$1000 USD CAD and Rendering Workhorse. Getting the Balance right?

[beanflying]

PCIe 4 as the reason to 'downgrade' the processor to the 2700x and overbuy the board to keep somewhere near a budget doesn't make sense to me.

If there becomes an all consuming need to go PCIe 4 on my main box at some stage the B450 board could have a Ryzen G CPU added to it and dropped into a second cheap box leaving the better processor/GPU to go into a 550 or 570 board.

Repeating this same upgrade exercise in a year might see a different conclusion as prices/tech moves around but currently it doesn't.

[Mr. Scram]

We aren't talking about grandfather's eMail machine here. Well, you are. I'm not. 

I've argued for years that MS memory management is crap, and that it doesn't know what to do with more than ~8GB. Fortunately, other software creators DO know how to use it, and know how to use it from within MS' effed up HAL. That is exactly the kind of software bean has stated he wants to be able to use with this build.

What you say was true... years ago. Not now. You clearly have no idea what's on the horizon... I do; it's all I've been researching for several months now. If 32GB was such a waste of money, I know for a fact I wouldn't be seeing it in the corporate fleet machines I service for a living; and I've been seeing it for almost 2 years. Clearly not ALL of them, or even most... but in certain offices, I've seen 6 of them in a row with twin & triple 32" monitors. And corporate bean-counters, the kind who bitch about a $600 Lenovo laptop,  paid for all that without batting an eye. 

Cheers,

mnem
"Good luck, and may your god go with you." Dave Allen

This argument from authority isn't going to fly. Facts matter, not "having done the research", "working in the business" or anything else. Experience is only worth something if it produces something of value. What others have in their systems isn't entirely relevant either, as there's lots of poop flying in the industry with plenty of obtuse monkeys at the wheel. What matters are benchmarks, and a bit of historical sense probably helps too. Other people also know the market landscape, the history and what's on the horizon.

I've shown hard numbers on how 8 GB is enough for general computing and 16 GB plenty. I've also addressed workstation use cases which can warrant more, but those need to be carefully examined to blindly avoid throwing cash at it. That's how the industry does it. We know beanflying is intending to use Fusion 360, but it's not entirely clear what kind of rendering he's intending to do with what software. Maybe he can elaborate? Different applications have very different needs and limitations.

Apparently Fusion 360 doesn't require remarkable amounts of RAM. Apparently it also uses up to 8 cores but not always. Some computations are offloaded to "the cloud". A higher clock speed is apparently preferred over more than 8 cores which are slower, so the new Ryzen 7 chips sound perfect for this application at least.

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fusion-360-design-validate/shall-i-buy-a-lot-more-ram/td-p/7828824
https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fusion-360-support/fusion-360-system-requirements/td-p/7377880

[nctnico]

For engineering tasks 8GB isn't going to cut it. Modern software is so bloated that it needs oodles of memory. When planning on using a few virtual machines then 16GB is cutting it awfully close and 32GB is a better choice. Either way, memory is so cheap nowadays that it isn't worth bothering to choose 8GB versus 16GB. Just get 16GB and make sure to leave room for expansion. For my own PC I couldn't even buy a 16GB memory upgrade because it was no longer available; I had to buy 32GB.

[Mr. Scram]

For engineering tasks 8GB isn't going to cut it. Modern software is so bloated that it needs oodles of memory. When planning on using a few virtual machines then 16GB is cutting it awfully close and 32GB is a better choice. Either way, memory is so cheap nowadays that it isn't worth bothering to choose 8GB versus 16GB. Just get 16GB and make sure to leave room for expansion. For my own PC I couldn't even buy a 16GB memory upgrade because it was no longer available; I had to buy 32GB.

The links I posted before show that Fusion 360 doesn't really require more than 8 GB RAM. I won't comment on "engineering tasks" as those can be almost anything and everything. Mind you that I'm not necessarily pleading for 8 GB of RAM. I'm just arguing against throwing RAM at something blindly. VMs are one of those things you nearly can't have enough RAM for, although you can get by with smaller amounts. I don't think I've heard beanflying mention VMs at all, so that eventuality is left out of the equation.

At this point I'd probably suggest going for 16 GB of RAM, based on general computing and Fusion 360 and to have some future headroom. Depending on other requirements and what this not very well defined rendering actually entails it may pay to upgrade to more.

[wraper]

For my own PC I couldn't even buy a 16GB memory upgrade because it was no longer available; I had to buy 32GB.

Why would you buy so called memory upgrade, not just any off the shelf memory sticks?

[nctnico]

For my own PC I couldn't even buy a 16GB memory upgrade because it was no longer available; I had to buy 32GB.

Why would you buy so called memory upgrade, not just any off the shelf memory sticks?

memory upgrade=off the shelf memory sticks

[Mr. Scram]

memory upgrade=off the shelf memory sticks

What kind of exotic memory does your setup require? It seems DDR3 and DDR4 are available in regular, registered and unregistered ECC variants down to 4 GB if you want to make use of quad channel setups.  I don't even think DDR2 should be a problem.

[wraper]

BTW in regards to SSD, it's way more cost effective to buy SM2262EN controller based SSD like ADATA SX8200 Pro or HP EX950. They are just as fast as top of the line Samsung but way cheaper. Also energy efficient, thus don't run too hot as many others.
EDIT: Locally I can buy 1TB version For $25 more than 500GB 970 EVO plus. On newegg about the same situation.
https://www.newegg.com/samsung-970-evo-plus-500gb/p/N82E16820147742?Description=SAMSUNG%20970%20EVO%20plus&cm_re=SAMSUNG_970_EVO_plus-_-20-147-742-_-Product
https://www.newegg.com/xpg-sx8200-pro-1tb/p/0D9-0017-000W4?Description=xpg%208200%20pro%201tb&cm_re=xpg_8200_pro_1tb-_-0D9-0017-000W4-_-Product
500GB upgrade with minimal cost

[wraper]

For my own PC I couldn't even buy a 16GB memory upgrade because it was no longer available; I had to buy 32GB.

Why would you buy so called memory upgrade, not just any off the shelf memory sticks?

memory upgrade=off the shelf memory sticks

...Sold as memory upgrade for particular model. Otherwise I don't get how 16 GB was not available  .

[mnementh]

PCIe 4 as the reason to 'downgrade' the processor to the 2700x and overbuy the board to keep somewhere near a budget doesn't make sense to me.

If there becomes an all consuming need to go PCIe 4 on my main box at some stage the B450 board could have a Ryzen G CPU added to it and dropped into a second cheap box leaving the better processor/GPU to go into a 550 or 570 board.

Repeating this same upgrade exercise in a year might see a different conclusion as prices/tech moves around but currently it doesn't.

Sorry... I was looking at your stated budget. If you CAN pay the premium price for a 3900 Ryzen, GO FOR IT! 

I wasn't suggesting to downgrade your CPU; I was suggesting the 2700X as I guessed it was the highest you could go and still have 16GB of reasonably fast DDR4 and a name-brand 570X MB.

CPUs ALWAYS come down in price; and sooner rather than later. They are by far a simpler and less painful upgrade than a MB swap for the features you WISH you'd sucked it up and paid for at the outset. But the price of a decent name-brand MB with a full current-model feature-set has been $125-175 for decades now. Trying to come in under that is always a trade-off. I've learned the hard way that buying the cheapest MB that will support a CPU is penny-wise & pound foolish. You are ALWAYS giving up some current-model features, or a getting a board that simply is CHEAP or has effed-up BIOS that never gets fixed. (ASROCK, I'm LOOKING AT YOU  )

Look at the MBs you're thinking of... and compare them to the feature-set of the 570. And remember that AMD is concurrently releasing a whole new family of GPUs that most likely will leverage pcie4.0 for multi-GPU processing. I just don't see the benefit of choosing a lesser MB that's going to be strangling your hot new CPU in some critical way; especially not to save $40-60.

But hey, it's your build.

Cheers,

mnem
*toddles off to fix another air compressor*

[nctnico]

memory upgrade=off the shelf memory sticks

What kind of exotic memory does your setup require? It seems DDR3 and DDR4 are available in regular, registered and unregistered ECC variants down to 4 GB if you want to make use of quad channel setups.  I don't even think DDR2 should be a problem.

Not very exotic just memory from Kingston for a specific Dell model which goes in bundles of 4 DIMMs. Kingston memory has served me well for over 25 years (and many hundreds of memory devices) so let's not start a debate on that.

[wraper]

CPUs ALWAYS come down in price; and sooner rather than later. They are by far a simpler and less painful upgrade than a MB swap for the features you WISH you'd sucked it up and paid for at the outset. But the price of a decent name-brand MB with a full current-model feature-set has been $125-175 for decades now. Trying to come in under that is always a trade-off. I've learned the hard way that buying the cheapest MB that will support a CPU is penny-wise & pound foolish. You are ALWAYS giving up some current-model features, or a getting a board that simply is CHEAP or has effed-up BIOS that never gets fixed. (ASROCK, I'm LOOKING AT YOU  )

Paying a lot more for MOBO to just have a little better possible upgradability path makes little sense. Just as little sense as selecting CPU with sure intention to replace it later. If later there happens cost effective way for doing that, good. However in the end the most cost effective way likely will be to not replace anything and just go with better CPU from the beginning unless it has ridiculous cost. Because if there will be a lot better replacement available, old CPU will have little resale value. And by that time you could just buy new cheap MOBO supporting PCI-E 4.0 anyway.

[mnementh]

Would you please stop repeating this noise about "paying a lot more"?!? It's utter BS. $40-80 is NOT a lot more. PERIOD.

mnem
*mild expletive deleted*

[wraper]

Would you SHUT UP about "paying a lot more"?!? It's BULLSHIT!!! $40-80 is NOT a lot more. PERIOD.

Over 50% more for the part is a lot. And it's not $40 compared with B450 chipset.

Post edited by Halcyon. Quotes removed text which goes against the forum rules. The on-topic content was retained.

[sokoloff]

"The arguments are so fierce, because the stakes are so low..."

[mnementh]

Here's my quick thumbnail cost analysis; exclusive of the usual "sundries" which I'm pretty sure bean has plenty:

$150 - +/- Decent Case
$180 - 570X MB
$140 - DDR4 (Corsair Vegeance 32GB DDR4-3200; now sold out) Still average price for decent
$120 - Decent PSU
$125 - nvme SSD ~0.5GB

That leaves ~$285 for video and CPU, + approx 30-50$ if you go with 16GB of name-brand DDR4. The 3600X is available right now for $US249.00 shipped from Amazon. The 3700 is listed right now at $329 pre-order from B&H Photo and the 3900 at $499, just as suggested in the press release.

mnem
 

[Mr. Scram]

Not very exotic just memory from Kingston for a specific Dell model which goes in bundles of 4 DIMMs. Kingston memory has served me well for over 25 years (and many hundreds of memory devices) so let's not start a debate on that.

I thought it was unlikely RAM wasn't available in 4 GB sticks, but you had some additional personal wishes. Now I understand.

[Mr. Scram]

Would you SHUT UP about "paying a lot more"?!? It's BULLSHIT!!! $40-80 is NOT a lot more. PERIOD.

mnem
Infant.

It can mean moving the GPU up one or two notches, upgrading the from 512 GB to 1 TB or even from 1 TB to 2 TB or adding 16 GB of RAM perhaps.  Depending on your needs and wants those could yield more noticeable gains than adding bandwidth.

[nctnico]

CPUs ALWAYS come down in price; and sooner rather than later. They are by far a simpler and less painful upgrade than a MB swap for the features you WISH you'd sucked it up and paid for at the outset. But the price of a decent name-brand MB with a full current-model feature-set has been $125-175 for decades now. Trying to come in under that is always a trade-off. I've learned the hard way that buying the cheapest MB that will support a CPU is penny-wise & pound foolish. You are ALWAYS giving up some current-model features, or a getting a board that simply is CHEAP or has effed-up BIOS that never gets fixed. (ASROCK, I'm LOOKING AT YOU  )

Paying a lot more for MOBO to just have a little better possible upgradability path makes little sense. Just as little sense as selecting CPU with sure intention to replace it later. If later there happens cost effective way for doing that, good. However in the end the most cost effective way likely will be to not replace anything and just go with better CPU from the beginning unless it has ridiculous cost. Because if there will be a lot better replacement available, old CPU will have little resale value. And by that time you could just buy new cheap MOBO supporting PCI-E 4.0 anyway.

I agree. Back in the old days (20 years ago or so) it made sense to buy a motherboard which allowed a CPU upgrade. I think I have upgraded the CPU 3 times in some of my PCs back then. But the last 10 years it is hard to buy a CPU for the same motherboard and get a really significant performance update unless you started with a real clunker to start with. I'd rather spend the money on getting a good quality motherboard though.

Nowadays it makes much more sense to look at other bottlenecks like disk I/O which slow a system down. Going for an NVME SSD (which connects directly to the PCIexpress bus) is a good start to get a performance boost.

[wraper]

$150 - +/- Decent Case
$180 - 570X MB
$140 - DDR4 (Corsair Vegeance 32GB DDR4-3200; now sold out) Still average price for decent
$120 - Decent PSU
$125 - nvme SSD ~0.5GB

$60-70 for a very good case without RGB fart and other stupid whistles.
$100 MOBO
$70-80 good efficient PSU with Japanese caps and more than adequate power rating of 550-650W.
$140 1TB NVMe SSD just as fast as 970 EVO plus.
And 180+ bucks left for other more important things such as CPU.

[mnementh]

There we go... I was wondering how long before you to resort to personal attack (in now deleted post), because your arguments are childish and your math utterly irrational, just like your fawning diatribe all over the "Elon Musk sucks" thread. 

mnem
*edited to reduce aggro tone*

[wraper]

There we go... finally. Resorted to personal attack, because your arguments are infantile and your math is equivalent to 2+2=3, just like your fawning diatribe all over the "Elon Musk sucks" thread. 

LOL, does not notice huge log in own eye. 

[mnementh]

CPUs ALWAYS come down in price; and sooner rather than later. They are by far a simpler and less painful upgrade than a MB swap for the features you WISH you'd sucked it up and paid for at the outset. But the price of a decent name-brand MB with a full current-model feature-set has been $125-175 for decades now. Trying to come in under that is always a trade-off. I've learned the hard way that buying the cheapest MB that will support a CPU is penny-wise & pound foolish. You are ALWAYS giving up some current-model features, or a getting a board that simply is CHEAP or has effed-up BIOS that never gets fixed. (ASROCK, I'm LOOKING AT YOU  )

Paying a lot more for MOBO to just have a little better possible upgradability path makes little sense. Just as little sense as selecting CPU with sure intention to replace it later. If later there happens cost effective way for doing that, good. However in the end the most cost effective way likely will be to not replace anything and just go with better CPU from the beginning unless it has ridiculous cost. Because if there will be a lot better replacement available, old CPU will have little resale value. And by that time you could just buy new cheap MOBO supporting PCI-E 4.0 anyway.

I agree. Back in the old days (20 years ago or so) it made sense to buy a motherboard which allowed a CPU upgrade. I think I have upgraded the CPU 3 times in some of my PCs back then. But the last 10 years it is hard to buy a CPU for the same motherboard and get a really significant performance update unless you started with a real clunker to start with. I'd rather spend the money on getting a good quality motherboard though.

Nowadays it makes much more sense to look at other bottlenecks like disk I/O which slow a system down. Going for an NVME SSD (which connects directly to the PCIexpress bus) is a good start to get a performance boost.

Oh FFS... $40-80 is nothing. I've spent more than that just for quieter fans. 

The pcie bus is PRECISELY why I recommended the 570X series boards; even on the 470X boards it is already a bottleneck in the disk I/O dept, even with nvme.  There won't BE any economical 550 series boards to offer the pcie4.0 bus for a while yet. This is literally a generational update from AMD, not an incremental one. 

With pcie4.0, there is a real possibility of doing nvme in RAID0, possibly even more than 2 drives for other RAID configs given how many more channels pcie4.0 offers. For that possibility alone it is worth waiting to see what they offer.  And as I've already pointed out, even OS on NVME + Data on 2nd nvme is STILL appreciably faster on modern content creation workloads.

mnem
 

[wraper]

^Do you use computers in real life? Or only look for numbers that look good on paper?

[wraper]

I've just jumped back into it after almost a decade away, so lots and lots of new tech and terminology swirling around the old grey matter.

BTW you said this just recently but already act as an expert in current technology and tell me to shut up.