Building workstation for 3D modelling/rendering - Need input

The LGA 1366 socket is EOL. You can obviously save money by going that route, since it is no longer going to see any new features, but if you ever want to be able to upgrade in the future, I would recommend that you consider the LGA 2011 socket. Current server/workstation chipsets that utilize LGA 2011 are the C600-series chipsets (C602, C604, C606, C608). These support the newer Xeon E5 series workstation/server CPUs, and they are capable of using quad-channel RAM.

I've browsed Newegg looking at how much it would cost to build a nice C602 workstation, and it starts in the $3000USD range before you get to the point where you can outperform one of the Core i7-3930K X79 systems in raw processor power (though you would have benefits that aren't available to the consumer market like ECC RAM). The some of the C600-series chipsets also support dual Xeon motherboards, which would allow you to go far beyond what an X79 build would offer, though with a price tag that also goes far beyond. They also support up to 768GB of RAM, in some cases!

My question for you would be "What is your budget?" I am very pleased with my X79 build, but it is not capable of much of the benefits of a C600-series system. It is strictly single-CPU, and maxes out at 64GB of RAM (some X79 boards support up to 96GB of RAM, however). It does support 40 PCIE lanes, while the C600-series chipsets support a maximum of 24 (only 16 lanes if you only use one Xeon CPU). If you are doing something that requires a lot of GPU processing, then it might be best to go with an X79 build, since the workstation/server chipsets focus on using PCIE for networking and storage. If you are doing a lot of CPU-bound processing that requires a lot of RAM, then the server chipsets would serve you much better.

I'm not very educated on servers/workstations, but if your software is designed for multi-threaded CPUs, then you should look into AMD's 16 core Opteron. It beat Intel's best 12-core Xeon (Intel doesn't sell 16-core CPUs) in every multithreaded application. You'll be saving money too.

That is absolutely not true. According to the Passmark benchmark, at stock speeds the Opteron 6282 SE (AMD's fastest 16-core CPU) ranks 14th overall (with a score of 12000 even), with 11 Intel Xeon and 2 Core i7 processors scoring better than it does: Passmark - High End CPU Chart

While it doesn't appear on this list, I was able to find a review that ran the Passmark benchmark on the 6282 SE and found that it scored 12,000: AMD Opteron 6282 SE Review and Specification

I realize that this is a synthetic benchmark, but I think it shows pretty conclusively that Intel's high-end server/workstation CPUs are the better choice if performance is what you are looking for. I also noticed that the Intel Xeon CPU that scores closest to 12,000 only costs $50 more than the Opteron 6282 SE, so you can't even claim that there is a large price/performance ratio gap.

To the OP, I sent you a pm. I have a question for you.

My guess would be that the vast majority of rendering workstations use one or two Intel Xeon processors, ,and if you are using a couple of Xeons, you are probably not doing any overclocking. If you aren't overclocking, then you can easily use the stock cooler, and it would be silly to risk having a leak take out the machine that is solely responsible for your paycheck.

If you are building a system for your hobby of 3D animation then you have more wiggle room as to what you will use for your render box. Most people supporting an at-home hobby will choose to get the 3930K rather than a Xeon processor because of the price, but the 3930K is actually faster than all but a handful of Xeons. If you build a custom loop for it, you can overclock it beyond the performance of any of the Xeons. If you want to spend a lot of money, you should consider focusing on one of the high-end NVidia Quadro GPUs, and also throwing a decent GeForce GPU in there for applications that rely heavily on CUDA processing... each kind of GPU has its own advantages.

If you're building a workstation that is going to serve as your way of generating income, then you should definitely go with a C606 chipset server motherboard and at least one 6 or 8 core Xeon processor. This gives you up to 768GB of ECC RAM, which will help immensely in preventing your programs from dying suddenly because of rogue solar radiation or whatever it is that causes a bit to flip and ruin all the work since your last save. You also get an onboard SAS controller with 8 ports and server LAN ports. You will still want to get a Quadro GPU, though you can rely heavier on the CPU if you are using a couple of the 8 core Xeons. This solution will likely cost a minimum of $5,000.00USD, but it has the option of growing into an extreme beast of a system. You could start with a single Xeon and Quadro workstation now and end up with a dual 8 core HyperThreading Xeon with a high-end Quadro and matching Tesla GPU later.

That's definitely best in the long run. Keep in mind, though that the C606 chipset only offers 3 8-lane PCIE busses. One is offered by the chipset itself, and one is offered by each Xeon CPU. Its unfortunate that the Xeon SB-EP chips only have a few PCIE lanes, but when it comes right down to it you really don't need a lot of bus bandwidth for most server/workstation tasks. The Quadro line GPUs tend to be PCIE x8 lane cards, as do most RAID controllers and fiber HBAs (fibre-channel/Infiniband/etc).

That means that you'll end up with a great render machine that is a crap gaming machine. It may be possible that some manufacturer has gone beyond the specifications of the C606 chipset to give the board more PCIE lanes to take advantage of modern GeForce GPUs and the NVidia Tesla cards. I haven't done very much research into workstation motherboards.