[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG

Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.

File: Ryzen.jpg (16 KB, 1200x900)
16 KB
Sup /3/, I'm looking to rebuild my old-ass computer. Might as well make it an investement that benefits my work speed, but I don't know what CPU to go with.

Biggest timesink for me is caching out sims and rendering using raytracing them inside of Houdini. With that in mind, I've heard that having more cores is beneficial for a lot of 3D work, so I am currently leaning towards pick related. However, when I tried to find answers on if MOAR CORES is beneficial, I found mixed answers. Some software vastly benefit from it, some don't, some mix both single and multicore processes, etc.

In the particular case of simulations and raytrace renders, is the AMD ryzen the way to go, or is it more beneficial in the long run to go with an Intel with less cores but faster clock speeds?
ryzen is yesterdays trash.

If you're going to use A Radeon renderer Or Something that actually used all of those fucking cores, it's okay, otherwise get intel.
Are you sure? I thought Ryzen was meant to be revolutionary.
its not even 16 core.
Check your software developer for the recommended specs. Houdini, Maya, 3ds Max... they all will run under intel with a gforce card, as the majority of 3d games, but the more recommended build will be posted on their site. Usually we´re talking about BIG expenses here, with motherboards that supports multiple GPUs linked and so on. Unless specified by your dev, go for a Intel on a ASUS motherboard with plenty of RAM for modeling and sculpting, with a nice Gforce with at least 4 giga video ram - that is a relatively cheap workstation with a good modeling benefit, but don´t expect renderfarm speed when rendering animations.
I would go with either the AMD X399 or the Intel X299 HEDT platforms. If you are doing simulation work in Houdini you will want a lot of memory, or at least room to grow. Even if you can't afford a ton of RAM at the moment it's nice not to be capped at 64GB if you plan to stick with your new build for a good while (Intel and AMD HEDT allow for 128GB).

My 16-core Ryzen Threadripper system has 32GB of RAM and that is proving to be the biggest limitation for sims. RAM prices these days are just painful though...

As far as more cores vs faster cores, it's a mixed bag. Since Houdini and DCC in general is my main focus, more cores makes the most sense to me. The Threadripper CPU can still ramp four cores to 4+GHz without any overclocking, so I feel like I'm fine as far as single-threaded performance goes, not the best but not terrible.

Rendering in Houdini... IMO it all depends on if you're talking stills or animation. For stills work, the 8+ core processors from Intel or AMD will do fine. For animation, I feel like even the fastest CPUs are inadequate and far from "revolutionary". You would be better of just sticking a couple (or more) decent nvidia GPUs in your system and using Redshift. GPU rendering is actually a game-changer as far as rendering decent animations on a single machine.
Why doesn't Mantra use GPU yet?
Redshit is trash / garbage. Just use floss solutions like cycles.

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.