Help! Build for 3D seismic imaging?

[ashock]

Hello! This is my first post, and I do not know much about building a computer.

1) What will 1) What will you be doing with this PC? Gaming? Photoshop? Web browsing? etc

Well I am a geologist needing a machine to run Petrel 2009. Petrel is 2D/3D geophysics imaging software. The system requirements are linked below.
http://www.slb.com/media/services/software/geo/petrel/petrel_2009_1_system_req.pdf
This machine is for home use, so I don't need anything outrageous, but I would like to be able to run the program without gouging out my eyes.

2) What's your budget? Are tax and shipping included?

My budget is around 1000$ not including tax/shipping or purchasing monitors.

3) Where do you live?

Oklahoma City and Houston

4) What exact parts do you need for that budget? CPU, RAM, case, etc. Please be very specific.

I have never built a computer befor so I think I need everything. Oh and don't worry about monitors.

I would like to use AMD and ATI.
For my processor I was thinking about the Phenom ii 955 with the C3 stepping or 965.
between Petrel and all of the add ons I need a quad cored processor with some power. Ideally I would run a dual cpu xeon based machine, but right now I just want something in the 1000$ range.

I know I need as much RAM as possible, but since I only want to spend about 1000$ I think sticking with 4 Gb ddr3 for now will work.

For the graphics I would really like to use and ATI FireGL v 7300 or better... but since I am not made out of money I was thinking about an ATI Radeon 5750. (If anyone knows the software, will using a Radeon instead of a FireGL card be as detrimental as it is with autoCAD? I look at squiggly lines for a living and stay far away from engineering things, so I was thinking a Radeon card would be fine.)

I would like to have a hard drive spinning at 10,000 rpm or a ssd but I was unable to fit it into the $1000 ish budget. (if you can by all means let me know how)


5) If reusing any parts, what parts will you be reusing? Please be especially specific about the power supply. List make and model.

Right now I am using a rather useless dell Vostro... so I guess I could at least reuse the keyboard... maybe even the mouse.

6) Will you be overclocking?

Ideally I would like to just a bit. The software is processor intensive.

7) What size monitor do you have and/or plan to have?

I want to run 2 screens.
I have an 24" HP LP2465. For my second monitor I will purchase some cheap one (it will just be used to keep a word doc/excel sheet up.)

8) When do you plan on building/buying the PC?

Sooner the better.

9) What features do you need in a motherboard? RAID? Firewire? Crossfire or SLI support? etc.

I really don't need any unusual features but I would like a board which could in the future support 2 graphics cards (never know what the next version of software will need), but if it increases the cost too much forget about it. I guess at least 1 firewire and at least 4 usb.

10) Do you already have a legit and reusable/transferable OS key/license?

Nope. Need one that is 64 bit.



(maybe just purchasing a dell 690 is the way to go but I wanted to try my hand at building my own computer) Well thanks in advanced!

 

[defaultluser]

Okay, let's get some things straight:

1. If you don't use the software to render 3D images of simulations, then you don't need a professional graphics card (no Fire or Quadro series). From that PDF, the software doesn't use the GPU to speed calculations. It also doesn't use SLI/CrossFire. A mid-range Radeon should be plenty.

2. You'll be better-off with a socket 1156 Core i5 or i7. The PDF states that single-threaded performance is king: with the exception of some multi-threaded simulations, only one core will be used. The i7 offers better single-threaded performance than the Phenom, and comparable multi-threaded performance.

3. Don't cheap-out on the ram. If you don't have enough ram to hold the simulation, the rest of these specs are worthless. How much ram do your work computers have?

Can you please give us the specs of some of your work machines that you use this on day-to-day, and get good performance? Also, can you tell us if you will be using any of the multi-threaded capable algorithms?

 

[ashock]

Lets see. You have some good points, and thanks for your response.

I don’t really use any of the applications which use multi-threading. The main thing I would like to know about is if I am running two separate programs, will the second program in the background use a different part of the processor or is the other parts of the processor only used if a program is designed to take advantage of all parts of the processor. I plead ignorance.

At work, I mainly use a Dell Precision workstations that’s xeon based and has 8 gigs of whatever type of RAM a xeon machine has. The graphics card is an ATI FireGL____. Forget the number but the machine is about a year old.

Some of the reservoir engineers I know use these 2 cpu rack mounted beasts. No idea on how much rams, but they generally get infinitely better equipment then me. The main one they use I know has some Nvidia Tesla thing in it.

Would it be better to build a DDR2 based machine?
My thoughts with going with a small amount of DDR3 was more for future proof then anything else.

Basically I was going to build a machine off of this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.308218
but a friend said I should ask on here first because I know next to nothing.

 

[iSkylla]

Oh boy, I would love to see what a nVidia Tesla powered machine could do...

To chime in on the computer part of it, you might benefit from i7 processor rather than an AMD setup but considering your budget, you'll have to see what happens.

 

[obobski]

I don’t really use any of the applications which use multi-threading. The main thing I would like to know about is if I am running two separate programs, will the second program in the background use a different part of the processor or is the other parts of the processor only used if a program is designed to take advantage of all parts of the processor. I plead ignorance.

"both"
any operating system you're likely to use today can take advantage of SMP, which means the operating system itself (boxes, fruits, or penguins, doesn't matter) can schedule/allocate tasks to multiple cores

so if you've got a quad-core box and are running a few single-threaded apps, each one may very well have its own core (although we don't worry too much about that, because we just assume the thing is in a black box and only have to worry about what goes into it, and what comes out of it)

if you've got parallelized (what a fantastic word) code, it can scale across multiple processors to varying degrees (and you thought you were done with graphs for the day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law)

I'm not sure what the guy who responded earlier read, but that sys reqs sheet states the following fairly clearly:

- Multi-core/multi-socket systems are preferable for working with large datasets within Petrel, as it can queue batch jobs and sim work on multiple threads, based on this I wouldn't even question anything less than a quad core, and I would think Phenom is an entirely suitable option

- GPU performance is important for sim/viz and large modeling data, if this doesn't define your usage scenario, you can more or less ignore it, however do consider that even the lower run nVidia Quadro FX cards will mop the floor with fancy pants gaming hardware (its a matter of OpenGL optimization, Radeon doesn't have it (and yes I prefer Quadro FX to FireGL, its almost always faster))

At work, I mainly use a Dell Precision workstations that’s xeon based and has 8 gigs of whatever type of RAM a xeon machine has. The graphics card is an ATI FireGL____. Forget the number but the machine is about a year old.

so we're talking about a T7400 more or less, which is a pretty buff machine out the door, and can be made into a terminator if you've got the cash (like $30k), you can easily get your feet in the door on your budget though

Some of the reservoir engineers I know use these 2 cpu rack mounted beasts. No idea on how much rams, but they generally get infinitely better equipment then me. The main one they use I know has some Nvidia Tesla thing in it.

you wouldn't happen to...you know...be looking for oil or anything
that Tesla card alone will walk up and down a rack full of Xeon's, however if you aren't using an application from a relatively short list, and performing calculations in that application from an equally short list, that Tesla card is just sitting there and looking smart

basically: its a great little toy if you've got $20k to spend on a machine, but it isn't required

Would it be better to build a DDR2 based machine?
My thoughts with going with a small amount of DDR3 was more for future proof then anything else.

there is no future proof (see, we can learn lessons from 1980's action movies )
DDR2 vs DDR3 won't have a whole mountain of performance variations, even though DDR3 is somewhat faster, DDR2 has somewhat lower latency, its a trade-off, this isn't to say either is "bad", and it isn't to say DDR2 will be around as long as DDR3, but theres nothing wrong with going either way

Oh boy, I would love to see what a nVidia Tesla powered machine could do...

if its good enough for Halli-b-b-burton its good enough period (just got to the bottom of the Petrel specsheet, probably never gonna hear the end of that joke...)



now ALL OF THAT ASIDE, that newegg combo looks good from where I'm sitting
throw an FX 580 or something in there, decent PSU (like that Antec everyone is raving about), case that you like, and decent hard drive storage (how much do you need?), brings us to about ~$750 without a case, could grab another 4GB of RAM, cheapie case, and Win7 Pro 64 in there and probably hit or slightly exceed your budget

somewhat related side tangent -> reasons I like Quadro:

1) You use Tesla at work, which means CUDA, Quadro also supports CUDA, which means you may be able to bring some of that home
2) Quadro and OpenGL are like peas and carrots
3) It isn't really a huge price differential from the gamer card you were looking at, if theres no benefit to the progl card for what you're doing (this depends on how you use the application), it won't hurt, if there is, it'll help, like a lot (see: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/quadro-fx-4800,2258-10.html)

if you want to pick your own Quadro see here:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_11761.html
higher model # doesn't mean higher performance, keep that in mind (Read that whole chart basically), but it does mean higher price
that tom's link has some FireGL/Quadro comparisons as well

-bob

 

[defaultluser]

Oh boy, I would love to see what a nVidia Tesla powered machine could do...

To chime in on the computer part of it, you might benefit from i7 processor rather than an AMD setup but considering your budget, you'll have to see what happens.

Oh, but an i7 setup will be easy with LGA 1156, so long as he's not blowing half his budget on some stupid "professional" video card.

Here's an initial crack:

$398 Combo: Intel Core i7-860 Lynnfield 2.8GHz LGA 1156 (Turbo = 3.46GHz) and GIGABYTE GA-P55A-UD3 LGA 1156 Intel P55 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0
$180 CORSAIR XMS3 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (TWO SETS = 8GB ram)
$100 Antec Sonata III with Earthwatts EA500 500W (an excellent price for a good case plus reliable and efficient power supply)
$140 XFX HD 5750 1GB (should be plenty to run your simulation software, plus the occasional game, you can downgrade this to say a 4670 if you don't use the 3D extensively).
$100 Western Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache (You can add a second drive and stripe them if you think you need the disk performance)
$26 DVD Burner

TOTAL: $944

That will give you the same amount of memory as you have at work, blazing single-threaded performance at 3.46GHz (about the same as a Phenom II running at 3.8 GHz), plus multi-threaded performance that kicks-in as the software improves.

EDIT: Bob, tell me why he should blow hundreds of dollars on an overpriced Quadro or FireGL when he's not going to use it? He could get the same CUDA capability as a $500 Quadro in a $99 GT240. Where is the value in going "professional" here?

 

[obobski]

Oh, but an i7 setup will be easy with LGA 1156, so long as he's not blowing half his budget on some stupid "professional" video card.

Here's an initial crack:

$398 Combo: Intel Core i7-860 Lynnfield 2.8GHz LGA 1156 (Turbo = 3.46GHz) and GIGABYTE GA-P55A-UD3 LGA 1156 Intel P55 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0
$180 CORSAIR XMS3 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (TWO SETS = 8GB ram)
$100 Antec Sonata III with Earthwatts EA500 500W (an excellent price for a good case plus reliable and efficient power supply)
$140 XFX HD 5750 1GB (should be plenty to run your simulation software, plus the occasional game, you can downgrade this to say a 4670 if you don't use the 3D extensively).
$100 Western Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache (You can add a second drive and stripe them if you think you need the disk performance)
$26 DVD Burner

TOTAL: $944

That will give you the same amount of memory as you have at work, blazing single-threaded performance at 3.46GHz (about the same as a Phenom II running at 3.8 GHz), plus multi-threaded performance that kicks-in as the software improves.

I don't think its a matter of the software "improving", some things just don't break apart that easily
I'd probably not run RAID0 on a workstation, simply due to reliability concerns
and whats the big gripe with pro cards for pro apps?

-bob

 

[defaultluser]

I don't think its a matter of the software "improving", some things just don't break apart that easily
I'd probably not run RAID0 on a workstation, simply due to reliability concerns
and whats the big gripe with pro cards for pro apps?

-bob

He said he doesn't use the 3D aspects of this application.

If anyone knows the software, will using a Radeon instead of a FireGL card be as detrimental as it is with autoCAD? I look at squiggly lines for a living and stay far away from engineering things, so I was thinking a Radeon card would be fine

He says this app doesn't have the demanding 3D visualization of AutoCAD.

If he doesn't use the 3D visualization aspects of this, and is purely using the simulation algorithm, then a pro card would be a complete waste. You seem to be forgetting that we have a tight $1000 budget here, and any Quadro or FireGL worth buying is $500 or more. That's a huge chunk of the budget just so someone can stamp the word "professional" on a goddamned consumer card.

 

[obobski]

He said he doesn't use the 3D aspects of this application.



He says this app doesn't have the demanding 3D visualization of AutoCAD.

If he doesn't use the 3D visualization aspects of this, and is purely using the simulation algorithm, then a pro card would be a complete waste. You seem to be forgetting that we have a tight $1000 budget here, and any Quadro or FireGL worth buying is $500 or more. That's a huge chunk of the budget just so someone can stamp the word "professional" on a goddamned consumer card.

as I said earlier:

somewhat related side tangent -> reasons I like Quadro:

1) You use Tesla at work, which means CUDA, Quadro also supports CUDA, which means you may be able to bring some of that home
2) Quadro and OpenGL are like peas and carrots
3) It isn't really a huge price differential from the gamer card you were looking at, if theres no benefit to the progl card for what you're doing (this depends on how you use the application), it won't hurt, if there is, it'll help, like a lot (see: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...0,2258-10.html)

its about a dollar difference here, no need to get frothy over that

-bob

 

[defaultluser]

I don't think you are listening. There is no reason to pay the "professional" tax when you don't need the features included in the "professional" drivers. The Quadro and GeForce cards are exactly the same physically (although Nvidia creates slightly different configurations so it looks shiny and different).

GeForce cards do CUDA just as well as their Quadro counterparts.
GeForce cards have the same quality OpenGL drivers the Quadros feature. They're just missing all the tweaks added to improve the performance of anti-aliased lines (AKA AutoCAD).

So, tell me again whey we're spending $550 on a card that can be had for $100? (or $117 if you insist on 1GB GDDR5 to beat the Quadro into the ground).

The GT240 has more shader power, more memory bandwidth, and more memory period (at the $117 price point).

 

[obobski]

nowhere have I suggested a $500 graphics adapter, and I did provide performance benchmark justifications and commentary for my suggestions, there isn't much else I can say

-bob

 

[Dangman]

Here's an initial crack:

$398 Combo: Intel Core i7-860 Lynnfield 2.8GHz LGA 1156 (Turbo = 3.46GHz) and GIGABYTE GA-P55A-UD3 LGA 1156 Intel P55 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0
$180 CORSAIR XMS3 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (TWO SETS = 8GB ram)
$100 Antec Sonata III with Earthwatts EA500 500W (an excellent price for a good case plus reliable and efficient power supply)
$140 XFX HD 5750 1GB (should be plenty to run your simulation software, plus the occasional game, you can downgrade this to say a 4670 if you don't use the 3D extensively).
$100 Western Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache (You can add a second drive and stripe them if you think you need the disk performance)
$26 DVD Burner

TOTAL: $944

defaultluser's initial crack at a build list is a decent starting point. But it can be improved:
Even with a discount, the i7 860 is still not worth the extra $33 for a mere 270Mhz clock increase IMO. So for $33 less and with the same motheboard that defaultuser listed, you'll get the same performance:
$240 - Intel Xeon X3440 CPU

 

[defaultluser]

defaultluser's initial crack at a build list is a decent starting point. But it can be improved:
Even with a discount, the i7 860 is still not worth the extra $33 for a mere 270Mhz clock increase IMO. So for $33 less and with the same motheboard that defaultuser listed, you'll get the same performance:
$240 - Intel Xeon X3440 CPU

1. He's losing a $17 discount on that if you drop the core i7-860, so the price difference is really only $23. There is a motherboard combo under $400 on the Xeon, but it's for some Supermicro board with issues.

2. That Xeon chip is slower-clocked than a $199 Core i5 (let-alone the Core i7-860), and is a single-threaded performance DOWNGRADE:

Intel Xeon X3440

Standard frequency: 2.53 GHz
Max Turbo Boost: 2.93 GHz

Core i7-860

Standard frequency: 2.8 GHz
Max Turbo Boost: 3.46 GHz

Are you telling me that %18 more single-threaded performance is not worth %12 more money? In my mind it certainly is. The only benefit of the Xeon is it gives you 4 cores + 4 threads for less than the cost of the Core i7. But your Xeon sacrifices so much performance here that the Phenom II deal listed above would be a better pick. The only reason I'm backing a Core i7 over Phenom II for this deal is if the turbo frequency can top 3.4 GHz - otherwise, you're just wasting money on the premium to buy LGA 1156.

Why am I the only person here that is making any sense at all? Single-threaded performance is priority number one!

Read the PDF and the previous poster's commentary before you add your own. The poster needs a powerful single-threaded processor today, and room for multi-threaded growth tomorrow as the software (slowly) improves.

You can't hold-out for multi-threaded improvements. I'm very familiar with the poster's situation, as I have several "professional" niche tools that have yet to go multi-threaded as-of 2009. The tools do their jobs just fine, but would do their jobs 2-4x faster on our machines if we could thread the jobs. But the design houses who provide these tools are old, understaffed, and no-longer growing market share, so if it "works," you're not likely to see multi-core support for a long, long time.

 

[Dangman]

Honestly, missed the part about the OP needing good single threaded performance. In that case, if what you say is true, then yes the i7 860 would be a good choice.

 

[ashock]

thanks everyone! It looks like I will build a system around an i7 then.