New Workstation

>>528493
6700K is nice, but I would sooner consider the 5820k, pretty much your entire workload is highly threaded, and would benefit from the extra cores. You also get more expansion options on X99.

Dump the Quadro for an ordinary GPU, your programs are never going to take advantage of it's extra features, and you'll have something much faster or save cash. I would only recommend one if you're using a CAD program that really benefits from using one (NX), or scientific compute.

Storage looks fine, but 250GB seems awfully restrictive for the boot disk, I'd get at least 512GB. Program installs can get pretty big these days.

Get 32GB 2133 instead, RAM has almost no real-world impact on performance even in heavy workloads other than 7zip, so get more of it instead. get the cheapest ones you can.

That power supply is borderline for a system like this, get a 550W unit instead, or better yet 650W. You always want at least 30% overhead over the peak draw of your system, especially if you'll be doing overnight renders and stuff.

Cooler choice is fine, but I'd prefer a Noctua or BeQuiet! myself.

16GB isn't enough if you want to do high-resolution photogrammetry.

>>528493
Drop the Quadro, use a normal graphics card.

>>528502
What is a normal graphics card? Gtx 1070?

>>528505
Yes, a 1070 is going to be considerably faster for renders.

>>528514
But I don't want to play games - and I have read the Quadro overall performance is better suited for 3D CGI and also running Adobe CC

>>528572
>Eventually want to use Unreal and Cryengine

>>528586
Sure but thats not the primary focus

>>528572
>>528611
Quadro performance is better suited for CAD, which does technically fit under the "3D content creation" umbrella, but is different enough for it to not matter in your use-case scenario.

If you need to design aircraft and virtually test its structural integrity, the precision of your hardware is responsible for a whole damn lot, but modeling assets for a video game? No.

As far as rendering in Blender/Cycles or general viewport performance is concerned, you simply want the fastest GPU (or multiple) possible with the most RAM, regardless of the market it is targeted at.

File: SaturdayLoadOutGTX1070.png (144KB, 799x553px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 799x553px

So I updated my Loadout a bit.

I am not sure if the 1070 will work well with blender and especially with the adobe cc - someone got some experiences?

>>528710
The GPU is brand new, it takes some time until it runs perfect with all programs, but i wouldn't worry about it.
Blender runs very well with a Nvidia card.
The latest version of Adobe CC is crashy and buggy on my system. Premiere doesn't run at all, After FX crashes a lot. Photoshop sometimes.
It made me so angry that i started to use other software like Natron and Fusion, Gimp and Krita.

>>528711
Hm ok, i guess this issues will be addresed in the future - would you mind sharing your Hardware?

>>528712
I7 3770K GTX660 16Gb Ram

>>528711
The latest Adobe works fine on my PC though, see if it helps if you reinstall it, it might be something amiss with your installation.

@OP

A quadro is definitly not suited for the work you're going to perform, it's a lot costlier and does not perform any better in your use case scenario so get an 1070 or 1080 instead.

>>528722
yeah i guess i will do that - would you recommend a specific kind of the 1070, like the founders edition or so?
I really dont want to use the system for playing games, so i dont need the beastiest version of the GTX

>>528725
It's preferable to get one of the custom (non-founders) cards as they always have superior cooling. Asus, MSI, EVGA and Gigabyte all make good cards, although cheaper brands like Palit are also good. Asus and Gigabyte often aim for more performance at the cost of noise, while the others run quieter.

Since you'll likely be rendering on this card, look for ones that run at stock speeds and aren't overclocked out of the box. Modern GPUs maintain stability very well within the preset limits, but you're not going to get a lot more performance out of it anyway, so running at stock at least ensures the best stability.

>>528493

I'd wait for the next updates Quadros if I where you. You won't need the 5k+ ones EVER... But they are and will be useful for 3D modeling, handling live scenes and stacking polygons. Everyone telling you to get some gamer shit card are only doing so cause they don't use Quadros, I do.

Everyone else they recommend is fine. The more ram the better. I'm using an i7-6850k / 128 gig DDR 3000 ( None ECC ) / Quadro k5200. HD is x400 1TB Sandisk with 8 TB HGST ( 7200 ), 850 watt gold Corair PSU Modular all custom liquid cooled.

I do very heavy 3D rendering and need at least 30fps at all times when working with view ports. ( I average 60+ ) ... But what I have is magnitudes above what you seem to be able to afford.

File: images-4.jpg (16KB, 384x383px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 384x383px

>>528750
>anon

>>528750
I got your point

And yep its a a matter of money

I'd stick with an x99 system. If $$$ is a big issue, it's still one of the best platforms to build a good system now and upgrade as funds become available... especially with the new i7's that came out... mmmm... 10 cores... 20 rendering threads.... mmmm... but at $1600 for the CPU alone...

I agree with forgoing the cad GPU unless you plan on doing very large scenes and want all your viewport to be realistic and shadowed. Personally, most modeling is done in simple faceted. I let the rendering engine do all the work on the final output. Invest the money from a cad GPU (expensive) into a better cpu (more cores = faster renders) instead.

>>528877
you can get a 56 thread PC for around $2.5k. Xeons are cheap on ebay.

Thank you all for your help!