Proofreading my computer design and building a server rack station.

[Lizzie_Jo_Computers_11]

I'll look into the 1080, but from what I understand the 780 ti and Titan X should be faster?

Just to be certain, I will not wind up suffering longer renders, or lagging video playback while video editing if I get an i7 over the Xeon? I do understand that the Xeon will NOT help me with video encoding whatsoever if I'm using the GPU, but will the loss of cores possible (although sacrificing clock speed) hinder the actual video editing processes?

I think, as far as my workflow is concerned, the actual video editing, and the After Effects editing is the part I must increase the speed of the most urgently. Previewing anything is absolutely impossible, literally.

[slicendice]

No the 1080 is faster than all of those, except for the Titan X Pascal which is the fastest GPU you can find today. GTX 1080 is based on the Pascal architecture.

Check THIS site out and build your own "gaming rig" (good baseline for anything else too). This might help you get the idea for what to look for.

CPU, GPU, RAM, SSD, HDD and MB.

About Adobe tools, I don't have any personal experience for the latest tools and hardware, so can't be much of a help there. We need someone who has actually built a beast for video editing.

[Lizzie_Jo_Computers_11]

I was actually thinking of building two separate PCs, rather than one single PC to do all of my tasks. It seems to make more sense.

I remembered that I can't use the i7 for my music production, as it doesn't support ECC memory, and I believe that the ones that actually do, only support up to 64 GB.

If I built one PC around the i7 4.0 GHz with a powerful GPU that I could use for my video editing and video encoding/rendering specifically, and use the 64 GB non-ECC RAM that is available, I could work around the need for multiple cores in my other "studio computer", so to speak.

Then I would build another PC built around a dual Xeon build specifically for my music workstation where I could use 128 GB ECC RAM for any music processing and editing where ECC is more efficient. Also being able to use this PC for any possible small server needs in the future.

I'm building a massive case for this computer, so there would be plenty of room, and separate systems could indeed speed up the workflow as a video render would not effect anything on the second computer where I could multitask my music creation process.

The first PC would need a good GPU for rendering/encoding, and could easily pass with 4-6 cores at 3.6GHz to 4.4GHz Intel i7.

The second PC could focus more on ECC memory and multiple cores being used with hyperthreading for a music workstation. Even with 2.2GHz, in a music station, I think the possibility of a 20-22 core system would be very sufficient.

[Lizzie_Jo_Computers_11]

I used PCpartpicker to create two separate builds. One build based around a cual CPU Xeon build for my musical workstation, and a build based around a 4.2 GHz intel i7 CPU for my video editing and video encoding. I think it's quite possible that doing two separate builds for the different needs of this business would be much better for my budget than building a system that can do everything but is limited in certain areas.

The price comes out to around $9000 if I include taxes and the cost to build my customized case for everything.

I think this could be a good idea, but if someone disagrees, please point it out, and why you think one PC build would still be better.


Intel Xeon build...

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/wGkFYr

Intel i7 build...

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/MDJY2R

[Lizzie_Jo_Computers_11]

Thinking about it further, and doing continued research, one PC might be enough after all, if I really invest a lot into it. I have two more separate builds, with the only difference between them being the processor.

In that case, my last few posts can be completely ignored unless there would be something useful to add back there...

Question 1: In the more expensive build, would those two dual processors be worth the total price tag of $10,000-$11,000 of a computer build over the $7,000-$8,000 computer build with lower grade CPU processors instead.

Question 2: Is the 1080 GPU really faster for my specific needs (as I am not focused on gaming speeds) than the 980 Ti or the Titan X? The price tag must have some sort of meaning, at least between these, as it should be a difference between consumers and business for this price range.

I see that the memory bandwidth is higher on both the 980 Ti and the Titan X. Will that support my build better for it's purpose, or is it an insignificant difference showing little improvement over one another?

Most expensive build... $10,000-$11,000 including taxes, and my customized case.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/XVbqwV

Second most expensive build... $7,000-$8,000 including taxes, and my customized case.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/wzWxVY

[DimitriP]

probably  but here it goes.

The first system has too many cores cores @ 3.00 GHz
the second has even more cores @ 2.2GHz

as far as CPUs go, you need less cores, more GHz
the right balance to me seems to be a four or six core CPU running at 3.6 or higher.
Anything running @2.2 will be dog slow unless you are running the one specific application task that knows what to do with this many cores.
10 cores @ 3.0 are worse than  than 6 cores @ 3.6


all kinds of stuff to read here: 
old  https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CS6-GPU-Acceleration-162/
and newer  https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-2017-Intel-Core-i7-7700K-i5-7600K-Performance-884/

[Lizzie_Jo_Computers_11]

With my specific applications, they actually do take advantage of multiple cores, especially the music programs such as Reaper 5 and Omnisphere 2, which is why I need more cores, and the clock speed/GHz is mainly for rendering/encoding, so that's the balance I'm trying to strike here.

Is there a Xeon processor in the 2600 family (for dual cores) that runs at 3.6GHz or higher, with at least 4 cores? I could at least push that up to eight with a dual system, but I believe the more cores that I have, the better for the music production side of things.

[Lizzie_Jo_Computers_11]

Here is a list of all E5 v4 processors that has 4+ cores and 3.5GHz+ turbo boost frequency.
CPU part number is simplified, full part number is "E5-"+listed_part_number+"v4".
Core count, base frequency and maximum (single/dual core) turbo boost frequency are listed.

3637, 4C, 3.5GHz, 3.7GHz, $996
2643, 6C, 3.4GHz, 3.7GHz, $1552
2667, 8C, 3.2GHz, 3.6GHz, $2057
2689A, 8C, 3.4GHz, 3.6GHz, OEM ($1349 from China gray market)
2689, 10C, 3.1GHz, 3.8GHz, $2773
2687W, 12C, 3.0GHz, 3.5GHz, $2141
2690, 14C, 2.6GHz, 3.5GHz, $2090
2697A, 16C, 2.6GHz, 3.6GHz, $2891
2697, 18C, 2.3GHz, 3.6GHz, $2702
2673, 20C, 2.3GHz, 3.6GHz, OEM ($1050 from China gray market)
2698, 20C, 2.2GHz, 3.6GHz, $3226
2696, 22C, 2.2GHz, 3.7GHz, OEM ($1699 from China gray market)
2699, 22C, 2.2GHz, 3.6GHz, $4115
2699A, 22C, 2.4GHz, 3.6GHz, $4938
2699R, 22C, 2.2GHz, 3.6GHz, $4560

Thank you so much, that is an extremely helpful list! It really simplifies my choice, so thank you for taking the time to put it together for me. ;- )

I'm currently running an E5-2696v4, at the time I bought it, it costed my $1929.

Does it run really fast for you? Theoretically, for me, that could be a very good compromise between my different workloads.

If I put 2 in there and received 36 cores, then my music production and 3D modeling/rendering would have plenty of cores to spread over. As for the video editing and rendering, if set to only utilize 2-4 of those cores, would be capable of turbo-boosting (at least close) to it's maximum 3.7GHz, do you think? Especially since I will be aided by GPU acceleration from a high-end graphics card, multiple cores (in fact, more than 6) will become useless, so that high clock speed would become extremely useful in that working condition.

[slicendice]

To get a complete database including features and limitations of all Intel CPUs go to Intel product specifications page. There you will find all you need to know about each CPU in a nice table format. I consult this database often and it is the only reliable source for detailed information on Intel CPUs.

[MK14]

This (older than I'd like) article, seems to carefully compare the difference(s). Between normal cpus, such as quad core cpus and higher core count, dual processor setups, for Audio work. By using what they think are reliable benchmark(s), over their many, many years of experience.

It seems the dual cpu system, wins hands down. Performance wise for their audio stuff.

http://www.reyniersaudio.com/blog/recording-computer/recording-computer-cpu-benchmarks-sandy-bridge-nehalem-and-bulldozer-processors-compared

I DON'T know enough about your audio work (OP) and the articles. To know how relevant it is.

Despite the age of the article, I suspect it's still relevant.

[slicendice]

ARK only contains info about non-OEM chips, which are usually much more expensive than OEM parts.

What are you talking about? Every single CPU type is there since the beginning of the database. It's not a webshop for non-OEM CPUs, it's meant for the user to find the appropriate CPU-type for their particular needs. It even gives you info for all available packaging types. It also includes the possibility to compare CPUs side by side. The price you see there is just a reference price and has nothing to do with real prices so it can be completely ignored. And most CPUs there don't even have a price.

What a load of BS!

P.S. Sorry for my rant, but I get furious when I see irrelevant post like this.

[Howardlong]

ARK only contains info about non-OEM chips, which are usually much more expensive than OEM parts.

What are you talking about? Every single CPU type is there since the beginning of the database.

Hmm, I'm not sure if there is some misunderstanding here, but I agree with Blueskull, OEM-only SKUs are generally missing from ARK.

For example I run a pair of E5-2696 v2 on one of my dual Xeons, that processor's not on ARK but it appears on benchmark sites.

[slicendice]

Most of those are "unknown" custom built CPUs made on order and should not be considered by mere mortals. Difficult to find, and you never know what you will get. No wonder people find so many CPUs that are incompatible with certain MBs.

Most of those CPUs listed above I find on ark anyways and a new Xeon versions takes a long time to appear in ark. There are a lot of v4 that are coming but are not yet officially released and there are a lot of CPUs that are not meant for the general public, so why even advertise such devices?

But now we are completely off topic and this conversation does not help to build a good PC.

First we look at usage scenario, then software/hardware requirements, then we look at what is available, after that what is compatible with what and after that we look at price and where we have to make compromises in regards to price/features. The rest blabber is just confusing and keeps us unfocused ending up in that the PC will never be built or there will be HUGE mistakes made.

[Howardlong]

Most of those are "unknown" custom built CPUs ......

OK, so Blueskull was right then, OEM-only don't appear on ARK. Just sayin'.

But now we are completely off topic and this conversation does not help to build a good PC.

Hmm, convenient, the only person making an issue out of it to begin with was... ;-)

[slicendice]

My advice to any PC builder. Unless you are a system builder and know your CPU's like your own pockets, and you can not find the CPU in ark.intel.com, then don't buy it. There is a reason why such CPUs are cheap and left out from the list.

For instance that E5-2696 v2 Xeon has only 11 cores, when the official count should be 12. That CPU is the same chip as 2695 and 2697 but with different configuration. God knows what other defects it might have contained when going through specs tests.

I'd rather not find out the defects once they are already installed in the system, though I'm certain Intel made sure it will work before selling it.

We are trying to get a PC built that is meant for serious work, not some hobby PC where we rebuild the thing every now and then or experiment with different chips.

[Howardlong]

For instance that E5-2696 v2 Xeon has only 11 cores, when the official count should be 12. That CPU is the same chip as 2695 and 2697 but with different configuration. God knows what other defects it might have contained when going through specs tests.

It's actually a defect with the motherboard's BIOS, that Asus that I mentioned where you suggested that people didn't know what they doing (other than you apparently). It won't boot with both CPUs installed and all cores enabled, it does when only 11 per socket are enabled. Individually, both processors work with all 12 cores. Just a friendly suggestion, please keep in mind when commenting that I have the first hand knowledge of these devices, whereas it appears you don't, your comments are based on guesswork.

I actually agree with you in that I wouldn't recommend these devices to the OP, but that wasn't the point of my post with the screenshot of the device in CPU-Z as you well know, it was to show that your comments about ARK were incorrect ("Every single CPU type is there"). You know that, but for some reason have chosen to take it out of context, apparently to use it as a smoke screen that you might've got something wrong.

I also agree that we should get on with discussing the OP's concerns.

[slicendice]

Howard, your CPU is still not supported by Asus. Don't go and blame the board, manufacturer or it's BIOS for something that isn't even intended to work in the first place.

After 20 years and hundreds of PC builds, I can confidently say that each PC has worked flawlessly unless there has actually been a hardware defect (which isn't that uncommon). Going and experimenting with unsupported stuff when I want something that works well out of the box is the last thing I would ever do.

I have also built PCs that has run CPUs that are not even supposed to work at all on such hardware(chipsets or even CPU sockets). After a lot of resoldering and diagnostics, these experiments has also run flawlessly with speeds way above specs.

One example would be Abit BP6 with 2 x 1GHz+ Piii CPUs. The Chipset i440BX was actually designed for single 1st gen Celeron CPUs with FSB 66MHz. Abit made the board run with 2 Celerons @ same FSB.
I made that same board run with 2 Piii @ 133MHz FSB. And darn it was fast. That board has now retired.

But I guess my experience is not enough, so I shut up now and leave this thread. Good luck with the build.

[Monkeh]

After 20 years and hundreds of PC builds, I can confidently say that each PC has worked flawlessly

Good for you. Come make this Supermicro board advertise turbo speeds above base clock instead of below.

In reality, there are bugs. Everything has them. To pretend they don't exist because you aren't following instructions to the letter is ridiculous.

[Howardlong]

Howard, your CPU is still not supported by Asus. Don't go and blame the board, manufacturer or it's BIOS for something that isn't even intended to work in the first place.

You've forgotten that I had similar difficulties on this board with supported non-OEM devices including pairs of kosher E5-2670s (and E5-2609s as a matter of fact).

After 20 years and hundreds of PC builds, I can confidently say that each PC has worked flawlessly unless there has actually been a hardware defect (which isn't that uncommon). Going and experimenting with unsupported stuff when I want something that works well out of the box is the last thing I would ever do.

Again, I am not recommending going the route of unsupported devices to the OP, how many times have I recommended only going for what's on the QVLs on this thread? You've missed the point completely, I was pointing out to you that your assertion regarding ARK and OEM-only devices was incorrect, and gave evidence of that.

But I guess my experience is not enough, so I shut up now and leave this thread. Good luck with the build.

In fact, your experience is appreciated, I largely concur with it, but sometimes we all have to graciously accept sometimes we are guilty of minor inaccuracies. It's not a problem as long as you're comfortable with accepting that.

[Lizzie_Jo_Computers_11]

Yes, it's blazing fast for my needs. I run supercomputing on it, specifically running my home brew finite element simulation software on it for my research.
Since I use linked table data structure to represent sparse data, I won't get any benefit from GPU. Now I'm running my code on my Xeon E5, and I plan to build another Xeon Phi 7210 HPC for my expanded need.

It goes to 3.5GHz when 3 or 4 cores are used, and 3.7GHz only when 1 or 2 cores are used. When all 22 cores are used, it goes only to 2.8GHz (or 2.9GHz, I forgot the exact number), lower if AVX is used.

That sounds great in my opinion. Thank you for the information!

I think it should be compatible with my board? It's the Supermicro MBD X10-DAX E-ATX. It's compatible with 2699 v3 model, which seems to be mostly identical to the 2696 (I think)?

If that is the case, then why would I choose a different processor? I'm willing to work a little to get it to start working, I mean this to be a long-term investment in a good computer that will work precisely for my needs, and last a while. Those specifications sound like the kind of processor I need.

[Howardlong]

+1.

I think I mentioned making sure the BIOS is already updated earlier. This happened to me recently on an Asrock X99 ITX board when fitting a 6800k. I had to pinch a 5820k out of another build just to update the BIOS.

Considering many of the server level boards have BMC, I'm not sure why they can't come up with a way of updating the BIOS through that.

[slicendice]

Asus Flashback method can update BIOS without CPUs and any RAM inserted. Only needs a BIOS binary, a powersupply and an USB thumbdrive formatted to FAT32.

[Howardlong]

Asus Flashback method can update BIOS without CPUs and any RAM inserted. Only needs a BIOS binary, a powersupply and an USB thumbdrive formatted to FAT32.

Interesting, I will re-read up on that, I thought you still needed a POSTing system for Flashback to work.

Also, it looks like Supermicro have an OOB system called SUM to manage BIOS updates remotely, but it's not clear if it needs a POSTed machine to work.

[slicendice]

It's an Asus exclusive feature on latest boards. Don't think many others have this feature yet. With the thumb drive inserted in the correct USB slot and pressing the flashback button while computer is turned off, it automatically starts the update process, skipping the POST process.

[slicendice]

Some Asus boards also have a feature where you can copy a log of all status/diagnostics codes to a thumb drive. This can be done with MB online or offline. Requires different USB port and pressing another button on the MB