My First Custom PC Build - $2500.00 Budget

[Vbort44]

Hello all,

I am looking to build my first custom PC and have created some specs. I use my computer for my business - high-end graphic design, video work, a lot of memory heavy programs, etc. and I am hoping that you all can provide your opinion on my choices so far:

HD for programs and OS Windows 7: SAMSUNG 840 Pro Series MZ-7PD256BW 2.5" 256GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) - $229.99 newegg.ca
HD for data: Western Digital WD Black WD2002FAEX 2TB 7200 RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive - 174.99 newegg.ca
CPU: Intel Core i7-3770K 3.5GHz (3.9GHz Turbo) LGA 1155 Quad-Core Desktop Processor - 329.99 newegg.ca OR Intel Core i7-3930K Sandy Bridge-E 3.2GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) LGA 2011 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor BX80619i73930K - 574.99 newegg.ca. @RickyTick suggested the Sandy Bridge-E, but just not sure if it is worth the extra $$$ for this build, any thoughts?
CPU cooler: Phanteks PH-TC14PE 140mm UFB (Updraft Floating Balance) CPU Cooler [white to match case] - 84.99 newegg.ca
Graphic card: EVGA 02G-P4-2680-KR GeForce GTX 680 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card - 479.99 newegg.ca
RAM: Kingston HyperX 32GB (4 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 Desktop Memory 1.35V Low Voltage XMP Model KHX16LC9K4/32X - 259.99 newegg.ca
Power Supply: SeaSonic X Series X-850 (SS-850KM Active PFC F3) 850W ATX12V v2.3 / EPS 12V v2.91 SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Active PFC Power Supply - 169.99 newegg.ca
Motherboard: MSI Big Bang-XPower II LGA 2011 Intel X79 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 XL ATX Intel Motherboard with UEFI BIOS (pending processor) - $396.99 newegg.ca OR ASUS Sabertooth X79 LGA 2011 Intel X79 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard - $339.99 newegg.ca
- I have heard reports of the MSI catching fire and am not too familiar with the Sabertooth. What are your thoughts on both? Or would something else fit this build better?
Case: Corsair CC600TWM-WHT Special Edition Graphite Series 600T Mid Tower Gaming Computer Case [white] - 151.98 amazon.ca


Looking forward to geeking out here ;-)

[zburns]

Hello Vbort and welcome to the forums,

It sounds like you really want to build a first class system. I will provide some more details tomorrow. In the meantime, can you elaborate on the 'high-end' graphic design you will be doing. Also, some more detail on the 'video work'.

I can provide several high end motherboard choices. I will also recommend a power supply with an excellent design for long term reliability. Lots of choices for a case. The choices you have chosen so far seem fine! My psu recommendations will make sense to you.

So by late morning I should fill in 'the blanks' with a number of choices and comments.

[RickyTick]

You should consider Sandy Bridge-E.

[Vbort44]

Thanks RickyTick and zburns. I've updated my build based on your comments - please see above.

I've added a case and cpu cooling fan. I've also considered the option of the Sandy Bridge-E but would like some thoughts on this vs. the less powerful i7.

Also, I've added some motherboard options, but have no clue how they would stack up for this build.

Thanks again for your time!

[zburns]

The one topic I did not want to get into last nite was whether you would want a graphics card that was designed for 'graphic designers' or one specifically designed for 'gaming' but could also be used for graphic design. So I would like to ask Invidia or EVGA about specific cards for graphic design that 'mimic' as closely as possible the technical features or specs of the EVGA GTX 680 card.

There will be significant introductions of new cpus, Sandy Bridge E up to 8 core and Ivy Bridge up to 12 cores in the second quarter of 2013 according to this 'Guru 3D article': http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/8_core_sandybridge_e_and_6_12_core_ivybridge_e_in_ 2013.html More than likely, both the Sandy Bridge and the Ivy Bridge high end models and the ones close to the top will all be expensive.

All that said, regardless of the 'latest and greatest' cpus available or not, your 'graphic design' software will have to be able to take advantage of the multiple cores. The graphics card itself will likewise have to be designed with the higher number of cores in mind.

The newer high end multi core cpus with gpu card and 'design software' to match will all have to 'exist' and be 'bug proof' before you can use it. The other factor (for planning purposes) is whether or not the software company that 'develops' the 'industrial design software must decide how many cores they are willing to develop the software around -- this could be several years and not months.

Summing up, assuming you need this industrial design computer asap or reasonably soon, all these new 'upcoming features' will have to wait until the dust settles as to exactly what new features the 'ID software company will choose to incorporate into their 'industrial design software'.

On this forum, over the last several years, we have had several builds for Industrial Design software where the number of cpu cores far exceeded the 'cores the software was written for' -- because the 'computer builder' was 'married' to a particular 'industrial software' (old software written for only one core), his 'new build' was restricted to a four core cpu but only one core usable until 'when and if' the software was redesigned.

The single most important statement that comes out of the above is that the software for Industrial Design that you will use or 'contemplate' using 'can' have an impact on the 'design' of the build. As an example only, your particular choice of software may now and in the future be limited to 'one core' (cpu) design or multiple cores could be in the future. It would just be helpful to know 'what are the possibilities' so that all 'pertinent ideas can be included in build'.

[Vbort44]

The one topic I did not want to get into last nite was whether you would want a graphics card that was designed for 'graphic designers' or one specifically designed for 'gaming' but could also be used for graphic design. So I would like to ask Invidia or EVGA about specific cards for graphic design that 'mimic' as closely as possible the technical features or specs of the EVGA GTX 680 card.

There will be significant introductions of new cpus, Sandy Bridge E up to 8 core and Ivy Bridge up to 12 cores in the second quarter of 2013 according to this 'Guru 3D article': http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/8_core_sandybridge_e_and_6_12_core_ivybridge_e_in_ 2013.html More than likely, both the Sandy Bridge and the Ivy Bridge high end models and the ones close to the top will all be expensive.

All that said, regardless of the 'latest and greatest' cpus available or not, your 'graphic design' software will have to be able to take advantage of the multiple cores. The graphics card itself will likewise have to be designed with the higher number of cores in mind.

The newer high end multi core cpus with gpu card and 'design software' to match will all have to 'exist' and be 'bug proof' before you can use it. The other factor (for planning purposes) is whether or not the software company that 'develops' the 'industrial design software must decide how many cores they are willing to develop the software around -- this could be several years and not months.

Summing up, assuming you need this industrial design computer asap or reasonably soon, all these new 'upcoming features' will have to wait until the dust settles as to exactly what new features the 'ID software company will choose to incorporate into their 'industrial design software'.

On this forum, over the last several years, we have had several builds for Industrial Design software where the number of cpu cores far exceeded the 'cores the software was written for' -- because the 'computer builder' was 'married' to a particular 'industrial software' (old software written for only one core), his 'new build' was restricted to a four core cpu but only one core usable until 'when and if' the software was redesigned.

The single most important statement that comes out of the above is that the software for Industrial Design that you will use or 'contemplate' using 'can' have an impact on the 'design' of the build. As an example only, your particular choice of software may now and in the future be limited to 'one core' (cpu) design or multiple cores could be in the future. It would just be helpful to know 'what are the possibilities' so that all 'pertinent ideas can be included in build'.

Makes sense, zburns. I will not use the workstation for any gaming. I basically use the Adobe product suite:

Design - Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Elements family
Video - Adobe Premiere, After Effects


Is my build overkill?

[zburns]

Basically the article claims improvement via multicore utilization when using CS6 vs earlier photoshop versions. The article is dated 2012 with forum responses dated as late as July 2012. So the information seven months old! This quote from the article:
If you have a CPU processor system with more than 4 cores, you can expect to see improved performance on those functions which can really take advantage of the multiple cores.

The cpu used is a six core cpu. Means that the Adobe software is written to utilize the max amount of cores available (my guess or assumption). I suggest you call Adobe. Get someone on the phone that knows the 'adobe landscape' corewise, see what they say regards number of cores usable, etc. or look for more adobe articles on the subject. As long as the person is a expert on the Adobe software, I would hope you would get solid confirmation of how many cores you can use. Regarding 'highly technical matters' a verbal discussion of the specifications should be more revealing than the written specs.

--------------
Is my build overkill? I do not think so! The above brief CS6 comments regarding usability of all availability cores is 'closure' I think on (as best possible) total usability of all cpu cores. You would like your investment to be 100 % (or close) utilized. The use of CS6 seems to imply that is the case, as compared, to all earlier versions.

[zburns]

Basically the article claims improvement via multicore utilization when using CS6 vs earlier photoshop versions. The article is dated 2012 with forum responses dated as late as July 2012. So the information seven months old! This quote from the article:
If you have a CPU processor system with more than 4 cores, you can expect to see improved performance on those functions which can really take advantage of the multiple cores.

The cpu used is a six core cpu. Means that the Adobe software is written to utilize the max amount of cores available (my guess or assumption). I suggest you call Adobe. Get someone on the phone that knows the 'adobe landscape' corewise, see what they say regards number of cores usable, etc. or look for more adobe articles on the subject. As long as the person is a expert on the Adobe software, I would hope you would get solid confirmation of how many cores you can use. Regarding 'highly technical matters' a verbal discussion of the specifications should be more revealing than the written specs.

--------------
Is my build overkill? I do not think so! The above brief CS6 comments regarding usability of all availability cores is 'closure' I think on (as best possible) total usability of all cpu cores. You would like your investment to be 100 % (or close) utilized. The use of CS6 seems to imply that is the case, as compared, to all earlier versions.
----------------
Go to this link for Invidia recommendations for Adobe CS 6: http://www.nvidia.com/object/adobe-cs6.html You will get this link in the first para: NVIDIA® Quadro® and Tesla® professional GPUs At some point you will get this link to a gigantic chart comparing the Quadro cards within these divisions: Ultra-High End, High End, Mid Range, (then) Entry Level. Obviously low price starts at Entry and runs quite high at the Ultra High End, but reasonable costs in the middle.

You can look at the Tesla cards ( I have never done this, so no comment on them)

[Vbort44]

Basically the article claims improvement via multicore utilization when using CS6 vs earlier photoshop versions. The article is dated 2012 with forum responses dated as late as July 2012. So the information seven months old! This quote from the article:

The cpu used is a six core cpu. Means that the Adobe software is written to utilize the max amount of cores available (my guess or assumption). I suggest you call Adobe. Get someone on the phone that knows the 'adobe landscape' corewise, see what they say regards number of cores usable, etc. or look for more adobe articles on the subject. As long as the person is a expert on the Adobe software, I would hope you would get solid confirmation of how many cores you can use. Regarding 'highly technical matters' a verbal discussion of the specifications should be more revealing than the written specs.

--------------
Is my build overkill? I do not think so! The above brief CS6 comments regarding usability of all availability cores is 'closure' I think on (as best possible) total usability of all cpu cores. You would like your investment to be 100 % (or close) utilized. The use of CS6 seems to imply that is the case, as compared, to all earlier versions.

I spoke to an Adobe expert and here are their points:

You will always do better in Adobe products with more threads and higher speed.
As for the GPU, Photoshop and all Adobe programs can take advantage of GPU Acceleration, so use it.
You WILL want all the RAM you can stuff in the machine though. Photoshop uses it ALL when working with gigapixel panoramas, layers, content-aware-fill, and there are more operations which use up RAM. The scratch disk is rarely used, so 4GB will not do it. Try about 64GB. If you can manage, stuff the box with RAM. Adobe will use it.
Have 2 processors in your workstation, it will only make your work faster [not sure this point is valid if I stuff the Core i7-3930K Sandy Bridge-E in there]
As far as any Intel vs. AMD; Intel had the luxury of a partnership with Adobe and any optimizations would be for an Intel processor; even Adobe recommends Intel specifically.


Any thoughts based on this info?

[zburns]

You will always do better in Adobe products with more threads and higher speed.
As for the GPU, Photoshop and all Adobe programs can take advantage of GPU Acceleration, so use it.

1&2. No argument or suggestions here!
--------------
3. Photoshop (according to Adobe at least a year ago) as a 'speed enhancer' uses RAM, preferably instead of the HD. In the Asus motherboard you list, it will use for one cpu two sets of 'quad channel DDR3 1866/1600 RAM'. This will be a total of 8 sticks of RAM at 8 gig per stick to get to 64 GB. Since it is quad channel, this means 4 'matched' sticks of RAM are 'required 2 X -- ie two times because you need 8 sticks @ 8 gig each to get 64 gig. The only negative is the four sticks should be 'matched sticks' (ie.very similar electrical characteristics or performance). Technically, this means that if you lose one stick, you should replace all four sticks in that matched set (more about this as a problem below). Scratch disc comments later!! (nothing of a negative nature).
------------
4.
Have 2 processors in your workstation, it will only make your work faster This refers to the use of a dual cpu motherboard with up to 16 sticks of RAM and two cpus. Most obvious point is 'high dollars'. So you drop down to one cpu with 8 sticks of RAM (quad channel as mentioned in point # 2 above) OR you go the route of the motherboard with two cpus and up to 16 sticks of RAM (mentioned above.
----------
5. Intel is the obvious choice.
------
General Comments below:
You could stick with one cpu and 4 sticks of 8 gig RAM and be a little slower than the more elaborate motherboard choice with one cpu and 8 sticks of RAM (two 4 stick Quad channels). You could use one cpu with two quad channels of RAM, but only load up each channel with two sticks each -- a initial precaution against the possibility of 'static damage' to a single RAM stick (I will leave the finishing comment until later to minimize confusion). Once you are up an running, you could fully load the other 4 empty RAM slots, and, wind up with 8 sticks in quad channel configuration. (But you start out with two sticks each channel or four sticks in one channel and leave the other empty ( I would call Asus or whoever the mobo supplier is and double check this with them).

I talked to Adobe in the last year and they did relay the 32 gigabyte RAM necessity. 64 Gig may have come up - do not remember. Point is it is not a new circuit idea with them, meaning CS 5 operates this way.
--------------
As a new builder, two cpus and 16 sticks of RAM is a bit of a challenge to build it with no surprises -- you do not get a second chance when it comes to 'destroying' an electronic component if you handle it wrong. You might want to browse some 'Photoshop forums' and see what users say about what they use -- one or two cpus and how many RAM sticks. -----IMPORTANT---- I did not make this statement to 'scare you' -- it is simply a 'matter of fact' when doing a computer build particularly in a cold and dry climate that Static Electricity can wreak 'havoc' with components in 'zero time', without the builder being aware of the problem. Their are 'safe ways and methods' to avoid the problem but the builder has to know and understand them and be very careful.

I would also like to know how much faster the two cpus and 16 sticks of RAM would be as a system compared to one cpu and 8 sticks.
-------
Meant to include comments on the 'scratch disk' in relation to using the SSD as Hard Drive # 1. Using an SSD tends to take or modify the Adobe argument about 'using' RAM totally. With the SSD, effectively zero access time! -- Sort of 'waters down' the Adobe argument for the 64 or 32 gig of RAM.