Workstation GPU vs Regular desktop GPU usage for .net code compiling

[suraswami]

Workstation GPU vs Regular desktop GPU usage for .net code compiling

My friend is starting up a company and would like to build some desktops or configure from big companies. My task is to give him recommended specs on what the machines will be used for.

Mostly the machines will be used for regular office stuff with 90% dedicated to .net code development and compiling. Application is going to be Intranet/Internet based.

In terms of graphics card selection I wanted to know if Workstation graphics (Firepro or Quadro) will be better for code compiling or regular desktop card will be enough. I was going to pick a 2GB ram version.

Machine specs
I7 4770
16GB Ram
120GB SSD
500 or 1TB HDD
W7 prof
Graphics card - ?

Criteria - GPU should support 2+ monitors

To save some money I can go with I5 too.

Are AMD APUs (SteamRoller) any good for these type of tasks, since it has a decent GPU in it I could save on buying extra GPUs (and more power PSUs).

Other option on the CPU is FX 8320 (since its $100) if we go build your own route.

If GPU doesn't play a big role in .net compilation then going with most powerful CPU makes sense?

 

[kn00tcn]

why would a gpu affect code compiling at all? (well unless it uses directcompute or opencl... havent heard of such a thing)

powerful cpu & also decent hard drive speed

not sure if core counts matter, as in, if compiling always speeds up as you add cores the same way 3d rendering or x264 video encoding does

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

As I see it, there are actually three questions here. Can I use the GPU to compile .net code, should I get a professional graphics card, and what CPU should I get. In order:

1) Short answer is no. Long answer is that .net executes in a software environment, rather than hardware. This means code can be changed to match different languages on the fly, but that it is functionally GPU agnostic.

2) Good lord no. The professional level graphics cards are meant for people who need very precisely generated visuals (read: engineers and architects). The extra mathematical precision comes at a very high price, but is worth it for these kinds of applications. Coding and basic office work will never need that kind of power, and tapping it without using it is expensive.

Additionally, I'd shoot for a 3GB memory graphics card if it were me. Running a second monitor at 1920x1080 (I'm guessing on the resolution, as one was not provided) will eat up all of that 2GB fast. This isn't a problem if all that is being run is compilers, but people have the tendency to "need" more than they actually need. This is personal notes here, but if you feel confident go with the 2GB cards.

3) Get the most number of cores, and the highest frequency you can. The 4770 is a great option. If you're compiling huge projects then you might benefit from a dedicated socket 2011 based system. This is a long shot, but when compiling huge programs an extra 50% of the number of cores and a ton of RAM might be worth looking into. Again, long shot but it was worth mentioning.

AMD is really out of the question. The extra cores aren't necessarily a bad thing, but the highest end offerings aren't really fairly compared to Intel. APUs also have the tendency to not like running multiple monitor configurations.


Edit:
Curse my poor grammar and spelling. Corrections made, but no changes to content.

 

[kn00tcn]

As I see it, there are actually three questions here. Can I use the GPU to compile .net code, should I get a professional graphics card, and what CPU should I get. In order:

1) Short answer is no. Long answer is that .net executes in a software environment, rather than hardware. This means code can be changed to match different languages on the fly, but the it is functionally GPU agnostic.

2) Good lord no. The professional level graphics cards are meant for people who need very precisely generated visuals (read: engineers and architects). The extra mathematical precision comes at a very high price, but is worth it for these kinds of applications. Coding and basic office work will never need that kind of power, and tapping it without using it is expensive.

Additionally, I'd shoot for a 3GB memory graphics card if it were me. Running a second monitor at 1920x1080 (I'm guessing on the resolution, as one was not provided) will eat up all of that 2GB fast. This isn't a problem if all that is being run is compilers, but people have the tendency to "need" more than they actually need. This is personal notes here, but if you feel confident go with the 2GB cards.

3) Get the most number of cores, and the highest frequency you can. The 4770 is a great option. If you're compiling huge projects then you might benefit from a dedicated socket 2011 based system. This is a long shot, but when compiling huge programs an extra 50% of the number of cores and a ton of RAM might be worth looking into. Again, long shot but it was worth mentioning.

AMD is really out of the question. The extra cores aren't necessarily a bad thing, but the highest end offerings aren't really fairly compared to Intel. APUs also have the tendency to not like running multiple monitor configurations.

what about the high end AMD cpus? the '8' core ones i hear are competitive against intel's 4core8thread ones, as long as the workload is very threaded (like the 3d rendering/video encoding i mentioned), though the power usage/heat might go up...

ya might as well stick with 4770 (or 3770? 2600/2700? k editions? overclock? i know i would) ... also regarding threading, probably want to avoid the 4core4thread ones like the 4670

i dont particularly see the need for 3GB if games are not being run on it... how is a windows desktop going to use more than even 1GB??

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

what about the high end AMD cpus? the '8' core ones i hear are competitive against intel's 4core8thread ones, as long as the workload is very threaded (like the 3d rendering/video encoding i mentioned), though the power usage/heat might go up...

ya might as well stick with 4770 (or 3770? 2600/2700? k editions? overclock? i know i would) ... also regarding threading, probably want to avoid the 4core4thread ones like the 4670

i dont particularly see the need for 3GB if games are not being run on it... how is a windows desktop going to use more than even 1GB??

...I believe I said that the high end AMD doesn't fairly compare to the high end Intel. That's putting two processors at the same cost tier side-by-side, and comparing what you get. The OP cited running compilers, and running two monitors. Vishera runs highly threaded code, designed specifically for AMDs supported instruction set, well. As this is not an accurate representation of what code is generally compiled in the real world, the Intel offering wins out here in a cost to performance ratio. I am assuming that no overclocking is utilized, because this is a business which requires reliability over raw short-term performance.

If you'd read the rest of the discussion about graphics memory, you'd note that's exactly what I said. If you were 100% sure of no shenanigans, then 2 GB is enough. Generally people need more that just a white wall and black text, which is why I'm assuming that a 3 GB graphics memory might be a reasonable addition. Please, finish reading my thoughts before criticizing, then making the exact same point.

We haven't talked about encoding at all. Intel wins out here, as their integrated GPUs make encoding jobs much faster. AMD has integrated the encoding into their Catalyst software, but I have found it...lackluster... when compared to Intel's offering. Neither is as robust as they should be, but I'm a much bigger believer in Intel's offerings.


Edit:
Crap, I hadn't even broached that subject either (Thanks james888). Intel is offering an 84-95 Watt solution, whereas AMD is offering a 220 Watt solution. Tack on extra cooling costs, extra power draw, and the rather high amount of labor associated with building and upkeep of systems (if you build them yourself), and Intel wins by miles. I'd love it if AMD were competitive, but they just aren't in this business application.

 

[Nordic]

I am not sure on the availability of these, but you might be interested in a I7 4770r. They use less power and are the same performance as the I7 4770. They are soldered to the socket. If you plan on using these for a few years it might be worth while in energy savings, especially with CA electricity prices.

 

[theo2021]

He does not need an extreme computer the only thing he needs is a decent cpu and lot's of ram since they will be working for hours better an i5 low power with 8gb or 16gb of ram and a silent psu. GPU doesn't matter.

 

[suraswami]

Thanks guys.

Yeah these are strictly business machines. So OC out of question.

So far I see that FirePro video card that was suggested by the sales guy to him (that is why he came to me to get my input) is just to get more money from him. Then what I thought was correct. I would ask him to get a R7 or NV 640/650 series 2GB video memory card. I have 5450 1GB card at work and I run 2 monitors of it and third monitor connected to a USB video card. No issues on video memory usage. I upgraded my desktop memory from 8 to 16 and visual studio and SQL management studio behaves much better when opening and working with multiple instances.

On the Proc power usage FX is not that worse like online sites post. My recent build for a friend with FX 8320 (no OC) + gigabyte mATX board + 8GB ram + 6450 1GB video card, 120GB SSD + 1TB HDD and optical drive powered by Antec VP 450 consumes 65W idle using Kill-A-Watt. Light usage howers around 100 to 120w. I am guessing an equivalent Intel based machine will also consume the same. Most of the time when coding is going on the PC is pretty much idle only.

I have to work out on the price difference to see which one he want to go with.

Please keep posting your inputs.

 

[theo2021]

Intel Core i5-4570S + Asus B85M-G or Asrock B85M Pro4 , Ram a 1333 8(2 mod) or 16 GB(4 mod) ,if you do want GPU the amd you proposed or the nvidia GT610 about the PSU this you selected , a Corsair CX or Seasonic S12ii.

 

[Vario]

Xeon 1230v2? or v3?