Want to get a new PC for 3D rendering and animation. What build you guys recommend and how much would it cost?
we have a questions threadalso here is a cool budget buildhttps://pcpartpicker.com/list/YJ9NM8more expensivehttps://pcpartpicker.com/list/sMqBkT
You really can't make a single PC for rendering unless its a retarded beast like two xeons or a sli titan X.I have an 8 core Ryzen and a 1080Ti + 16 GB of Ram and its still absolutely shit tier almost unusable in rendering with any render engine
>>583642that's true if you are rendering animation.but even that. with the right settings you should render with just 1 good gpu
>>583684The problem is Arnold/Mantra are just much easier to use than Redshift or Octane because they are integrated into their programs so you dont have to mess around with the settings too much to make it look good. With houdini for example you do your simulation and then you can basically render it instantly and mantra will know what to do. Other engines? Lol no. Its such a nice thing to have
>>583642I built a dual Xeon build buying sketchy used E5's on Ebay and it does a good job with rendering. Just be aware that if you use mid tier xeons, it won't be as fast for desktop responsiveness, so you probably don't want to use it for animating if you're using heavy rigs for example.
>>583635>how much would it cost?arm.leg.
>>583706About the Xeon:Which models are already out of date?Which models I have to looking for?
>>583685Lol, you're blowing that way out of proportion. Redshift is incredibly easy to use with Houdini. Sure it might take a few more clicks sometimes but it's just a matter of telling it 'render this as particles' or whatever. You're a little bitch if you think that's hard
>>583711V1 is out of date and slow for workstation use, V2 is tolerable but you still trade a significant amount of clock speed for more cores, to the point where a 12-core isn't all that much faster than an 8-core. It's only starting from V3 & later you don't lose out on picking a CPU with too many cores for workloads that don't benefit from them.For model numbers, try to aim for the 2667 or 2687W as those usually have the best mix of price/performance/cores for most situations.
>>583743Absolutely this. I have a machine with a Threadripper 1950x and a couple of 1070 cards. The 1950x is a great processor but it's still not nearly fast enough to render animations in Mantra unless you compromise on quality in one way or another (length/resolution/render settings/scene complexity). Redshift has pretty good integration into Houdini and the speed advantage with just a couple 1070s is so great that it trumps all other concerns.A combined workstation/render node is actually feasible if you go the GPU rendering route. If I were to put a couple more graphics cards in my machine it would probably be faster than the little 10-node renderfarm we have at work.
Not OP, but I'm thinking of starting to get into 3D rendering for static images.I'm very poor and only have a $400 laptop to work with.Besides being frustratingly slow, will it work?What problems will I have, and what can I do too mitigate them?Thank you in advance.
>>583844Hard to say without knowing the specs, but it should be doable. If your laptop only has 4GB RAM, then you should see if you can upgrade to at least 8GB, otherwise you're in for a bad time.
>>583847I don't have the exact spectrum, but it has an i3 CPU, a 1GB Nvidia GPU, and yes, 4GB of RAM.>you're in for a bad timeWhat exactly?
>>583849You're going to run out of memory and everything will slow waaay way down. Disk usage will spike to 100% as your computer tries to push data from memory into a page file on your hard drive and your machine will probably become pretty unresponsive until you kill whatever process is hogging all the RAM.
>>583854So would upgrading to 8GB make it at least usable?Other than RAM, what's rendering static models taxing on?Would my shitty GPU be enough if I never animate anything?
>>583855>So would upgrading to 8GB make it at least usable?8GB would give you more headroom, yes. Not ideal but at least you can get things done. I would do 16GB if it's within your budget and your laptop allows for it. I mean, you're not going to be able to upgrade anything else on it (aside from putting a SSD in there).>Other than RAM, what's rendering static models taxing on?Your processor. It'll be slow but for final quality stuff you can render things overnight.>Would my shitty GPU be enough if I never animate anything?Probably. Up until recently I was doing everything on a 1GB Geforce GT 240. Your graphics card is least likely to be a bottleneck I think.
>>583855its not like a low end computer is gonna completely bottleneck your 3D workflow.everyone here assume you gonna do heavy heavy work so they prepare you for the worst.but realistically you can model and animate smoothly on any computer. texturing and rendering require some GPU power but it also depends on your environment/background/light setup. if you keep it humble it shouldn't be a problem.if you plan on making big scenes and simulation in the first place then a high end computer is necessary
>>583864>>583866Thank you.My goal is to make relatively simple and not-so-photorealistic scenes to draw on.Think early 2000s videogame look.I just need basic shadows and low-res textures, but I'll need to import some characters and those will probably be more detailed.Anyway, I'll try with what I can afford, and if it's possible I'll keep doing it.Thank you very much for your help. I appreciate it.