotten good enough that crashes, at least catastrophic ones that require actual tech intervention, were not overly common, more of a myth long-time Mac users use to justify staying with the platform.
Am I wrong? Are PCs super glitchy still? My only experience is my son's gaming PCs and he seems to love it.

At work we have hundreds of Windows PCs and I have not encountered an issue in years (Windows 7 and 10). I don't even remember when any of them crashed.
A windows PC might be "glitchy" because it was built without considering stability.

Also take in consideration that Windows platform allows for more hardware and software titles which opens another can of worms.