Maximum potential CAD workstation spec?

ouch

Distinguished
Nov 15, 2009
142
0
18,690
One of my colleagues is suffering from a poorly workstation, it's about 6/7 years old so starting to bog down a bit. I've been asked to submit a suggestion to our IT buyers for a specification for something that will hopefully last another 6 years + with a bit more grace, and scope to upgrade.

Here's what I've put together:


Motherboard: 2X LGA2011-v3 sockets
8x slots for DDR4 Ram
Onboard Sata 3 controller for at least 3 discs
USB 3.0

Processor : Xeon E5 (Haswell based) 4 core fast clocking (3Ghz +) Minimum example E5-2637

RAM: 16Gb DDR4 (4x4Gb)

Storage: 250GB (Min) SSD for OS
500Gb (or whatever) Sata 3 conventional Drive for local storage

Video Card: Quadro K2200

DVD RW drive
SD card reader
Gigabit NIC
Front panel USB & sound ports


It'll be used for 3d Autocad, 3ds max and Revit, all heavyweight stuff. there's network storage so we don't need much local storage, and we've already got some really nice 1600x1200 ultrasharp monitors (I'll cry when they die).

The philosophy is that with only a single processor socket occupied by a relatively fast yet cheaper processor (4c rather than 8 or more) a second matching processor can be dropped in alongside later to give a noticeable performance boost without sacrificing existing equipment (It's worked in the past, as I'm currently using a slightly younger twin X5482 Xeon workstation right now).

There's no budget at this stage of the game, I'm sure our IT guys have one, but they aren't telling me that just yet. Timescale is unknown, but probably within the next 3 months.

Has anyone got any comments/suggestions on the above?
 
I think you're on the right track. Some of the render engines in programs like 3DSMAX will scale well into the many-core multi-socket systems, but as you probably already know, AutoCAD, SolidWorks, and many programs like them are still dominated by per-core performance, and really don't scale beyond a core or 2.

---------

The K2200 is a very intelligent choice as a professional GPU to be used primarily for view-ports in CAD software. Performance scaling above the K2200 is very hit and miss for this type of work. As you likely know a W5000 is also an option in that class and both cards will trade blows depending on the specific software and conditions.

----------

Some component recommendations:

Supermicro X10DAX or Asus Z10PE-D16 WS or Asus Z10PE-D8 WS
Plextor M6 Pro SSD
WD WD1002F9YZ Storage drives
Samsung 8GB DDR4 ECC RDIMM's. (last I saw, the price gap from 4 to 8GB is pretty small on DDR4, if you really only want 16GB up front just run 2x8GB to cut costs. Dual channel will not be a performance issue on a 4-6 core E5)

 


I've got a K2200 in my current workstation, and I love it (as much as is appropriate in a work environment 😉 ). One of the reasons my colleague is suffering is his workstation is a few months older than mine and has PCI-E v1.0 rather than v2.0 which caused the system to fail POST with the K2200 installed.

Thanks for the tip on the RAM, I figures quad channel would make the most of what's available, but using less slots means better gains later in life.

My IT team have been rolling out Samsung 840 EVOs as drop in replacements for anyone complaining of sluggish performance on their laptops, with a fair amount of success. I suspect they were chosen for a reason (£££) though..
 
ouch!,

Follows is a quick system idea based on your list. The idea of starting with a faster single 4-core is very good as is the Quadro K2200. I changed recently from a Quadro 4000 to a K2200 and the Passmark 3D score changed from 2044 to 3520- higher than the typical K4000.

A couple of deviations from your list : I thought 32GB might be a good start, using 4X 8GB modules. If you begin with a single CPU, you may still want 64Gb or more when the 2nd processor is added, thinking in terms of 32GB per CPU. using large modules allows a greater total later. The Supermicro board does have 16 slots, so there's a sound argument to use 4GB modules and begin with 16GB as 4x 4GB as it's quad channel. The SSD listed is a Crucial MX100 512GB. I've used a Samsung 840 250GB for awhile but realized that a larger drive could contain everything to which I needed daily access, so I changed to an Intel 730 480GB and set a partition for OS / Applications (contains 122GB) and a partition for Files (contains 55GB), so plenty of space left. The remainder I keep on a WD Black 1TB (contains about 600GB).

The other consideration is to consider using a Quadro K4200 and I'm considering one already myself, perhaps in the Summer. The K2200 is outstanding for the price, but the memory bandwidth is actually a bit less than the Quadro 4000 and on some of my larger 3D models it shows and I think a K4200 might be very useful on a large Revit model. If I do buy a K4200, I'll get a "new other" or briefly used one and these have already sold on Ebahhh for as little as $550- only $100 more than a new K2200. I 've had nine used Quadros over the years and never a failure even after years of use.

The Quadro 4000 and Samsung 840 are being recycled into a new second system to replace my rendering engine, a Dell Precision T5400. The new one is a Precision T5500 listed at the bottom of the page. I might mention that so far, that system has cost only $478 as I bought a system with a slow CPU and 6GB RAM for $173 and had the GPU and SSD already. In the Summer I'll add the second CPU and required riser for another $300. So, for under $1,000 I expect a reasonably quick 12 core /24 thread rendering engine / backup system.

So, to start a conversation:

BambiBoom PixelCannon Cadarendercompilagrapharific iWork TurboSignature Extreme ModelBlast 9000 ®©$$™®£™©™_1.8.15

CPU: (2) Intel Xeon Processor E5-2637 v3 : 4-core @ 3.5 / 3.7 GHz, 15M Cache,135W > $2,000 ($1,000 ea)

http://ark.intel.com/products/83358
http://www.superbiiz.com/query.php?s=E5-2637+v3+

CPU Cooler: (2) Noctua NH-D14 120mm & 140mm SSO CPU Cooler > $156 ($78 ea.)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835608018&cm_sp=Cat-Fans-PC-Cooling_1-_-Pillars-_-Noctua-H-D14_2

Motherboard: Supermicro X10DAi > $400

http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon/C600/X10DAi.cfm
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813182938&cm_re=Supermicro_X10DAi-_-13-182-938-_-Product

Memory: 32GB (4x 8GB) Samsung DDR4-2133 8GB/1Gx72 ECC/REG CL15 Server Memory > $456 ($114ea.)

http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=D4218G4S1

GPU: PNY NVIDIA Quadro K2200 4GB GDDR5 DVI/2DisplayPorts PCI-Express Video Card > $459.

http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=PNY-K2200

Disk 1: Crucial MX100 CT512MX100SSD1 2.5" 512GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) > $213.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148821&cm_re=crucial_mx100-_-20-148-821-_-Product

Disk 2 WD BLACK SERIES WD1003FZEX 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive > $74

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236625&cm_re=wd_black_1tb-_-22-236-625-_-Product

Optical Disk: SAMSUNG DVD Burner 24X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 8X DVD+R DL 24X DVD-R 6X DVD-RW 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-R 24X CD-RW 48X CD-ROM SATA Model SH-224DB/RSBS > $20

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136264

Power Supply: SeaSonic X Series X-850 (SS-850KM3 Active PFC F3) 850W ATX12V v2.3 / EPS 12V v2.91 SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Active PFC Power Supply> $150.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151102

Case: LIAN LI PC-D8000 Black Aluminum ATX Full Tower Computer Case > $340

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811112390&cm_re=lian_li-_-11-112-390-_-Product

Fan Controller: NZXT Sentry-2 5.25" Touch Screen Fan Controller > $23.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811992005&cm_re=fan_controller-_-11-992-005-_-Product

Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Professional SP1 64-bit English (1-Pack), OEM > $139.

http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=MSFQC08289
_______________________________________


TOTAL = $4495 or $3495 with single CPU

Cheers,

BambiBoom

HP z420 (2014) > Xeon E5-1620 quad core @ 3.6 / 3.8GHz > 24GB DDR3 ECC 1600 RAM > Quadro K2200 (4GB)> Intel 730 480GB > Western Digital Black WD1003FZEX 1TB> M-Audio 192 sound card > Linksys AE3000 USB WiFi > 2X Dell Ultrasharp U2715H 2560 X 1440 > Windows 7 Professional 64 >
[ Passmark Rating = 4402 > CPU= 9280 / 2D= 7971 / 3D=3480 / Mem= 2558 / Disk= 4498]

Dell Precision T5400 (2008) > 2X Xeon X5460 quad core @3.16GHz > 16GB DDR2 667 ECC> Quadro FX 4800 (1.5GB) > WD RE4 500GB / Seagate Barracuda 500GB > M-Audio 2496 Sound Card / Linksys WMP600N WiFi > HP 2711X, 27" 1920 X 1080 and Dell 19" LCD > Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit >
[ Passmark system Rating = 1859, CPU = 8528 / 2D= 512 / 3D=1097]

[Coming soon: Dell Precision T5500, X5680 six-core 3.33 / 3.6GHz, 24GB ECC1333, Quadro 4000, Samsung 840, Seagate 15K SAS 300GB]

2D, 3D CAD, Image Processing, Rendering, Text > Architecture, industrial design, graphic design, written projects [AutoCad, Revit, 3ds Max, VRay, Solidworks (learning), Sketchup, Adobe CS, Corel Technical Designer, WordPerfect, MS Office]
 



Just a couple of quick observations on the above as it's late here:
I'm not sure if it's the T5400 or T5500 you're upgrading, but if it's the T5400 be aware that that is the workstation my colleague has and is having trouble with the newer video cards. The 5500 has gen 2 PCI-E so you should be okay there..
I'd be dubious of the value of putting a quadro card into a render-node, as unless the CPU can offloads some rendering to the card, it won't really be used. I can't remember if the quadro 4000 will allow that sort of thing.

I like the name though, I suggest that you get an extra large case to fit it on :)
 
I love the enthusiasm and the very practical system name there Bambi :)

I have to share some constructive criticisms though because I'm a pain in the rear like that... I can't help it.

I disagree with the use of any sort of mechanically pumped liquid cooling in a traditional workstation, let alone TWO of them. Too much risk with absolutely no upside. A pump failure means absolute loss of cooling with no redundancy or useful passive dissipation capacity.. The pumps vibrate and are often noisy. A leak can destroy thousands worth of hardware. On the other hand, something like a Noctua NH-U9DXi4, which actually converts thermal energy from the CPU into the liquid pumping effort, has no potential for mechanical failure that could shut down the pumping action. When configured in push/pull with the included fans it has several layers of effective redundancy, able to suffer a fan failure with no loss in performance or stability, and able to handle 2 fan failures while still providing enough passive cooling (still pumping) to limp the machine to a save point. An AIOCLC can't compete with heatpipes for this sort of application.

The Seasonic X 850 would require the purchase of an auxiliary 4+4 pin power connection.

The WD1002FAEX is 2 generations old. It was a fine drive in it day based on 500GB platters. For a storage drive in such a system I would look to newer tech for higher platter density, which translates to higher sequential transfer rates, as well as reduced noise, vibration, and power dissipation. The WD1003FZEX and WD1002F9YZ are better performing drives for storage applications, based on newer technology.

Workstation motherboards have ample PWM fan headers that can be configured to respond to changing conditions in BIOS automatically to the taste of the system admin. There's no up-side to using the external fan controller other than the awesome looks.
 


ouch!,

I'm surprised to read of your colleague's problems with modern cards in a T5400 as these are in general backwards compatible and with very good performance. I have a $175 AMD Firepro V4900 (current) in a 2006 Precision 390 (Xeon X3230) which scores 1350 in 3D on Passmark- a higher score than the $1,300 Quadro FX 4800 (2010) in the T5400 (=1097). Looking at a list of (252) T5400's on Passmark baselines, these systems include GTX 680, 750, 760, 770, 970, several Quadro 4000, 5000, K2000, Firepro V7900, Radeon R9 280, and etc. These cards perform well: the GTX 970 scores 5816 in a T5400 with a single E5440 quad core @ 2.83GHz and a GTX 680 =5475 in a 2X dual core X5260 system. What is the GPU being tried and the nature of the problems in your firm's T5400?

The system being upgraded is a Precision T5500 [ "The Quadro 4000 and Samsung 840 are being recycled into a new second system to replace my rendering engine, a Dell Precision T5400. The new one is a Precision T5500,.." ] as for using a Quadro for rendering, my impression of rendering programs is that there has been a very noticeable shift towards GPU rendering and the more CUDA cores acting as co-processors the better. GPU's today are merging into co-processors as can be seen with NVIDIA Tesla. I like programs that are more reliant on multi-threading the task to the CPU to take advantage of all those cores that don't see use for almost anything else, but with the advance of OpenGL and proliferation of CUDA cores, the GPU is an increasingly important factor. Plus I have the Quadro 4000 already and the T5500 is also a backup system, set up to do almost any task the main system does. When finished, the T5500 will have 12 cores / 24 threads and so should be better at rendering than the quad core HP z420.

What program is your firm using for rendering?

Cheers,

BambiBoom

PS: Old Precisions can produce surprising results when upgraded. I was given the Precision 390 and spent about $130 on it (had the V4900 already):

Dell Precision 390 (2006) Original: Core2 Duo 6300 dual-core @ 1.86GHz, 2GB > Quadro FX550 > 2X WD 320GB . Windows XP Pro 32-bit
[ Passmark system rating = 397, CPU = 587 / 2D= 248 / 3D=75 / Mem=585 / Disk = 552 ]

Dell Precision 390 (2006) Revised: Xeon X3230 quad-core @ 2.67GHz > 8 GB DDR2 667 ECC > Firepro V4900 (1GB) > 2X WD 320GB >Linksys WMP600N WiFi Dell 24" > 1920 X 1200 > Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
[ Passmark system rating = 1458, CPU = 3699 / 2D= 431 / 3D=1350 / Mem= 885 / Disk=552]


 



mdocod,

Without obsession with minutiae, computers wouldn't even exist!

The system listed was based on the assumption that OP ouch was probably involved with a lot of rendering, hence the liquid cooling. As the lithography is reduced, both the calculation density and BTU's per sq.mm increase. Intel specifies liquid cooling on several Xeons with high core count and wattage, starting with the Xeon E5-2687W eight core CPU's which are now v3 10-core and 160W.

I'm still inclined to use this kind of liquid cooler on systems used for rendering, but from comments Mr. ouch appears not have rendering as a priority application. While this kind of integrated liquid coolers does produce more noise, good workstation cases seem to handle this sound reasonably well and Much depends on the mounting location of the fan/pump unit and where the system is set. Most offices I know have workstation system under desks and set back.

I've not heard of unreliability and/or leaks in these sealed, closed loop coolers. Where are you seeing reports of those problems?

The fan controller was again based on the concept of monitoring conditions on long rendering slogs- $23 additional insurance for $2,000 of CPU's.

The system listed was originally done before WD Blacks changed to the single 1TB platter. They're good. I use a WD1003FZEX in my HP z420 and have had very good results and the single 1TB platter WD Blue is a good performer for the cost.

What kind of system are you using and using for what?

Cheers,

BambiBoom


 
Bambi,

Perhaps the missing distinction here, is that heatpipe based coolers, ARE LIQUID COOLERS. Seems this important fact has been long forgotten by hardware enthusiasts, who at some point along the way decided to lump heatpipes into the same class as raw metal-to-air heatinks.

The heatpipe offers very nearly the same heat flux performance as a pumped liquid cooling system, and is similarly well suited to the high thermal density of modern CPUs.

You don't have to look far to find reports of leaking AIOCLCs. It's bound to happen and it does. Do a search if you're curious. I'm not interested in entertaining the proposition that such a claim should require "proof." An AIOCLC is inherently subject to the possibility of leaks as per the design, which requires MANY different surface to surface seals.

----------

Perhaps I misinterpreted your post concerning the product lists. I was under the impression you were making product recommendations, not listing products you are using or have used. Thus, the reason for pointing out the discrepancy in the hard drive listed vs the newer products.

I would actually rate the potential liability for failure as being higher with the cheap external fan controller, than simply using the on-board fan headers. That's not $23 for insurance, it's $23 for a greater chance of fan failure IMO.

--------

My personal computer is pretty irrelevant in the context here. I'm an AMD performance tuning enthusiast so I don't run much enterprise hardware personally (well.. I run a toshiba enterprise SSD and some of my storage drives are RE3/RE4)...
 
Bambi- oops my bad- it's an earlier generation in the same box- Precision 470 (i'm not sure where I got the 5400 number from).

We seem to be descending into a lot of detail here, which isn't a bad thing in itself, though in this case I won't be putting the system together, that'll go to someone like Dell/HP who can offer a warranty & support package. Feel free to speculate further though.

Generally for work I tend towards a simple setup, stock coolers, no fan controller beyond whats on the mobo etc.. the reason being largely based on Mdocods thinking is that more links in the chain make for more points of failure, that and it's hard work getting that level of support from our IT guys..

For reference, my current workstation is a T7400 (dual X5482) and has a pair of tall heat-pipe style coolers on the processors, with no fan other than a large 180mm or so thingy at the front of the case and some clever ducting. I have coretemp on the taskbar and idle temps are 36 and 45deg front and back respectively - you'd expect the CPU at the back to be warmer with this layout. I've never hit temps above 80 with this setup, largely due to the onboard fan control, that big fan at the front can move a hell of a lot of air when it wants to.
 


ouch!,

There were a pile of Precisions using what I call the Cadillac grille front. Besides the T5400 and the recent T5500, I was given a 390 and these three are almost indistinguishable from a few feet away. I think the T7400 and T7500 were a bit taller than the T5400 and T5500 though but the same design. I've often thought of painting the fronts satin black to make them a bit less distracting.

Sorry, I jumped to the conclusion that the proposed system would be assembled within your firm. It is more sensible and more typical - almost universal- to buy a proprietary system for the warranty and support. A Dell or HP is going to be fully refined and configured as well. Given the cost of lost work time in a professional office, the more expensive proprietary system is less expensive in the long run.

Having had both Dell and HP workstations, I've found I like the design, build quality and support from Dell a bit more. I rang up Dell and asked how I could obtain the T5500 OS and they're sending me a disk of the complete original software sold with the system without charge. I think series for series- Precision T3600 to HP z420, the Dell's may have a slight performance edge as well.

Anyway, the Xeon E5-2637 is a very good choice, and used for projects up to a medium size the Quadro K2200 is also excellent- very good value. Before ordering, I recommend looking up the performance of the drives they offer:.

http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/hdd_list.php

> as the smaller, lower end drives can be slug a beds even though SATA 3.

I think your T7400 and the T5400 use the same finned, heat pipe CPU cooler- like a model of a building. Your T7400 appears to run a bit cooler than my T5400- often the CPU's are about 50+C. And the DDR2 memory can get hot as you know where- I saw 85+C a number of times.

Cheers,

BambiBoom

Dells: Precisions T5500, T5400, 390, Dimensions E520, 8400 (P4), XPS T700R (P3), Optiplex 740, Poweredge 2600 (server)

HP's: z420, Elite M2542F (used only for sound recording)

Far too many systems, but I use them so long, no one will buy them! The T700R cost $2,200 in 1998 and no one would give me $90 in 2010.
 
B - in all fairness I didn't suggest we'd be buying out, and THG forums is aimed at the system builder rather than the box buyer.

We've always used Dell in the past, but recently we've been buying HP laptops, with mixed success depending on who you speak to. Personally I'm not that bothered, if it work, and is reliable and meets my criteria for ROI and lifespan then I'm happy. It'll sit under the desk and doesn't get looked at much at all.

Will do as you suggest and check the reviews of the SSDs as the situation evolves. I'm tempted by the prospect of a PCI-E based one, they seem a neck ahead of the SATA ones, probably due to the increased connection bandwidth.
 


ouch!,

I've visited many architectural, engineering offices, recently a wind tunnel doing tests for NASA and worked on a project for the local linear accelerator and was interested in the generally low priority- or interest- in computer performance. It's logical on one level in that the minutiae is nearly impenetrable without detemination, but on another, it's akin to a wood carver not being interested in how to sharpen chisels. My brother's architectural office until recently was using Dell Precision 390's for large projects in 3D- they had four of them, all with 1.86GHz early Core2 Duos, 2GB RAM, and Quadro 550's (128MB). He was actually somewhat resistant when I offered to upgrade one of them as a gift to demonstrate the potential. The work and potential problems meant possible interruption of billable hours- so I see the other side of the performance issue as well: your approach I think is a good balance- if it's good enough- it's fine. Nominal is a sound engineering principle and reliability a sound business one. My attitude is to build ahead of need in anticipation of more demanding software and projects but maintain reliability.

I'm a bit confused still about how the proposed system will happen, as you wrote both, "I won't be putting the system together, that'll go to someone like Dell/HP who can offer a warranty & support package." and "B - in all fairness I didn't suggest we'd be buying out, and THG forums is aimed at the system builder rather than the box buyer." The buying or building question is an interesting: in either case, the equation of scale of the task to performance to cost has so many variables. In some ways, it seems that imagining the ideal system within a certain cost is a good method to buying on in a box- find a proprietary system with as many features as the ideal one. The very best performing system though will be assembled- looking at Passmark's "Top 100" I don't think there's a single proprietary system in that list. I also noticed that the Xeon X55680, which I used in the T5500 upgrade scores 9320 in the T5500 - the top score but 13540 on a system using an EVGA Classified SR-2 motherboard- close to the typical dual X5680 Dell.

SSD's: I do think that some form of PCIe SSD is the future. The Western Digital Black in the HP z420 scores 1082 on Passmark, the 15K SAS Seagate Cheetah in the T5500 scores 1202, the T5500 Samsung 840 250GB- 2998, the Intel 730 480GB in the z420: 4498, and the mythological PCIe OCZ Z-Drive R4 scores 14,607 (and a 3TB one costs $19,000). Over the last couple of days I upgraded my spare system Precision T5500 and in looking into attaching the spare Samsung 840 250GB SSD to the SAS controller, I was concerned that the PERC 6/i controller was rated 3GB/s and would throttle the SSD. But no, it seems that no mechanical drive and very few SSD's push the limits of even SATA II 3GB/s. However, M.2 Ultra which uses 4 PCIe lanes is rated for 10GB/s and that direction should open up new possibilities for PCIe SSD's.

The other interesting side of the story is that the rush for disk speed for most users is a case of diminishing returns- a game of benchmarks. I've seen more than one commentary on SATA II and III that say though that the differences in mech'l drive and SSD performance on SATA III 6GB/s are unoticeable in every day use- if Windows starts 1 or 2 or even 10 seconds faster and a large file is half a second faster, you don't notice. The difference between mech'l and SSD though is easy to spot, but the SATA rating isn't.

Cheers,

BambiBoom

My motto: "Why use one word when twenty will do just as well."