Can I strike a good balance between a gaming rig and a workstation?

I've been away from PC's too long and I've recently developed a desire to build myself a custom water loop cooled rig that I can do some gaming and some serious work on.

I'll admit I haven't kept up with the various different processors available out now and I;m wondering I should go with a Core i7-6700K or a more workstation oriented Xeon E5 loaded with ECC ram.

To be frank I consider myself a casual gamer, my work simply does not allow me to play long periods of time. However when I do play I want the absolute best graphics money can buy. That being said graphics does not necessarily equate FPS. I'm drawn the the Tomb Raiders and Divisions of the world (favorite franchise being Uncharted on the PS4) and I played CS for years but I feel like any system can perform great for such an old title.

I have been working with a Mac Pro for years now at dual CPU/12 core with 64BG Ram and that has served me quite well. I'm just a little hesitant about going from from 12 Core system to a 4 Core Skylake one.

I'm I over thinking it? will Adobe Cloud and such perform just as good?

TIA!

If your primary need is a workstation, build a workstation. Use a workstation CPU, not a 6700K. Start with a Haskell-E processor, or Broadwell-E when that comes out and then build around that. They will provide equal performance/speed of a 6700K when gaming, but will give you way more power when you need it for work.

I will be honest - My vote is for a 5820k.

While it is technically a consumer grade chip, it strikes a great balance between being fast enough for any gaming scenario, and the multithreaded performance to do well in most "work" scenarios.

This is of course contingent on the type of work that you do - for people who do alot of rendering/remote sensing/data simulation work, a Xeon with 8+ cores is probably going to be more beneficial. The obvious draw back is the cost and relatively low base frequencies.

If your not averse to overclocking, a [email protected] is probably going to be pretty close to the raw multi threaded performance of a 10 core at 2.4Ghz.

Just dont cheap out on a good motherboard. I find that when it comes to stability, a workstation class motherboard is more important than having a workstation class CPU.

Shameless Liar said:

If your primary need is a workstation, build a workstation. Use a workstation CPU, not a 6700K. Start with a Haskell-E processor, or Broadwell-E when that comes out and then build around that. They will provide equal performance/speed of a 6700K when gaming, but will give you way more power when you need it for work.

Click to expand...

I see where he's coming from, and it's NOT what you think.

Instead of building two niche computers, he wants to build a single PC with multiple purposes; that is, in fact, far easier to do these days.

1. CPU: Depending on what you tackle in the way of workstation-class applications, you may not even need an E (or Xeon, for that matter) CPU - even for genuine workstation work; did you know that the CURRENT x64 flavor of AutoCAD 2016 only requires a dual-core (not quad-core) CPU from either Intel or AMD? That covers a VERY wide range - it even includes my oldest notebook; an AMD "mobile" Turion II CPU-driven notebook with a GPU so old that it lacks native GPU support in any OS newer than Windows 8 (not 8.1 or 10, but the original Windows 8; in 8.1 or 10, without hacks, it will use the Microsoft Basic Display Adapter instead). Yet despite Windows 10's wimpiest non-VGA display adapter, I can run AutoCAD on that notebook with more mold than two-year-old potato salad surprisingly decently.

2. The same is true on the GPU side - if anything, it's been true longer than it has been in the CPU space. Look at NVS Quadro and GT/GTX (nVidia) *and* FirePro and Radeon (AMD, and ATI before that) Their commonality in terms of feature sets is because the two sides of GPU functionality have a LOT in common; far more common than their "different" usage paths would suggest.

3. Operating system - this is where things have gotten turned upside down, starting in 1999 with Windows 2000 Professional. Remember when Windows 9x was the gaming OS, and Windows NT was the workstation OS? Windows 2000 was the direct successor to Windows NT 4.0; hence workstation OS. However, it ALSO included DirectX - hence you could actually game on it. Ever since, the "workstation OS of choice" has largely been a server OS, and specifically Windows Server - and largely because of what Windows Server still lacks; DirectX of any sort.

4. Motherboard - the enthusiast space (between $150USD and $300USD) is where the crossover between mainstream/enthusiast and workstation-class motherboards has been for the last two decades. It started with SMP (back in the days of Windows NT), went on to include gigabit copper integrated Ethernet (and the Intel Communications Streaming Architecture) and would include the first enthusiast-class RAID support (the Intel ICH5R southbridge).

Just build to handle your most dependent needs. Workstations require stability and security most. Game machines require outright power. You can achieve both with "gaming gear", using workstation security, and making sure it is stable as a rock(no pushing the overclock limits). The only real difference between a workstation and gaming rig is stability potential and security. Be sure to get at minimum a "Pro" Windows license though. If you're going to be telnetting, VPN'ing, etc into a corporate server - Professional or higher editions of Windows makes life easier.

I've used my current system, a Phenom II 945, 8gb RAM, and ATI 6850 vid for the past 5 year as a gaming workstation - running Win7 Home. Bentley Microstation, MS Office, pdf editors, image editors, etc, etc.

build a PC that can do both?

No reason why you cannot build a high end station that does both

theDeviL said:

I've been away from PC's too long and I've recently developed a desire to build myself a custom water loop cooled rig that I can do some gaming and some serious work on.

I'll admit I haven't kept up with the various different processors available out now and I;m wondering I should go with a Core i7-6700K or a more workstation oriented Xeon E5 loaded with ECC ram.

To be frank I consider myself a casual gamer, my work simply does not allow me to play long periods of time. However when I do play I want the absolute best graphics money can buy. That being said graphics does not necessarily equate FPS. I'm drawn the the Tomb Raiders and Divisions of the world (favorite franchise being Uncharted on the PS4) and I played CS for years but I feel like any system can perform great for such an old title.

I have been working with a Mac Pro for years now at dual CPU/12 core with 64BG Ram and that has served me quite well. I'm just a little hesitant about going from from 12 Core system to a 4 Core Skylake one.

I'm I over thinking it? will Adobe Cloud and such perform just as good?

TIA!

Click to expand...

For the Adobe products, I think you are overthinking it. Go with the 5820K and a decent X99 board with good storage and the gaming cards of your choice and you'll be fine. Where you need actual workstation hardware is with things like 3D rendering applications where specific drivers are tested against those applications and certified for them. In some instances, it's necessary to even get support for those apps.

Just be aware that the X99 platform is, apparently, really really bad with compatibility for discrete RAID cards. Apparently owing to the fact that EACH and EVERY X99 platform manufacturer now makes the call on how much boot space will be allowed to add in cards. It used to be a standard with X79 and X58...not anymore apparently.

Just got an EVGA X99 Classified the other day and it doesn't work with Adaptec 7XXX and older 8 drive RAID cards (tried a 6805 which it literally broke, and a 7805 which load loops). An EVGA forum buddy got a 8405, which is a 4 drive, working and I've got a 8805 coming in today to test.

Dan_D said:

For the Adobe products, I think you are overthinking it. Go with the 5820K and a decent X99 board with good storage and the gaming cards of your choice and you'll be fine. Where you need actual workstation hardware is with things like 3D rendering applications where specific drivers are tested against those applications and certified for them. In some instances, it's necessary to even get support for those apps.

Click to expand...

+1, although I'd probably recommend as fast a 4/8 i7 or Xeon as can be afforded. A quick look at Puget system's benchmarks on Adobe tells you that basically anything above 4 cores is a waste (versus getting MOAR GIGAHERTZ). We really need to know what kinds of software the OP is using to know how well multithreaded his apps really are. Render farms are far different from a CAD machine (the latter wanting fewer, higher performance cores).

I'd vote for a Xeon E5-1680 V3 on an X99 workstation-caliber board. It's an awesome chip and the best binned unlocked chip that Intel makes. I have one in a small NCase M1 using a 92mm AIO Asetek water cooler (the smallest available) with a 30 cfm Noctua fan and it maxes out at 45°C at full turbo (3.5GHz). The best part is that you can use ECC memory with it on boards that support ECC. RDIMMs/LRDIMMs will work too, opening the door for potentially crazy amounts of memory if you so desire. They are superb chips and a tease at what we could be enjoying if Intel would unlock the higher core count chips.

Well, on the Intel side, it would be very easy. Xeon E3 and E5 processors are extremely similar to ordinary desktop processors with ECC support and sometimes without an IGP. ECC RAM is a little slower, but helps avoid corruption and is far from unusuably slow. You lose the capacity for SLI with some workstation chipsets (usually the cheaper ones like C232), but that's rarely a big deal. I've researched this thoroughly, and been guaranteed by multiple people that, say, a Haswell Xeon E3 is pretty much the same chip as a Haswell i7 with a few features enabled or disabled.

However, a guy named short-circuit recently schooled me and made me feel amazingly stupid. Apparently, NVidia Quadro cards have a terrible architecture for gaming and won't work as well as consumer cards, even though they have plenty of VRAM. So you can't use Quadro for gaming under any circumstances. I thought that if money was no object that you could buy them, although you just wouldn't get enough extra performance to justify the cost. Never would have expected that you'd actually get worse performance.

So, you can build a Xeon E5 workstation with a C-series chipset, and then put any consumer GPU like a 980Ti into it along with as much RAM as it will hold, and it will work fine for gaming. I've actually seen it tested. ASUS actually has a gaming board built around a C-series chipset now since Intel no longer lets you put Xeons into ordinary motherboards.

I am not supporting this board at all, I have never used it. It would allow you to use a Xeon and ECC memory. It has not been updated with new Broadwell-E chips on their support page so I guess you would have to contact them. I am sure that there are many more X99 boards out there that can accomplish the same thing.

Asus X99-E WS

CPU Support List ASUS USA

Core i7-5820K (3.3GHz, L3:15M, 6C, HT, 140W, rev.R2)
Core i7-5930K (3.5GHz, L3:15M, 6C, HT, 140W, rev.R2)
Core i7-5960X (3.0G, L3:20M, 8C, HT, 140W, rev.R2)
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 (3.5G,140W,L3:10M,4C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 (3.7G,140W,L3:10M,4C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3 (3.5G,140W,L3:15M,6C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 (3.0G,140W,L3:20M,8C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3 (3.2G,140W,L3:20M,8C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 (1.6G,85W,L3:15M,6C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 (1.9G,85W,L3:15M,6C)
Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 (2.4G,85W,L3:15M,6C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2622 v3 (2.4G,85W,L3:20M,1C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2623 v3 (3.0G,105W,L3:10M,4C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 (2.4G,85W,L3:20M,8C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2630L v3 (1.8G,55W,L3:20M,8C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 (3.5G,135W,L3:15M,4C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 (2.6G,90W,L3:20M,8C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2643 v3 (3.4G,135W,L3:20M,6C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2650 v3 (2.3G,105W,L3:25M,10C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2650L v3 (1.8G,65W,L3:30M,12C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2652 v3 (2.3G,105W,L3:25M,10C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2660 v3 (2.6G,105W,L3:25M,10C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2667 v3 (3.2G,135W,L3:20M,8C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2670 v3 (2.3G,120W,L3:30M,12C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 (2.5G,120W,L3:30M,12C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2683 v3 (2.0G,120W,L3:35M,14C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2687W v3 (3.1G,160W,L3:25M,10C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2690 v3 (2.6G,135W,L3:30M,12C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2695 v3 (2.3G,120W,L3:35M,14C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v3 (2.6G,145W,L3:35M,14C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2698 v3 (2.3G,135W,L3:40M,16C,HT)
Intel Xeon E5-2699 v3 (2.3G,145W,L3:45M,18C,HT)


Memory Supprt List http://dlcdnet.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb...330.pdf?_ga=1.211540245.1811588823.1462106783

Samsung M393A1G40DB0-CPB 8GB DDR4-2133 ECC/REG CL15 1 Samsung K4A4G045WD-BCPB IDT 4RCD0124KC0ATG
Micron MTA36ASF2G72PZ-2G1A2IG 16GB DDR4-2133 ECC/REG CL15 2 Micron MT40A1G4HX-093E:A IDT 4RCD0124KC0ATG
Apacer 75.CA3G0.G000B 8GB DDR4-2133 ECC/REG CL15 1 Samsung K4A4G045WD-BCPB IDT 4RCD0124KC0ATG
Kingston KVR21R15D4/16 16GB DDR4-2133 ECC/REG CL15 2 Skhynix H5AN4G4NMFR-TFC IDT 4RCD0124KC0ATG
Micron MTA18ASF1G72PZ-2G1A2KG 8GB DDR4-2133 ECC/REG CL15 1 Micron MT40A1G4HX-093E:A Inphi IDDR4RCD-GS02
Samsung M393A2K40BB1-CRC 16GB DDR4-2400 ECC/REG 1 Samsung K4A8G045WB-BCRC IDT 4RCD0124KC0ATG
Kingston KVR21R15S8/4 4GB DDR4-2133 ECC/REG CL15 1 SKhynix H5AN4G8NMFR-TFC IDT 4RCD0124KC0ATG
Crucial CT8G4RFS4213.18FA2 8GB DDR4-2133 ECC/REG CL15 1 Micron MT40A512M8HX-093E:A IDT 4RCD0124KC0ATG
Kingston KVR21R15D4/32 32GB DDR4-2133 ECC/REG CL15 2 SKhynix H5AN8G4NMFR-TFC IDT 4RCD0124KC0ATG
Micron MTA72ASS4G72LZ-2G1A1HK 32GB DDR4-2133 ECC/LR CL15 4 MicronMT40A2G4TRF-093E:A Montage M88DDR4RCD01(B1)
Samsung M386A4G40DM0-CPB 32GB DDR4-2133 ECC/LR CL15 4 Samsung K4A8G045WD IDT 4RCD0124KC0ATG/IDTDB0124B

The reason why the X99-E WS hasn't had a BIOS update should be fairly obvious to those familiar with the behavior exhibited by ASUS in the last few years...

Put two and two together and it becomes clear...

What is your workstation use? I see you have not come back to comment on the thread, so we're probably wasting our time...

My current rig doubles as my workstation and occasional gaming rig. In future will be going more cores, likely a OCd Xeon build. Best desktop CPU I ever had was a WR holding dual core opteron that overclocked nearly 50%.... on air. So same strategy for the xeons no doubt, centre of the wafer etc etc...

I mostly do video editing, some photo work, work with lasers (colour reproduction is very important), light-medium CAD (nothing crazy complex or super $$ software where firepro/quadro is of benefit).
Video editing can benefit from a good GPU offload but tbh, modern CPUs are so fast that any 1080p editing it's a waste of time, practically edit full quality previews in near real time on my 5 year old OCd cpu....
When it comes to processing and finally outputting the file, more cores is what I want.


In summary, yes you can, unless you need a specialised e.g. quadro card. In that case, see if you can use a firepro card instead and go for the Fury X2/Pro Duo - it's a gaming + professional card - the only one on the market (in modern times without hacking) that can run both driver profiles.