PC advice

[Bad Peanut 826]

Hey guys, 

I'm thinking of upgrading my computer to this guy:

 

Now I'm aware that people think GeForce is better than Quadro when it comes to gaming, but surely with 4GB it's going to be fine right? and the Xeon processors are gonna be great for the simulation side right? 
I could opt for the i7 7820HQ processor but it would still be paired with the Quadro. 

and i7 vs Xeon, the i7 is 2.9 up to 3.9 GHz but the Xeon is 3.1 up to 4.2 GHz so surely the Xeon is better? I've just read a lot of reviews where people swear that the Geforce is better and there's usually the i7 being used not the Xeon, like why would you opt for the i7 over the Xeon and the GeForce over the Quadro? There can't be that much difference?

My main game is CS anyway so as long as that'll run smoothly I'll be happy (the rest of the power is for my work)

 

Cheers in advance tech savvy guys

[MushyMushy 3,618]

Long-winded wall of text:

Personally I own but have yet to play C:S, but I am moderately tech savvy and assembled the desktop I'm using now from parts (and joyously look forward to doing it again one day). I learned a lot about hardware during the building process, and have subsequently helped a few friends build theirs. My point being is I can't necessarily give any specific C:S advice, but I can throw in a pointer or two regarding your other questions.

My standard first thing to say is you'll always get a far, far better deal when assembling a desktop from separately-purchased parts (and cooling is less of a concern) instead of buying a laptop, but I'm assuming if you need the thing for work you probably need the mobility. I always point that out just in case though.

About the GPU, the difference is what the cards are for. I don't know what your work is (which in this case is actually kind of relevant), but the Quadro series is a work graphics card intended for stuff like video rendering, for example. If you look at Nvidia's promo pages for any of their Quadro products, you will see words like "industries," "rendering," and "workstations" pop up. They are very powerful GPUs, just like the GeForce GPUs, but they are intended for a different purpose. If you look up the debate on the internet, testing has pretty much consistently proven that a similarly-priced GeForce card will outperform a Quadro card (for gaming) because the GeForce cards are designed with gaming in mind. GeForce cards can also be used just fine for work, but a Quadro card would be better in that case since they are designed for work. That's why I mentioned your work being relevant - if you need graphics power for it, then a Quadro might be a consideration, but if you don't, there's really no reason to get one because GeForce cards are gaming cards. So, if we're strictly talking about gaming here then I'll swear the GeForce is a much better choice.

The takeaway from that is a 4GB Quadro will be outdone by a 4GB GeForce, and the GeForce cards have come a long way since the 9xx line. You can pick up a 6GB GTX1060 that would out-do the 4GB GTX970 I used to have before I got a new card for less than the 970 went for. Raw GPU power is, compared to before, pretty cheap.

The processor thing is a lot less clear-cut, and if you look up debates about that you won't find a very definitive answer. Of course, since you are looking at a laptop your options are limited as far as CPU choices go, so in this case, the Xeon might be better. Outside of that it's hard to say. There are many, many models of i7s and Xeons, which have a variety of different clock speeds, core counts, and whatever else. When talking about the CPUs in general (outside of the 2 or 3 choices the laptop has), you can usually buy an i7 with a higher clock speed for less than a Xeon, and i7s are offered in much higher clock speeds (and support overclocks), while Xeons (server processors, technically) are offered in variations with more cores. My processor, an i7 5930k, is about a year and half old, but the model was released in 2014 - so not current gen. The base clock on it is 3.5 GHz though and it has 6 physical cores... so really it depends on which specific model is being talked about.

Strictly talking about the two choices on the laptop, they're pretty similar. The Xeon is a little bit faster and way more expensive, so there's that. The Xeon in this instance isn't actually an equivalent card to the model of i7 that is offered, so I'd say the Xeon is probably better. As an aside, I'm honestly a bit skeptical of running the boosted clock speed on a laptop for long periods of time though.... but that's just my overly cautious take on heat management.

Maybe I typed (a lot) more than was needed, but I always go off on a tangent when it comes to computers...

-Mushy

[Bad Peanut 826]

@MushyMushy my work uses CAD a lot so it'll be fine for that and i usually go for all in one PCs because i like how compact they are compared to towers/boxes and all the cables that go with that sort of set up (not to mention the ridiculous lights that gaming computers tend to come with).  That's why I'm happy with a laptop and yeah the extra portability will be nice.

The only game that i will play really is CS or the like (i like simulation builders) so I'm not looking for running first person shooters or anything like that. 

 

I think that considering I'm on an old geforce 640m (2GB) or something like that even if i get the quadro it will be more than 2x faster than that.  My current all in one is nearly 7 years old so i think any upgrade will be excellent. It was top of the range when i first got it but it's in its last legs. 

[Alexgru88 19]

my 2 cents 

I'm working as a video production manager and have a lot of rendering/3d/fx

You should definitely look for benchmarks of specific software. Gaming series has partial cad support and in some cases even outperform quadro because of higher frequencies + gaming support - CS has nvidia optimization - my gtx 780 get stable 25-30 fps from 2k to 5k resolutions and m1200 is just slightly better. Overall M quadro was not quite good (it's basically maxwell - kinda hot), I've packed my post production with Keppler Titans and now we're on P-quadro + titans xp (it's insanely fast and it has been boosted x3(!!!) it's performance lately in professional software with latest drivers, so it's like tesla 5 times cheaper)

Intel says CPU has 3.8 boost clock, 4+ is better for CS to get 40-60 fps. As far as i know CS doesn't have full multicore and multi-thread support, so it's about 1core raw power simulation.

https://ark.intel.com/products/89610/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E3-1535M-v5-8M-Cache-2_90-GHz

But in case of cooling xeon is much much better that i'7 (in desktop segment for sure - metal instead of shitty paste as a thermal interface)

So - I can assume that it will be just enough mb for a year or two, but I guess it should be quite expensive as it's labelled "professional", BUT it's low end from professional perceptive. You can build a monster PC for that cost, that will outperform that mobile device mb 3-4 times. It can be in small case with good cooling, so no notebook noise and feeling that you're sitting in a plane. If you want notebook - look for pascal videocard.

[rsc204 21,865]

As with any such request, it's really impossible for us to tell you what you need. Looking at the specs, it seems to me that this is a dedicated business machine with a really specific workload in mind. If not, you are simply going to be paying 3x what you need for a computer and are buying all the wrong things IMO. Such a machine would be ideal for many professional high-end workloads such as CAD, Video Editing/Rendering, 3D Modelling and so on. If your requirements don't run beyond running Office, you could have a desktop that would destroy this machine and a laptop that would cover your mobile needs and still spend less money. Yes laptops are neat and tidy, but you pay a huge premium for that at this end of the market, not to mention cooling, the #1 laptop killer.

Quadros are outperformed by GeForce in games. Xeons are outperformed by Core i processors in games too, although the difference is more negligible. Why? Well Xeons are not the same chips as Core i parts, for one thing they use different instruction sets and optimisations. They are designed to be more reliable and optimised for professional uses/software.

Ghz figures are not the only factor in performance, you simply can't compare them like for like. If you could, then a 3.4Ghz Pentium 4 would be as good as a 3.4Ghz i7 CPU. This couldn't be further from reality, you can't even compare 1st-6th gen clock speeds directly with 7th gen Core ones. So why do Intel/AMD use such a thing?, why to sell people more expensive hardware by obfuscating the performance between chips. Just like the way two 3.0l engines on different cars can give wildly different power outputs/results. To really see what you are buying, you need to see real-world figures and that means benchmarks. But most people assume more is better and want the best thing they can afford, but would you pay another $100 for 1% more real world speed from you CPU (not the computer, just the CPU)?, people do.

It's much the same story with the Quadros, this is professional hardware meant for getting work done. Not all software needs the same code/instructions to work optimally. Games and Spreadsheets require very different things to work. And whilst similar, video rendering, CAD and other tools are not identical to the code of games, the tasks are performed differently to get the best possible results/speed, thus the way they utilise the hardware is different.

Unless you have an absolute need for Xeons and Quadros, avoid them altogether is my advice. Will it play C:S well, probably, depends on how many mods you use. I would want a minimum of 8GB V-RAM for the GPU if spending that money. You can never upgrade the GPU, so it pays to be more future proof than with a desktop.

4 hours ago, Alexgru88 said:

my gtx 780 get stable 25-30 fps from 2k to 5k resolutions

I'm sorry but I simply don't believe you, no way can you get 5k resolutions using such a card, you simply don't have the V-RAM to achieve that. Do you mean you are up-scaling textures, which isn't the same thing.

4 hours ago, Alexgru88 said:

Intel says CPU has 3.8 boost clock, 4+ is better for CS to get 40-60 fps.

Whilst 4Ghz is always going to be better than 3.8Ghz (on paper at least), it's all relative. When you buy this stuff, there is always a sweet spot for which components make sense. So at the lower end, maybe you pay an additional $10-$20 for a few hundred more Mhz, probably worth splashing out. But as you reach the performance/"gaming" components, you pay huge premiums for tiny increases in real world performance. Is the difference between 200Mhz going to be seen in CS, between two otherwise identical processors? Simple answer, no, it would be barely quantifiable. Of course all the manufacturers want you to believe that's not the case, because many people are willing to pay stupid-money for individual parts. $600 for a motherboard, you can buy a $2,000 CPU today and a set of three $1,300 GPUs. But back on planet earth, where not all of us have endless cash reserves, most of those parts are simply a rip off, precisely because people like to brag about how insane their PC is. I'm better than you, because I get 1fps more, I've never understood this mentality, but it sure does make a lot of cash for someone.

Quote

As far as i know CS doesn't have full multicore and multi-thread support, so it's about 1core raw power simulation.

Nope, just open CPU-Z or a similar application (even task manager would show this), you'll see all cores are active and being utilised.

4 hours ago, Alexgru88 said:

But in case of cooling xeon is much much better that i'7 (in desktop segment for sure - metal instead of shitty paste as a thermal interface)

I really hope you don't build PCs. That "crappy" paste is NOT the thermal interface. You see when you put a piece of metal against another, like a CPU's lid against a heatsink, there are gaps. Why? Well no matter how well you build such things, at a microscopic level, there are bumps and grooves. Just like the way a plate or table will feel smooth, but under a microscope looks anything but. Thermal Paste simply provides a liquid-based layer that improves the heat transfer from one to the other by sealing those gaps. Thus it makes sense to use it, regardless of the processor you are installing. Take a look at the TDPs of Xeons vs Core i chips, they really aren't hugely different. Especially when comparing the ULV mobile chips. You know Xeons use the same Copper-core heat sinks as core i7s and have for years? In fact I'm using a Xeon one for my i7, simply because those were more easily available on eBay. It's identical to the i7 one I removed from the machine. So honestly, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Bad Peanut 826]

4 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

As with any such request, it's really impossible for us to tell you what you need. Looking at the specs, it seems to me that this is a dedicated business machine with a really specific workload in mind. If not, you are simply going to be paying 3x what you need for a computer and are buying all the wrong things IMO. Such a machine would be ideal for many professional high-end workloads such as CAD, Video Editing/Rendering, 3D Modelling and so on. If your requirements don't run beyond running Office, you could have a desktop that would destroy this machine and a laptop that would cover your mobile needs and still spend less money. Yes laptops are neat and tidy, but you pay a huge premium for that at this end of the market, not to mention cooling, the #1 laptop killer.

Quadros are outperformed by GeForce in games. Xeons are outperformed by Core i processors in games too, although the difference is more negligible. Why? Well Xeons are not the same chips as Core i parts, for one thing they use different instruction sets and optimisations. They are designed to be more reliable and optimised for professional uses/software.

Ghz figures are not the only factor in performance, you simply can't compare them like for like. If you could, then a 3.4Ghz Pentium 4 would be as good as a 3.4Ghz i7 CPU. This couldn't be further from reality, you can't even compare 1st-6th gen clock speeds directly with 7th gen Core ones. So why do Intel/AMD use such a thing?, why to sell people more expensive hardware by obfuscating the performance between chips. Just like the way two 3.0l engines on different cars can give wildly different power outputs/results. To really see what you are buying, you need to see real-world figures and that means benchmarks. But most people assume more is better and want the best thing they can afford, but would you pay another $100 for 1% more real world speed from you CPU (not the computer, just the CPU)?, people do.

It's much the same story with the Quadros, this is professional hardware meant for getting work done. Not all software needs the same code/instructions to work optimally. Games and Spreadsheets require very different things to work. And whilst similar, video rendering, CAD and other tools are not identical to the code of games, the tasks are performed differently to get the best possible results/speed, thus the way they utilise the hardware is different.

Unless you have an absolute need for Xeons and Quadros, avoid them altogether is my advice. Will it play C:S well, probably, depends on how many mods you use. I would want a minimum of 8GB V-RAM for the GPU if spending that money. You can never upgrade the GPU, so it pays to be more future proof than with a desktop.

I'm sorry but I simply don't believe you, no way can you get 5k resolutions using such a card, you simply don't have the V-RAM to achieve that. Do you mean you are up-scaling textures, which isn't the same thing.

Whilst 4Ghz is always going to be better than 3.8Ghz (on paper at least), it's all relative. When you buy this stuff, there is always a sweet spot for which components make sense. So at the lower end, maybe you pay an additional $10-$20 for a few hundred more Mhz, probably worth splashing out. But as you reach the performance/"gaming" components, you pay huge premiums for tiny increases in real world performance. Is the difference between 200Mhz going to be seen in CS, between two otherwise identical processors? Simple answer, no, it would be barely quantifiable. Of course all the manufacturers want you to believe that's not the case, because many people are willing to pay stupid-money for individual parts. $600 for a motherboard, you can buy a $2,000 CPU today and a set of three $1,300 GPUs. But back on planet earth, where not all of use have endless cash, most of those parts are simply a rip off, precisely because people like to brag about how insane their PC is. I'm better than you, because I get 1fps more, I've never understood this mentality, but it sure does make a lot of cash for someone.

Nope, just open CPU-Z or a similar application (even task manager would show this), you'll see all cores are active and being utilised.

I really hope you don't build PCs. That "crappy" paste is NOT the thermal interface. You see when you put a piece of metal against another, like a CPU's lid against a heatsink, there are gaps. Why? Well no matter how well you build such things, at a microscopic level, there are bumps and grooves. Just like the way a plate or table will feel smooth, but under a microscope looks anything but. Thermal Paste simply provides a liquid-based layer that improves the heat transfer from one to the other by sealing those gaps. Thus it makes sense to use it, regardless of the processor you are installing. Take a look at the TDPs of Xeons x Core i chips, they really aren't hugely different. Especially when comparing the ULV mobile chips. You know Xeons use the same Copper-core heat sinks as core i7s and have for years? In fact I'm using a Xeon on for my i7, simply because those were more easily available on eBay. It's identical to the i7 one I removed from the machine. So honestly, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Well as I said I do a lot of 3D modelling and texturing, I use 3ds Max, V Ray extensions for several programs, sketchup (anything can run sketchup though haha) rhino, Revit, Autocad, Photoshop. But in saying all that I'm running CS very well on an old All in One. It's got an old i7 3770S in it, and a Nvidia Geforce GT 630M and 16GB RAM. Now this has been good for me for the last 7 years and still kinda is, but it's getting noticeably slower hence why I want to upgrade, but my main question is not really what would be better, (because most people say the GEforce and the i7 is better than Quadro and Xeon) what i really want to know is if there's a significant disadvantage to getting the Xeon and Quadro over the Geforce and i7. 

Why settle for less than the others? Mainly because I'm possibly getting a special price from my work, (which is why it's a workstation setup because that's what works for our CAD) I'm not too sure if I will accept the special price, or choose to forgo it for the better options. 

 

[rsc204 21,865]

As I said, no a Xeon / Quadro setup will not perform as well as equivalent Core i /GeForce setup will with games. But it will perform better with the professional tools you use. So that's the significant disadvantage, whether it's an issue for you is a personal decision I can't make.

[Turjan 1,048]

You should probably wait for people who play C:S regularly to chime in. Unfortunately, in my experience, this game needs the best of everything, always depending on your gaming style of course.

[Alexgru88 19]

5 hours ago, rsc204 said:

I'm sorry but I simply don't believe you, no way can you get 5k resolutions using such a card, you simply don't have the V-RAM to achieve that. Do you mean you are up-scaling textures, which isn't the same thing.

It was said about Dynamic Resolution mod. And yes, having more than 6.5 subs I've got some freezing when changing location. Any card would freeze.

5 hours ago, rsc204 said:

You see when you put a piece of metal against another, like a CPU's lid against a heatsink

It was said about what you've got under CPU's lid. 

6 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Nope, just open CPU-Z or a similar application (even task manager would show this), you'll see all cores are active and being utilised.

According to LinuxFan (TMPE author) simulation runs only on 1 core

[rsc204 21,865]

2 hours ago, Alexgru88 said:

It was said about Dynamic Resolution mod

Well upscaling to 5k is not the same thing as running 5k textures now is it? And freezing is not the same as saying "stable 25-30 fps" either.

2 hours ago, Alexgru88 said:

It was said about what you've got under CPU's lid. 

You know, it's been blown out of proportion by many, this idea that somehow this method of making CPUs is somehow flawed. But the fact is the CPU's work based on manufacturing tolerances. The benefits of the metal is really marginal and only included on Xeons because of the 24x7 applications they are often used with.

Sure there is an argument Intel are making the Core i chips cheaper, but that doesn't mean they are flawed. Normal use without overclocking and a sufficient cooling system should see the CPU outlive most systems and their usefulness. I've never had an Intel CPU break on me, all of which were well used for at least 10 years and none had a non-stock cooler/heatsink either.

Not to mention, you know all CPU silicon is fabricated, some turns out better than others. Intel re-package the dies based on the output quality into different products. That's why one person can overclock a CPU more than another might be able to, they are not all identical. Sure you could run cooler with certain modifications, but that doesn't mean the chip when pushed beyond it's engineering specifications will last longer. Temperature is not the only factor in this equation.

I wasn't however aware that Mobile chips had such lids anyway, due to the need for cooling in the more compressed spaces and minimal room for them inside the case. So in this example it probably doesn't even apply.

2 hours ago, Alexgru88 said:

According to LinuxFan (TMPE author) simulation runs only on 1 core

Sorry I missed what you meant, indeed the simulator may be offloaded onto a single core. But the game overall does use multithreading and will light up all four cores on my machine whilst playing.

Even so, what difference do you think 200mhz is going to make? 4Ghz is 5% faster than 3.8Ghz, assuming everything else is identical. But does that mean you will see exactly 5% more performance, it's unlikely, there are many factors to consider. As such, the difference as mentioned is negligible. Once again clock speed isn't the only indicator of performance and saying 5% more Ghz is going to make a big difference is just not accurate. Under the best case scenario, it's going to give you 5% more performance.

[Alexgru88 19]

5 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Well upscaling to 5k is not the same thing as running 5k textures now is it? And freezing is not the same as saying "stable 25-30 fps" either

No argue. There's even no 5k textures. Game won't lag only on vanilla setup. My game loaded needs 80+gb of RAM. And it's mostly textures as I can guess. And even 500-1000 assets brings you to the point that you'll need about 8gb card min not to miclolag when gpu is swapping.

10 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Even so, what difference do you think 200mhz is going to make?

Nope. 3.8 - 4.2 is 400... soo it will. 5-10 fps.

19 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

But the game overall does use multithreading

so why ryzen 1700+ outperformed in cs by 4770k? Yup, because of the single core raw power. Difference is about 5% and 5-7 fps.