Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Question

Which build is better for 3d modeling, rendering, and some a

Dec 21, 2014 9:38AM PST

I am looking for a desktop system in the $1000 range that could handle programs like:

adobe suite
autocad
3dsmax
vray
sketchup pro
unity

I've decided that it doesn't make sense to diy as time and some sort of guarantee are an issue. I'm new to understanding hardware configurations and the requirements of the software listed above.

After researching with budget and upgrade-ability in mind, I've narrowed it down to:


1) CyberpowerPC Gamer Ultra GUA500 Gaming Desktop Computer: $940
The specs look okay to me (though I don't see a CPU Cooler?) and I'm on the fence with regards to their spotty reputation (and the distributor does not take returns on desktops, so I would be working directly with CyberpowerPC should anything go wrong)

2) The other is a custom build from ecollegePC: $1008
Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5Ghz 6MB Cache Quad-Core |
Stock Intel LGA1150 Heatsink and Fan |
MSI Z97 PC Mate(Intel Z97, HDMI, DVI, 2xPCI-E, 6xSATA, 4xDDR3) |
8GB (4GBx2) PC3 12800 DDR3 1600Mhz Memory Lifetime Warranty |
1TB 7200RPM 32MB Cache SATA3 6Gbps Western Digital Blue |
24X LG SATA Dual Layer DVD /-RW/CDRW |
1GB NVIDIA Quadro K600 VCQK600-PB DVI, Display Port |
Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64bit (Includes DVD + COA) |
Corsair Black Carbide Series 200R (3 5.25, 4 3.5) 2 Fans, Audio/USB 3.0 |
500watt Corsair CX500 V2 80 PLUS CERTIFIED | Onboard 1Gbit LAN included |
Onboard HD 7.1 Sound included |
Wires and Cables ran behind case and tied up for maximum airflow |
3 Year Parts and Labor Warranty |
Standard processing time: Ready to ship within 3 to 5 Business Days

All other quotes start @ $1500.
I really would prefer to build my own system for less, but it's just not the option I have right now.

Which build do you think is better for my needs for now? and would one be better than the other in terms of upgrade-ability?

Thanks for any help or advice,
Tom

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Answer
Sorry
Dec 21, 2014 9:43AM PST

While the usual i7 with 15GB RAM makes a good baseline, the software you use matters. If your software doesn't use the GPU then well, you don't need much of a GPU.

I can't guess why you picked a Quadro. Most folk end up picking from THE LIST. And almost all have more RAM in the video card. The PSU is light too.
Bob

- Collapse -
Answer
Reply
Jan 1, 2015 11:10AM PST

Well, i think that the second one is good

- Collapse -
Answer
the money value is #1
Jan 2, 2015 1:37AM PST

although I don't know why anyone would need 16GB on a home desktop computer.

- Collapse -
2 reasons today.
Jan 2, 2015 1:40AM PST
- Collapse -
impediments
Jan 2, 2015 2:08AM PST

The link made some unqualifed statements concerning SSD + RAM, not explaining why it felt, or which it felt, added to any speed boost. For RAM to be used, something has to be loaded to it. Typically that would be adding a program into RAM and whatever data was sent into a cache. Not all software utilize RAM as efficiently as it could, especially older programs which put the emphasis on NOT using more RAM than necessary. I can see how 6-8 GB RAM might be great, but 16GB seems more RAM than most would ever have loaded with programs and data.

On my Linux box, I would have to open 8 programs or more to even come close to using all my 4GB RAM. I can run a virtual OS at the same time with 2GB shared RAM and come close to maxing out my 4GB RAM, typically it's about 3.5 GB. That's about the only place I can see that much RAM being used, 8GB and over, is running several virtual systems at the same time as guest under the host system. On my Linux box, 8GB would allow 3 virtual systems running at the same time as the host system.

One thing I've not seen yet, but now will start watching for it, is computers actually using more than 8GB RAM used, shown by some program assessing RAM usage.

If you know of some good review sites showing such large RAM amounts fully in usage, I'd truly like to see them. I suppose some modern action games might be the other possible user of such large RAM amounts.

mint16@mint16 ~ $ inxi
CPU~Single core AMD Sempron 140 (-UP-) clocked at 2712.385 Mhz Kernel~3.13.0-24-generic i686 Up~82 days Mem~1181.7/3907.2MB HDD~1280.3GB(5.9% used) Procs~169 Client~Shell inxi~1.8.4

(here I turned on Virtual Box and booted windows 10 in it)

mint16@mint16 ~ $ inxi
CPU~Single core AMD Sempron 140 (-UP-) clocked at 2712.385 Mhz Kernel~3.13.0-24-generic i686 Up~82 days Mem~3236.2/3907.2MB HDD~1280.3GB(5.9% used) Procs~173 Client~Shell inxi~1.8.4

mint16@mint16 ~ $ date
Fri Jan 2 12:57:52 EST 2015

mint16@mint16 ~ $ uptime
12:57:57 up 82 days, 19:54, 3 users, load average: 2.68, 1.49, 0.79
mint16@mint16 ~ $


That gets me closer to 4GB use. Before running windows 10 OS in Virtual Box I was running thunderbird email and firefox in Linux. I have 2GB RAM shared to the windows 10 virtual system. I didn't run anything in windows 10 because it was doing that windows infuriating thing of updates where it keeps needing to restart during some of the updates. In the last 82 days of continual service I've done a number of updates on Linux and NEVER had to restart it once, as shown in the data above.

I'm curious if Windows Server Edition also requires restarts for upgrades? If so, that must be a real PIA for those at a Windows based server farm.

- Collapse -
My take was it was more for Windows sake.
Jan 2, 2015 2:21AM PST

RAM beats HDD and even SSD today. Linux is well known to manage memory better so for Windows...

At the office we fit the new machines with 16GB since we pay by the hour. It's cheap stuff compared to most other parts of a laptop.
Bob

- Collapse -
It needs "write back caching" set up properly
Jan 2, 2015 3:48AM PST
As an aside, when SSD goes bad, at the worst possible time, the worst possible place.

I looked at the bench marking (page 3) on the link you gave. The only thing that I can think of that explains their results, which they don't mention directly, or I failed seeing it, is the use of "write back cache" being used. Basically larger amount of RAM used for longer time periods before data gets written to disc, or in this case the SSD. If the usual safer caching method was used, there probably wouldn't be much improvement. Upside is the faster speed gained using "write back", the downside is anything that causes data loss between the last write to disk and the loss. I think I remember that correctly, but it's the difference between bigger cache in volatile RAM with longer times to update the data stored on an SSD or HDD.
- Collapse -
Still, Linux wins on many areas.
Jan 2, 2015 4:00AM PST

Memory management, write cache latencies, etc. Windows is a pretty old beast, even with 8 and 10, lots of old guard (that's people) keeping watch that nothing new happens like a microkernal.
Bob