Computer setup - AMD or Intel CPU, which graphics?

julii

Hi there,
I'm planning for a new computer setup and am seriously puzzled. I stopped looking into computer hardware after I got my gaming PC in 2005 (that stopped working in 2008 btw due to broken mainboard - been using a Laptop since then), so all my information is outdated.

My new desktop PC will be used for rendering and casual gaming (World of Warcraft, Fallout 3, Oblivion - older games, but I want to get Skyrim as soon as I have the new computer). As for rendering, I've only used DAZ Studio and a little bit of blender so far, but want to go into Reality and try out other renderers, too.

My budget is 500-700€ (650-900$), which is a rather low budget in comparison to the prices found in my country.

I want to go for 16GB RAM, Windows 7 Home 64-bit, NVIDIA graphics, 1TB Memory, 750W power supply.
I still have two DVD drives I want to keep.
It would be an option to get the system without graphics card now and buy one in about six months, when I had some more time to save money.

My first problem: I have no idea on how to choose the graphics card. I was considering the GTX 660 Ti, but that would eat up half of my budget alone. The GTX 650 Ti would be half of that price. I read about GPU and render engines, but I don't really understand where I'd find out which graphics card has how many threads or whatever the information I found told me to have a look at in online stores.
Do I need a GTX Version or would a GT do the same job for me?

My second problem: AMD or Intel CPU? In general benchmarks, Intel is considered much better, but I found contradictory information on the usability of those CPUs either for rendering or for gaming. AMD would be much cheaper, but it's said that it has higher energy usage (energy is expensive in my country, so... I'd really like to know that). Apart from that, I found information that states Intel is better for rendering or games or AMD is better for both or one of them. Can anyone clear that up for me and give me information on the difference in energy usage?

Unfortunately my preferred local computer shop closed and the other one around neither offers the information I need nor much hardware to choose (they don't sell AMD at all), so I'll have to do that on my own.

Searching the forums just confused me more - I had originally settled for an Intel CPU but am reconsidering after I read that AMD would be better, and as for graphics, I have the feeling I'm lacking very basic knowledge, so...

Any help would really be appreciated.

Edit: I forgot, I use to work with two monitors and want to keep it that way (I already have enough monitors, so they'll not cut into my budget), I suppose I will have to consider this concerning my choice of graphics card?

mjc1016

The AMD FX series, specifically, the Vischera (Piledriver) CPUs are fine for a render box...in fact the 8320 and 8350 both hold their own or beat much higher priced Intel chips and really shine in rendering tests.

As to video card...any 1 GB or more Nvidia card will do, as the included renderer in Daz Studio is 3Delight and doesn't use the video card for rendering. Reality/Lux (add on) can use the GPU for rendering but almost all Nvidia cards in the last few years are capable of OpenCL (most can do CUDA, too...so they'd be usable with the upcoming Octane plugin). AMD cards are good, but suffer from widely variable driver support...although the last several updates have been decent.

Now, if you are looking to build a dual rig....gaming and graphics, Intel will probably be the choice, because while the AMD chips beat the Intel when it comes to something that can use more cores (don't even try to buy an eight core Intel CPU unless you have a very fat wallet), games don't usually need the 'real' cores but the other optimizations of the Intel chips. And an Nvidia card is almost a given in that case...a GTX6xx series, at least (although I'm seeing some recommendations for the latest AMD cards, too).

julii

Hi and thanks for your input.

Rendering is more important to me than gaming, so as long as I can get WoW and Skyrim (and eventually Drakensang and other RPGs) running, it will be fine for me. I don't need highest gaming performance, an okay performance is enough. I'm not so much into gaming anyway.

Do you think I would get that with an AMD CPU?

You lost me already with the graphics cards. I understand I can use OpenCL with Reality and absolutely need it for Octane (though I don't know what OpenCL IS ^^) and NVIDIA graphics cards usually get along better with that, so I should choose NVIDIA. I have no idea what CUDA is (I suppose something like OpenCL, just better, right?)
How important is a good graphics card at all for reality/luxrender, when I have a good CPU? As far as I understand, the render engine can move some of the workload to the GPU. Is it that important for render time to do this when I get a high-end CPU anyway?

mjc1016

My current setup is an ancient dual core AMD processor with 4 GB of RAM, running Linux and as to the games you mentioned, I can run WoW, Drakensang and the older Elder Scroll series games with no problems...Fallout3 and Skyrim are a little too much. And I'm running a GT430 1 GB Nvidia card...

All running under WINE.

Performance in 3Delight is slow but not, usually, unbearably so...more cores would help, along with more RAM.

My next build, (in the process of getting the parts) is going to be an AMD FX8320 with 16 GB of RAM. I'm going to reuse the video card...

Mattymanx

I myself have had AMD CPUs until 5 years ago when I got my new computer and AMD was behind Intel on the multi core CPU. My Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 has been flawless for me. Between ATI and Nvidia it is again a difference of opinion. I have had ATI since 2001 and have never had an issue. My gamming/rendering machine which has the Intel chip has an ATI Radeon x1950 512MB Pro and it runs Skyrim just fine. However when it comes to games, it is best to have a high end sound card to or you will see a performace hit. SoundBlaster X-Fi series is very good at handeling high end sound needs.

I suggest you consider having your new computer custom built by a local shop with a good reputation. But again, do your homework first to have a good idea of what your buying. Be prepared to spend more too instead of just getting some Wal-Mart or BestBuy deal thats not really going to do what you need. Go for performance and stability. Be aware that you can create a bottleneck in performance by having one bit of hardware be much higher end then another. If possible, if not too expensive, either max out the ram for your board or put in only half of what it can take but do so with the largest possible ram sticks it will take to avoid replacing the ram you already bought in later years instead of just adding to it.

If you're going to go with Octane, keep in mind that you need to consider the cost of the card, the program and the plugin. If you want to go with LuxRender, via the Reality plugin, it can take advantage of CPU and/or GPU. Between the two, LuxRender is the less expensive solution but again, to each their own.

And go with 64Bit Windows instead of 32bit.

julii

mjc, your current setup looks quite similar to mine, apart from the graphics card. I have some Intel card in my laptop. :)

Matty, I really wanted to have my computer built, but there is no trustworthy shop I'm aware of near my location. Well, apart from the shop I visited today, that doesn't sell AMD CPUs at all. It's considered trustworthy, but... well... I don't think so. Apart from that, they'd want me to pay more than 100€ for the assembling.

64 bit is obviously the choice, as I'd actually want to use the RAM I'm buying. ;)

mjc1016

julii said:

Apart from that, they'd want me to pay more than 100€ for the assembling.

64 bit is obviously the choice, as I'd actually want to use the RAM I'm buying. ;)

Ouch...if I charged that much, maybe I could actually make a business of building computers, as opposed to a hobby...but then again, I'd probably have a lot less people wanting me to build them one.

If you were here in the States, I could probably find you a dozen shops to build without even doing a serious search...but as you are somewhere in Europe (the Euro symbol is a dead give-away), not much I can do there...unless you happen to be in Ireland...

cipher_X

My last build [less than a month ago] needed to be flexible and not break the bank. I have never been one to go for what is fresh out of the box, opting instead for parts that are tried and true with enough feedback on them to know what I am getting into. I needed to be able to run 3Delight, Octane, Yafaray, Firefly renderers, Vue, Carrara, Blender and Pro Tools MP so CPU, GPU & Ram were a big factor.

For my $900 [US] I went with an Intel Core2 Quad Q8400 [which you can still find here and there], Gigabyte Nvidia GTX 570, Gigabyte P45T-ES3G motherboard, 2 WD Cavier Black 1TB SATA hardrives, Coolermaster GLite case, Cooler Master Hyper TX3 CPU heatsink, 16Gb DDR3 Corsair Vengeance ram, ASUS Litescribe CD/DVD & Win7 64bit OEM.

I built this myself so there was no added cost there and Win7 is so easy to install hardware. The only thing that took me awhile was seating the heatsink on the cpu but even that wasn't hard. I have run Prime95 for 15 hours with the the processors leveling off around 43º celsius and at idle they are at about 29º. The GTX 570 GPU running Octane never goes above 32º. I can render with SSS, Sub-D, a dozen raytraced lights and no crashes in DS3 Advanced, all only using about 1/3 of the available ram...I couldn't use Sub-D on my last build without a crash.

mullhull_7c51bfb544

I Have used intel for the last 4 years just bought an AMD fx 8120 and MSI 970 board my intel 3.46 dual core extreme with 8 gigs been using hard for a couple of years will be building in the next month they say SSD drive are a good investment because of the read write speeds guess I will find out. One suggestion there are quite of few bare bones builders on E Bay that ship all over build to your specs with very competitive prices. Some are quite good with free advice . There feedback from previous customers generally speaks for itself