***Please Lock*** Need help choosing a GPU for a workstation

[mike0z]

Hello, I have posted questions about this years ago but I figured I'd get back to it.
I want to buy a pc suitable for both work and videogames.

The best deal that I have seen is a second hand workstation, E5-1650v4 (base 3.6ghz, 6 cores), 500 GB ssd (probably sata), 32 GB ram DDR, Nvidia Quadro P620, 700 W psu.
Price - ~400$

This, in my opinion, is a pretty good deal. I can never get close to this value if I build from scratch. The gpu is going to be swapped of course, but I am not sure what to swap it with. I don't want there to be a big difference in power between the cpu and gpu.

The chipset is the Intel 612, it has a PCIe x16 gen3. The GPU has to have a PCIe Gen 3, because why pay for a newer one when you can't capitalize off of the newer gen 4 & 5? I understand almost everything about the specs when buying a computer but I have no clue about GPU's, since the naming is odd and the market has been chaotic.

The only downside that I have thought about is stability and upgradability. But this second hand workstation is not used a lot, I think its an original build with no parts swapped. And about upgradability , push comes to shove and I can always put in a better Xeon.

My questions are -

Can you build a better PC for the price of 400$ without the gpu innitialy?
Which GPU would you combo with the Xeon so there is no bottleneck? Any benchmark vids?
Any other ideas and concerns about gaming on a workstation?

Thank you in advance!

[mike0z]

I appreciate everyone's replies. I have a few more questions to ask.
I also saw deals for double the price (~750-800$) for a workstation (second hand again) with 2x 12 Core E5-2680 v3/2.5Ghz up to 3.3Ghz/ 30MB cache.
Are two cpu's needed, do they benefit the gaming experience twice as much? And is the 30MB cache something yet again superior in games? Also are these and the E5-1650v4 unlocked for overclocking?

Any other popular or well known workstation pre-builds that are being bought often in the community? I forgot to say that the name of the pre-build config I was showing is a HP Z440. I've seen it in a few videos, I think its a popular purchase, might be worth it.
These are the vids I saw up to the moment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmMD_dIm9tU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOlvHb8WV60&t=
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVBSgWJmawE&list=LL&index=1&t=


And also, I want to buy a 144hz monitor, but for that I need to be able to get a stable 144 fps and more for mid or even high settings if possible, still talking 1080p. As Illusion of Progress mentioned - "Any graphics card that WOULD be fast enough to be a severely questionable pairing with that CPU is, going by the budget of the PC you're looking at, probably so expensive that it is likely beyond your budget and thus isn't likely to be something you'll end up doing anyway." I was thinking about dropping 400-500$ on a GPU, something like an rtx 2060 or gtx 1080 ti. Are those overkill for the CPU, other ideas?
How do I check the compatible GPU's as well? Any forums talking about upgrade options? I only found this -

https://www.greenpcgamers.com/hp/hp-ddr4-based-workstations/hp-z440-gaming-computer-and-other-hardware-upgrades/
Here it says to "Expect Some Strong Bottle-necking if you install these Graphics Cards:


EVGA NVIDIA RTX 2080 8GB Graphics Card

EVGA NVIDIA RTX 2080 Super 8GB Graphics Card

EVGA NVIDIA RTX 2080 Ti 11GB Graphics Card

EVGA NVIDIA RTX 3080 10GB Graphics Card

EVGA NVIDIA RTX 3080 Ti 12GB Graphics Card


Is this true?

[Illusion of Progress]

Per core speed > core count for games.

The E5-1650v4 is a Haswell refresh.

The E5-2680v2 is a Sandy Bridge.

Relative to modern stuff, both are slow and will be vastly outdone in games by even the entry level stuff. There's no reason buying a slow architecture with a lot of cores for gaming, when you sort of want the opposite for gaming (faster cores, and don't need as many of them). I figured this was for workstation stuff.

This applies more so if you're wanting to do high refresh rate gaming. You will want a faster CPU for that.

Either of those are also not going to be supported (officially) under Windows after Windows 10 loses support in two and a half years, because Windows 11 supports the 8th generation (on Intel's side) or newer, so unless you're going to run it on unsupported versions in a couple of years, or go with Linux, it's worth being aware of.

If you are looking at spending $400 to $500 on a GPU, I hope the RTX 2060 or GTX 1080 Ti you mentioned aren't going to come anywhere near that amount? If so, please, no. Neither are worth more than maybe $100 to $150 in my opinion. $350 to $400 gets you an RX 6700 XT which is far faster than either, and new, so any choices you consider should either be cheaper if they are slower, or faster if it's more expensive. More so in the case they are used.

[Introverted Gamer]

İlk olarak Illusion of Progress tarafından gönderildi:

Per core speed > core count for games.
If you are looking at spending $400 to $500 on a GPU, I hope the RTX 2060 or GTX 1080 Ti you mentioned aren't going to come anywhere near that amount? If so, please, no. Neither are worth more than maybe $100 to $150 in my opinion. $350 to $400 gets you an RX 6700 XT which is far faster than either, and new, so any choices you consider should either be cheaper if they are slower, or faster if it's more expensive. More so in the case they are used.

Don't push OP to AMD GPU for workstations, OP will not have a good time vs Nvidia.

[Crawl]

İlk olarak m1ke0z tarafından gönderildi:

I also saw deals for double the price (~750-800$) for a workstation

If you are getting into the $750-800 range I think you would be better served putting that money into a modern desktop build versus buying a fairly old used workstation particularly if your focus is gaming. The only reason people buy those used workstations for gaming is its a cheap way to get a complete functional system that you can add a gpu to. As the price goes up they make less and less sense.

[mike0z]

İlk olarak Introverted Gamer tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Illusion of Progress tarafından gönderildi:

Per core speed > core count for games.
If you are looking at spending $400 to $500 on a GPU, I hope the RTX 2060 or GTX 1080 Ti you mentioned aren't going to come anywhere near that amount? If so, please, no. Neither are worth more than maybe $100 to $150 in my opinion. $350 to $400 gets you an RX 6700 XT which is far faster than either, and new, so any choices you consider should either be cheaper if they are slower, or faster if it's more expensive. More so in the case they are used.

Don't push OP to AMD GPU for workstations, OP will not have a good time vs Nvidia.

I can't get my head around on how to find compatible GPU's. I read something about having 2 6 pins and 8 pin for the power to the GPU, further more how big as in physical size can the GPU be so that it doesnt have problems with the case?
I also read about needing an optional GPU fan, that apparently comes installed in pre-built Z440's with 700W psu. Apparently those also come with the 2x6 pin and 1x8 pin connections for the GPU. Example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaTo4xlfsVA
https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/k4ayoi/converting_z440_into_a_gaming_pc/

Is the 1080 ti a good option? The vid was made 4 years ago, but dunno if is still viable for getting 140+ fps in modern titles on mid to high settings.

[mike0z]

İlk olarak Crawl tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak m1ke0z tarafından gönderildi:

I also saw deals for double the price (~750-800$) for a workstation

If you are getting into the $750-800 range I think you would be better served putting that money into a modern desktop build versus buying a fairly old used workstation particularly if your focus is gaming. The only reason people buy those used workstations for gaming is its a cheap way to get a complete functional system that you can add a gpu to. As the price goes up they make less and less sense.

Would you recommend pre-built modern config or to build it myself? I've used pc part picker before, is it still the best? I'd say when building a config, I tend to go with an intel and nvidia combo, and also combo-ing manufacturers like asus or msi. Any tips on building a stable machine from scratch, things to be aware of in terms of compability?

[Illusion of Progress]

İlk olarak Introverted Gamer tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Illusion of Progress tarafından gönderildi:

Per core speed > core count for games.
If you are looking at spending $400 to $500 on a GPU, I hope the RTX 2060 or GTX 1080 Ti you mentioned aren't going to come anywhere near that amount? If so, please, no. Neither are worth more than maybe $100 to $150 in my opinion. $350 to $400 gets you an RX 6700 XT which is far faster than either, and new, so any choices you consider should either be cheaper if they are slower, or faster if it's more expensive. More so in the case they are used.

Don't push OP to AMD GPU for workstations, OP will not have a good time vs Nvidia.

It wasn't a push to AMD. It was a push of "this particular graphics card, which happens to be AMD, is in a price/performance spot that makes it a good measuring bar for stuff around that price point, so if you're way off from its price/performance, especially for used stuff, maybe it's not too worthwhile".

Though it's a fair point that if AMD products will be a poor fit for what OP also needs to do, then it might make any AMD options irrelevant. The particular post I was replying to was asking questions in the context of gaming so I overlooked the other things OP might need it for.

In that case, I guess OP's going to be needing to trade off gaming performance for fitting in workstation needs, both because of the fact that workstation needs mandate an nVidia GPU, which will offer less performance for the price in gaming, or for the extra CPU cores, which again you're typically going trade off per core performance for.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Why do want these ancient workstations with 2x CPUs?

Only certain OS and apps can actually use more then 1x physical cpu

[mike0z]

İlk olarak Illusion of Progress tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Introverted Gamer tarafından gönderildi:

Don't push OP to AMD GPU for workstations, OP will not have a good time vs Nvidia.

It wasn't a push to AMD. It was a push of "this particular graphics card, which happens to be AMD, is in a price/performance spot that makes it a good measuring bar for stuff around that price point, so if you're way off from its price/performance, especially for used stuff, maybe it's not too worthwhile".

Though it's a fair point that if AMD products will be a poor fit for what OP also needs to do, then it might make any AMD options irrelevant. The particular post I was replying to was asking questions in the context of gaming so I overlooked the other things OP might need it for.

In that case, I guess OP's going to be needing to trade off gaming performance for fitting in workstation needs, both because of the fact that workstation needs mandate an nVidia GPU, which will offer less performance for the price in gaming, or for the extra CPU cores, which again you're typically going trade off per core performance for.

What makes these intel workstations need an Nvidia gpu? What's the difference between AMD?

[Illusion of Progress]

It has nothing to do with Intel workstations needing nVidia GPUs. Apparently a lot of workstation type software performs better with nVidia GPUs than AMD GPUs, but I can't speak for that myself because I don't use anything like that.

İlk olarak Bad 💀 Motha tarafından gönderildi:

Only certain OS and apps can actually use more then 1x physical cpu

I don't think that's correct on the latter bit?

I'm pretty sure software just needs to be multi-threaded to take advantage of multiple cores? I don't think it matters if that separate core is on the same die, a different die on the same package, or on a different package.

Examples of the second are some [all?] Core 2 Quads that were just two Core 2 Duos communicating over the FSB together, and Ryzen 9s with multiple CCDs effectively doing the same thing (only the FSB is gone and so it's done through the Infinity Fabric in that case).

[Bad 💀 Motha]

İlk olarak m1ke0z tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Illusion of Progress tarafından gönderildi:

It wasn't a push to AMD. It was a push of "this particular graphics card, which happens to be AMD, is in a price/performance spot that makes it a good measuring bar for stuff around that price point, so if you're way off from its price/performance, especially for used stuff, maybe it's not too worthwhile".

Though it's a fair point that if AMD products will be a poor fit for what OP also needs to do, then it might make any AMD options irrelevant. The particular post I was replying to was asking questions in the context of gaming so I overlooked the other things OP might need it for.

In that case, I guess OP's going to be needing to trade off gaming performance for fitting in workstation needs, both because of the fact that workstation needs mandate an nVidia GPU, which will offer less performance for the price in gaming, or for the extra CPU cores, which again you're typically going trade off per core performance for.

What makes these intel workstations need an Nvidia gpu? What's the difference between AMD?

Cause you not using no PRO work apps with a Radeon GPU. It's pointless. That's what Radeon PRO is for.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

İlk olarak Illusion of Progress tarafından gönderildi:

It has nothing to do with Intel workstations needing nVidia GPUs. Apparently a lot of workstation type software performs better with nVidia GPUs than AMD GPUs, but I can't speak for that myself because I don't use anything like that.

İlk olarak Bad 💀 Motha tarafından gönderildi:

Only certain OS and apps can actually use more then 1x physical cpu

I don't think that's correct on the latter bit?

I'm pretty sure software just needs to be multi-threaded to take advantage of multiple cores? I don't think it matters if that separate core is on the same die, a different die on the same package, or on a different package.

Examples of the second are some [all?] Core 2 Quads that were just two Core 2 Duos communicating over the FSB together, and Ryzen 9s with multiple CCDs effectively doing the same thing (only the FSB is gone and so it's done through the Infinity Fabric in that case).

Multi-threaded is different from being able to use more then 1x physical CPU. Please look it up.

But the general rule of thumb is using Windows 10 or 11 Pro. These can use up to 2x CPUs. Home Edition can only support 1x CPU. Once you are using an OS that supports your 2 or more CPUs, you can assign apps to run on a designated cpu.

[Illusion of Progress]

İlk olarak Bad 💀 Motha tarafından gönderildi:

Multi-threaded is different from being able to use more then 1x physical CPU. Please look it up.

I actually tried to, but maybe it's my searching skills themselves that are failing me? So since you're advising me to look it up, I don't suppose you have further reading on this for me?

I'm not finding anything that suggests software needs to be written for multiple CPU packages. And I'm wondering if I'm not finding much because it doesn't matter?

As far as I understand it, what determines this is simply if the software is multi-threaded or not. If it is, it will be able to take advantage of multiple CPU cores, but I don't think it's going to be aware if that extra core is on the same monolithic die, a different die on the same package, or a different package altogether.

But if I am wrong, please provide me some sources or further reading.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

You keep saying cores and threads

Overall, you have to first install an OS that supports more than one CPU

[AmaiAmai]

Your answer on whether you should use AMD or Nvida depends on what you will be doing. If you are using CUDA workloads, it's obvious you should choose Nvida. If you use pre-compiled software and libraries, better served by Nvidia.

If you make your own software and have an understanding of lower-level hardware, AMD can be good. But like stated by someone above, "you're on your own".

The amount of money saved may not be worth the time you spend debugging or the aggravation. In that case Nvidia is the better choice.

AMD is better in some tasks though, but the more popular packages are all in CUDA. If you are a developer familiar with GPU Open and OpenCompute and HPC or a developer there, then you wouldn't have this question anyway.

TLDR: Go Nvidia if you want an easy experience

If Advanced or your work demands it, then AMD is a choice.

__

Note that advanced means you better understand how low level hardware works to debug issues that might occur and be able to build your own software. If you can't do either of those two do not go AMD.

Note II: AMD drivers for compute and other tasks (Pro Drivers) are available on all discrete AMD cards in Linux and Windows, but you should triple check...