REQUEST - Please advise on a business PC build

z3r0

z3r0

New Member
So since leaving my original profession as a geriatric caregiver/security supervisor at a retirement resort several years ago, I have had the privileged of using my new position as a stay-at-home father to pursue several business ventures that suit my ever-expanding variety of interests. The problem is that the two systems that currently possess are incapable of production level design work and I really could use some solid advice on what to do next.

My two at-home businesses include selling handmade metal fabrications via online retailers or as a vendor to two independent businesses here in Berlin. The second is my photography studio where I shoot and sell stock photos for personal or business use. Neither the discontinued HP Pavilion desktop with the 64-bit AMD chipset or Intel x86 D620 is ready to handle heavy, production-level work and constantly find myself fighting with a bogged down computer.

This is where I'm going to need your help in building a shop unit that is capable of running LibreCAD (a free 2D drafting program), Blender3D at the production level until I can regain licensure to the program I first learned modeling and animation; 3ds Max, and Adobe CS2. Being stuck using the UI in Blender is strangling my client's deadline requirements and it proving to be extremely bad for business. Unfortunately this Autodesk software puts Adobe's prices to shame. :rolleyes: Oh how I miss the student edition...

So here are the program requirements of the most resource intensive program the new machine will utilitize.

3ds Max 2015 System Requirements said:
3DSMax2015.png
Click to expand...

Current Blender3D production-level system requirements...

Blender3D.png


Budget: If I can get this build for less than $1K...I will be incredibly grateful.

Thank you. :)

EDIT: I forgot to mention, in part, that this computer will be stationed outside in my shop. During winter it can get below -45F with a relatively high degree of humidity. Probably an extra-cooling system wouldn't be necessary..but then again I can't be entirely too sure...
 
Last edited:
I'd spring for the i7 and a full 16GB of RAM right away. Quadro cards are fairly expensive, but you may find you'll need to upgrade to one fairly quick as they handle rendering better than consumer cards.
 
C4C said:
If cost is a big factor, then the AMD will be less expensive and may be better for you: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/cnw7gs

Performance based, for not too much more you could get this Intel: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/VxtQNG

Going up from here would mean a high end Quadro GPU, an extra 8GB of RAM, and for $100, the i7-4790K
Click to expand...

Thanks for the quick reply. Cost will always play a major role in any business investment. The struggle is finding the right balance between what one can afford and what to expect from any system built on a limited budget. I'm fairly amazed that with the AMD CPU you were able to virtually chop my requirement in half. I now have mad respect for you, brother. :)

I do have a quick question on the AMD and Intel CPU builds you posted. My head is in a place right now where the introduction of the 1 GHz processor was considered to be the the great achievement in chip engineering and I still remember the original teeter totter of "AMD is the best" and "no, Intel is the best".

What is the standard today and what exactly makes any of the processors comparable in performance to the other? Will choosing the AMD processor instead of the Intel have a dramatic impact on production? Or can the same results be produced from both builds - equally?

Thank you! :)
 
You can expect Intel to have the upper hand in raw processing power and speed. They've been the top dog for the last few years and they'll remain that way unless AMD can get their processors up to the same par as Intel. If you check the benchmarks, you'll be able to see the real comparison between the two.

Granted though, the AMD CPU he chose is better than the i5 he chose, but in the end if you go the i7 route instead, you'd have better performance than either of those two. The AMD route gives you the best bang for your buck as well. With Intel, you're not just paying for the stronger processor, but also for the Intel name.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1780&cmp[]=2284&cmp[]=2275
 
voyagerfan99 said:
You can expect Intel to have the upper hand in raw processing power and speed. They've been the top dog for the last few years and they'll remain that way unless AMD can get their processors up to the same par as Intel. If you check the benchmarks, you'll be able to see the real comparison between the two.

Granted though, the AMD CPU he chose is better than the i5 he chose, but in the end if you go the i7 route instead, you'd have better performance than either of those two. The AMD route gives you the best bang for your buck as well. With Intel, you're not just paying for the stronger processor, but also for the Intel name.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1780&cmp[]=2284&cmp[]=2275
Click to expand...

I really like it when you reply to my threads, voyager. You're a beastly compendium of computer-based knowledge.

I do remember somebody saying that AMD's processors at face value seem like a great option with speeds running up into the high 4 GHz to the low 5 GHz speeds, but to expect to drop that number considerably when comparing it to Intel's CPU power. So like, he meant for instance...a 4.0 GHz AMD processor would be the equivalent to a 3.2 GHz Intel processor.

Would this generalization be correct?
 
ninjabubbles3 said:
Pretty much
Click to expand...

No.

You can't really compare AMD to Intel these days. From benchmarks, it's clear that AMD cannot process as quickly as Intel chips can. Intel also has hyper-threading, so you can get the performance of an octi-core from a quad-core.

There's much more to it, but I don't have any specific facts to back up my claims at the moment.
 
voyagerfan99 said:
No.

You can't really compare AMD to Intel these days. From benchmarks, it's clear that AMD cannot process as quickly as Intel chips can. Intel also has hyper-threading, so you can get the performance of an octi-core from a quad-core.

There's much more to it, but I don't have any specific facts to back up my claims at the moment.
Click to expand...

Short answer: the AMD-Intel battle is confusing. AMD is great for a budget, but go with Intel if you can afford a higher end i5/i7. My 2¢.
 
As an AMD user for 3.5 years now I'd say the only chip from AMD worth buying anymore is an 8320/8350 with a good motherboard to overclock it to high heaven. If you have any more to spend, get an i5, if you have any less, get a cheaper i3 (or hell a Pentium if necessary) and the option of upgrading to a better chip down the line. 8320/8350 is no means a slouch but the only reason it gets a recommendation is because you can find them for so cheap anymore. My 8320 powers through my games just fine but it's really all I'd recommend anymore. Also the FM2+ socket is almost entirely useless in my opinion except for some specific APU needs. No offence C4C. :P AM3+ is dead now too. And the 9xxx CPU's from AMD are too hot and power hungry to even warrant a look versus an i5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top