Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards

About jtk700cln

  • Title
  1. Apologies but a bit confused on this. A 10A outlet should only be 1200W right? And this should only be running at 80%? 240v to 30 Amp would definitely cover an overclocked cpu and 2-3gpus. To your second point, my calculations seem high then, but are they that off really? Charts as they are would seem to imply even with a second gpu, I wouldnt go over 1000W. However they dont indicate overclocked gpus though. Is a 1600W power supply really enough for 1 cpu and two overclocked gpus? Ive never even heard of undervolting, hugely informative. Just doing some reading, there seem to be differing opinions on whether or not you can undervolt and still retain performance though. I guess I would have to see for myself. Thanks for all the tips so far. Trying to process and not run in circles here.
  2. Good point. Perhaps I just romanticized the performance gains of watercooling, having never really done it before. Is watercooling of any real benefit if you are not overclocking?
  3. Well i pulled it from here? https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3970x-review,5.html I figured this was fairly reliable?
  4. thank you both. I will be using this pc for professional purposes as a vfx artist. and thats a good point on the addition of a second line. I know that fridges and ac units often run on 40 Amp outlets. Perhaps thats the way to go.
  5. Hey folks, A few things have been really confusing me about my own computer build. Its not the mathematics of the power consumption, its the reality of being able to actually overclock a cpu and 2-3 gpus, and not burn my entire house down lol. Im building my own pc, trying to be really careful with the specs, research on power consumption, overclocking, etc, and Im really confused as to how other people are getting away with overclocking/mining pcs (4 gpus??), considering the reality of power consumption with the newest cpus and gpus, and standard outlets in a home. Case and point example of theoretical overclocking--numbers from gamers nexus and elsewhere. ryzen 3970 --overclocked --700 Watts nvidia 3090 founds (or aib) --overclocked-- 550Wx2- 1100 Watts These numbers alone take me over what any standard power supply could handle. Add in fans, pump, ram, storage, and you are looking at 2200 Watts out of the box. One more gpu and your looking at 2671 Watts!! This means I would need to get two power supplies. Great-thats not easy--even throwing two into an enthoo elite case, your compromising some of the space you could use for rads, etc. Oh and then these power supplies need to plug in somewhere. Problem is most outlets in a home are 15 AMP circuits. Some simple math on this: 15 Amps (standard home outlet) = 120*15 Watts Non Peak. Or 1800 Watts. Of which, 80% can be in use for lengthy periods of time. Even a 20 Amp circuit would only cover 2400 Watts at load, and it cant do this for extended periods of time. All this means I would need: two power supplies, two surge protectors running to two different outlets......long story short, a whole lot of extra gear, and money, on top of the additional cost of watercooling. To a point, it all seems a bit ridiculous to me. To put things in perspective, without overclocking, ryzen 3970 --not overclocked --500 Watts nvidia 3090 founds (or aib) -not overclocked-- 550Wx2- 350 Watts Totals after added in parts: roughly 1400 Watts. This is about what a 15 Amp circuit can handle, along with a 1600 w power supply from say Corsair. It just makes me wonder, is overclocking really even worth it? in the same vane, is watercooling even worth it if you are not overclocking? Would it make more sense to just simply my whole setup, use some aio coolers, not overclock, and call it a day? Would love to get some perspective on this. Im a vfx artist, and I will be abusing this hardware. But I frankly feel like I might be going down a rabbithole. .....I wanted to overclock and use water cooling in the first place for the same reason as everybody, to avoid throttling my performance, but the truth is the more I look at the numbers the more I am unsure of its feasibility. I will be using Clarisse (cpu) and Redshift (gpu) all of the time, and I was worried about throttling my parts under full load.......... thanks all!!! and definitely let me know if there is something terrible about my math!!!!!!
  6. Hey folks, Question . VFX artist. Running Houdini and Nuke mostly. I just installed a new optane 905P ssd in my machine. Im trying to understand the best way to optimize it, without reinstalling my entire operating system on it. Ive been told when you run a program, the only drive that matters is the drive that work is actually being done on. Does this mean it doesnt matter that much where the program is installed? If that's the case, I can keep the program installed on my current ssd, and then have my files on the optane drive, and still reap the full benefits of optane. However, if the program is constantly calling on libraries from the other drive, perhaps I should reinstall the programs onto that hard drive as well? Not entirely sure how this stuff works. Breakdown would be helpful. Thanks!
  7. Hey folks, question about how your boot drive and your storage system work together, specifically as it pertains to VFX work and true work speed. Ive heard a lot about really impressive standards on ssds for sequential read write nowadays: GIGABYTE AORUS NVMe Gen4 SSD 2TB M.2 2280 for example: 5000 MB/s......5 GB/s......40 Gb/s. ---that speed is equivalent to a thunderbolt 3 max speed--obviously the thunderbolt 3 is dependent on the drive attached but you get the idea. Its a really impressive read write if you can get it consistently, However, its been noted that random read write is just as important, if not more for my specific software (houdini) https://forums.odforce.net/topic/23766-is-it-smart-to-use-2-m2-ssds-in-raid-0-for-temporary-caching/ For that reason, drives like optane 905p are actually a better option in certain cases, for though their sequential read write is lower (2800 MB/s), their random read write is ludicrously low, as is the overall latency. That being said, how does all this relate to storage? Case example. Lets say I have the optane 905p as my ssd boot disk, with all my programs and os on it. Wohoo, super fast right? However. I have a houdini scene file. I am going to have to be working off of a secondary storage drive, because all my scene files, and all their related caches and alembics need somewhere to sit that is larger than 508 GBs. Some of this is definitely random read and write too. Houdini is essentially visual coding, highly optimized granted, but pulling bgeo and alembic caches all at once is by no means a sequential operation. So, what happens to the read and write speeds of the precious optane drive in this case? Is it not even relevant if my work doesnt 'live' on the drive? Apologies for my ignorance of computer science, but I really would like to understand the speed relationship between my main drive and the drive I store all my files on. I know that editors have a lot of related problems, after all they have to find a smart way of holding huge files stores while also somehow leveraging high end cpus and ssds to do the heavy lifting for live editing of 4k and even 8k footage nowadays. Is there perhaps a key difference in the way houdini artists and editors work? I thought perhaps the editors actual premiere files would stay on the ssd, while they would just load the video files from storage. In this case the issue would actually be slightly different, because in that case, most of the heavy lifting is in 'read mode' from the drive, as opposed to random for houdini, but that might be way off lol, and nonetheless the question of standalone hard drive speed vs hard drive connected to storage speed still stands. In fact, this becomes an even more serious issue when it comes to rendering. I've seen some mindblowing speeds with the threadripper cpu combined with a high speed ssd. Did all the components for that blender file need to be on the ssd directly to achieve that level of speed? Or do I lose that level of performance the moment my storage requirements become too overhwelming for the ssd itself.... At this point my logic is simple. I dont know the relationship lol, so it makes sense to try and get the fastest redundant storage possible. If you keep your storage on a reasonably fast external--by reasonably fast im talking 8 tb G shuttle SSD, speed-2800 MB/s......2.8 GB/s.... 22.4 Gb/s, running through thunderbolt, does that allow the boot ssd to maximize its full speed? Or does it not even matter that much because the main cpu is doing all the heavy lifting? If that was the case, then a slow, cheaper drive, example G Speed non-ssd d---size-24 TB, speed-1000 MB/s......1 GB/s.... 8 Gb/s would work just fine for far less money. Any tips or points would be greatly appreciated!!!! including suggestions for a way less expensive but still redundant g shuttle ssd alternative thanks again folks
  8. gotcha. when people work off a network then are they always taking a performance hit?
  9. Hey folks, I'm trying to understand the relation between your boot disks speed and the drive you use for storage, and setup a workstation as optimized as possible to work with 8-14tbs worth of stoage I'm a vfx artist, building a new computer, and the build will be similar to the one Linus built recently for his vfx editors-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXBGRxmLqOU So Asus Zenith Motherboard, Threadripper 3970 or 3990, optane for the boot disk, and then.....STORAGE? This is where Im a bit lost. I would like a storage solution with up to 14 tbs of storage (8 tb will be okay for now). I know this is a lot, far more than a high speed onboard ssd can handle. However, I do NOT want to sacrifice speed for the prize of massive storage, so if that means if i need to create a two part storage solution, so something fast and reasonably sized (nvme mirrored raid 2 tb), and then a slower 8 tb storage solution i back stuff up to on a nightly basis or something, I am all ears. Again, any suggestions will be helpful. I considered for a bit trying to do a nas, and forego local storage altogether, but I am worried that there is too much dependency there (internet connection speed, personal ignorance lol). I know that they are selling nas devices that claim they support 10 GB/s connection speed, but how realistic is that really? Lets say I go the other route, something a bit cray lol, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkrHGnSGrk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MhOA2IHC9E i could use this for ludicrously fast live read and writes, and then back it up to a slower 8 tb external at night if needed. Only downside is management isnt as easy, and I dont really have access to my work from other workstations. This isnt priority, because its just me at the moment, but having access to my files at multiple locations is something that would be nice to have in the future. If I can get reasonably high speed from a nas (im talking something really impressive), and forego onboard storage, im game to buckle down and learn a thing or two to get it working. So theres a lot of speculation here but I had two main questions, namely 1) the relation between storage and your boot disk, what is it, and how do you not bottleneck yourself/ 2) how can i build a 8-14 tb redundant storage solution without losing a lot of speed. As I said, I am open to any and all suggestions, including NAS, maybe with DAS hookup (so I can just directly plug in with a usb 3.2 gen 2 if needed), or even two part storage solutions. Any and all information would be hugely helpful. I am willing to spend quite a bit for a forward looking solution. Thanks!!!!!