More slow cores or fewer fast cores?

[ledude]

I have a choice between

i7-6900K 8 Core 3.8 GHz and
Xeon E5-2650 14 core v4 Broadwell EP 2.2 GHz

I will be rendering in Maya. Are the 14 cores worth it for server CPU like Broadwell?

 

[James Mason]

well, there is like a 2% performance difference between the two at full load, favoring the 14 core.

But in all other general tasks, the i7 would win many times over the xeon.

 

[mrmez]

6900K for sure.
The 2650 is already 4 years old.
Also, not sure where you're getting clock speeds from. The 6900k is 3.2Ghz and the 2650 2.0Ghz. The boost speeds are irrelevant for modern multi-threaded apps.

One thing I look for when comparing different CPU's is TDP (heat). Newer chips are usually always more power efficient, so if a newer chip uses more power than an old one, it's pretty much a guarantee it will be faster.

The 2016 6900k is 140w, and the 2012 2650 is 95w

 

[ledude]

6900K for sure.
The 2650 is already 4 years old.
Also, not sure where you're getting clock speeds from. The 6900k is 3.2Ghz and the 2650 2.0Ghz. The boost speeds are irrelevant for modern multi-threaded apps.

One thing I look for when comparing different CPU's is TDP (heat). Newer chips are usually always more power efficient, so if a newer chip uses more power than an old one, it's pretty much a guarantee it will be faster.

The 2016 6900k is 140w, and the 2012 2650 is 95w

Thank you. I did not realize it was old. As for the speed of the Xeon, it was listed on the Titan Computers site. I wonder why they are having people build workstations with these older Xeons as the options.

 

[ledude]

well, there is like a 2% performance difference between the two at full load, favoring the 14 core.

But in all other general tasks, the i7 would win many times over the xeon.

Thanks for the info. I am also using this for video editing, as well, going back and forth between Premiere and After Effects, so I guess I better find something faster/newer.

 

[photonboy]

well, there is like a 2% performance difference between the two at full load, favoring the 14 core.

But in all other general tasks, the i7 would win many times over the xeon.

Thanks for the info. I am also using this for video editing, as well, going back and forth between Premiere and After Effects, so I guess I better find something faster/newer.

1) Not all of these scale well, so faster/less cores often is better.
- some of the XEONS are very slow per core. Some are under 2GHz.

2) GPU acceleration should be researched. Does a Quadro benefit? If so, where's the point of diminishing returns.

3) SSD setup is also very important.

Depending on which program you use, AND what you are currently doing in the program your bottleneck may jump around from CPU (possibly System RAM), SSD/HDD, or GPU.

*So you should write down the names of the main programs you intend to use then do a bit more research if you have not already. Again the balance of:

a) CPU
b) DDR4 amount and frequency (i.e. 32GB, quad-channel, 3200MHz... in Quad-Channel you may not benefit much beyond 2666MHz CL16)

*in general, buy Quad-memory as a kit, not 2xDual-channel kits. The memory should be detected as a quad-channel kit with XMP to enable the optimal memory setup.

c) GPU ($300 Quadro best value or what?)
d) SSD - may need TWO if reading one and writing to another at the same time (i.e. 2x500GB Samsung 850 EVO). PCIe is another option but the COST may not warrant it.
f) HDD - bulk storage, but you may need to transfer your working files over to an SSD folder before starting a project.

There's no simple answer.

*Also, AMD has a Zen, 14nm, 8C/16T coming which is estimated to be similar to Intel's offerings, but hopefully a significant cost savings. Unfortunately that could be a few months.

 

[photonboy]

i7-6900K

I can't think of a better value for your build right now. Again though, the TOTAL BUDGET for the system is what is important. Just for fun I'll put together a system but I'm not an expert.

 

[ledude]

well, there is like a 2% performance difference between the two at full load, favoring the 14 core.

But in all other general tasks, the i7 would win many times over the xeon.

Thanks for the info. I am also using this for video editing, as well, going back and forth between Premiere and After Effects, so I guess I better find something faster/newer.

1) Not all of these scale well, so faster/less cores often is better.
- some of the XEONS are very slow per core. Some are under 2GHz.

2) GPU acceleration should be researched. Does a Quadro benefit? If so, where's the point of diminishing returns.

3) SSD setup is also very important.

Depending on which program you use, AND what you are currently doing in the program your bottleneck may jump around from CPU (possibly System RAM), SSD/HDD, or GPU.

*So you should write down the names of the main programs you intend to use then do a bit more research if you have not already. Again the balance of:

a) CPU
b) DDR4 amount and frequency (i.e. 32GB, quad-channel, 3200MHz... in Quad-Channel you may not benefit much beyond 2666MHz CL16)

*in general, buy Quad-memory as a kit, not 2xDual-channel kits. The memory should be detected as a quad-channel kit with XMP to enable the optimal memory setup.

c) GPU ($300 Quadro best value or what?)
d) SSD - may need TWO if reading one and writing to another at the same time (i.e. 2x500GB Samsung 850 EVO). PCIe is another option but the COST may not warrant it.
f) HDD - bulk storage, but you may need to transfer your working files over to an SSD folder before starting a project.

There's no simple answer.

*Also, AMD has a Zen, 14nm, 8C/16T coming which is estimated to be similar to Intel's offerings, but hopefully a significant cost savings. Unfortunately that could be a few months.

Thanks. I've been doing a lot of research trying to get this balanced out. This will be with Quadro M4000, which will not benefit the rendering to my knowledge but will enable smoother activity in the Maya viewport with lots of geometry. Premiere only uses one GPU for playback and two for rendering, so I'm just having one.

I think the main thing I've learned here is that the newer cores, while fewer, are superior to those older cores even when there are more. As I mentioned to another, I did not realize the Xeons were old. As for storage there are two drives; one smaller NVM for the OS and another SSD for everything else. 2400MHz DDR4 64GB memory.

Thanks for the suggestion of quad memory setup. I'll check it out.

 

[photonboy]

http://pcpartpicker.com/list/qVzHhq

I was bored, and not an expert. Minor points:
a) Asus "TUF" motherboards have a 5-Year Warranty. (sometimes after three years it's hard to find a compatible board at a reasonable price)
b) Most SSD's have software now. I use Samsung Magician. (I thought about an M.2 SSD but wasn't sure if the price justified it... if you later need more bandwidth for a scratch drive you can add a fast PCIe SSD).

*I didn't see any kits specifically labelled as quad-channel so I'm assuming the kit I chose will work. For the COST of DDR4 memory I suggest at least 2666MHz CL15.

The faster the CPU the faster your memory needs to be to avoid bottlenecking it.

It's hard to find good reviews for your CPU (or close) with different DDR4 memory configurations. If in doubt, I'd get closer to 3000MHz.

**Having said that, I see no good reason why QUAD CHANNEL won't work, so yes 2400MHz is probably enough.

 

[k1114]

It is not old, he mixed up the 2650 v1 with the v4. The 2650v4 just came out a couple months ago. Wrong speed, wrong number of cores, wrong architecture, wrong everything. But as mentioned after effects and premiere don't scale as well with that many cores so the i7 would do better for those. Do you use mental ray in maya?

 

[ledude]

It is not old, he mixed up the 2650 v1 with the v4. The 2650v4 just came out a couple months ago. Wrong speed, wrong number of cores, wrong architecture, wrong everything. But as mentioned after effects and premiere don't scale as well with that many cores so the i7 would do better for those. Do you use mental ray in maya?

Yes, MR in Maya but I am also investigating a couple others.

 

[k1114]

Mental ray scales very well but if you are looking into other renderers, try looking for any that are gpu accelerated. Octane seems to be getting more popular but I haven't used any outside of iray and quicksilver that come with max. Although I did transfer iray over to maya to try it there, results were similar.

 

[ledude]

Mental ray scales very well but if you are looking into other renderers, try looking for any that are gpu accelerated. Octane seems to be getting more popular but I haven't used any outside of iray and quicksilver that come with max. Although I did transfer iray over to maya to try it there, results were similar.

Indeed, I was just looking a Iray which uses GPU:

http://www.rockthe3d.com/25-best-3d-rendering-software/

EDIT: I am very impressed with Octane. Maxwell also looks great.

 

[photonboy]

Just FYI, but I've heard some of the programs Adobe has requires you to manually add GPU's not on their list. I can't verify that, or what versions of the programs it applies to.

Unfortunately to get the latest versions of Adobe software you need the subscription model.

 

[k1114]

They no longer use a white list. That has been removed a couple years back.