Opinions?

Stappa

Stappa

Enthusiast
GeorgeHillier said:
As I'd said, a quad core CPU, 16GB of RAM and a Smaller SSD would've been fine
Click to expand...

But the chosen CPU/Ram is far better for HD Rendering etc...........and fast plentiful storage is always a must imo

If it was mine the only alteration would of been the GPU as I've only used high end Nvidia's

the only important thing is a long trouble free life....... say 5 years ish(like my current rig)
 
L

LFFPicard

Godlike
Stappa said:
But the chosen CPU/Ram is far better for HD Rendering etc...........and fast plentiful storage is always a must imo

If it was mine the only alteration would of been the GPU as I've only used high end Nvidia's

the only important thing is a long trouble free life....... say 5 years ish(like my current rig)
Click to expand...

Ram plays no part in HD rendering
CPU helps, but wont speed it up by much, if your doing proper HD rendering you will want to do more than a single pass either way so the best option would be to have it run through the night regardless.
Nvidia cuda cores work best for converting/rendering with most software
The SSD is not to be used for rendering, it is for application loading. rendering requires a lot of read/write so will tear through a SSD life cycle so all rendering should be done reading/writing to a mechanical drive anyway.

My current rig in sig is 3.5years old and does everything I need and more, I can transcode 5 streams on plex, a lot of read/write actions on the mechanical drive while copying unpacked files ot external drives all while I play games, so the above mentioned quad core, lower ram and smaller ssd would of easily lasted 5years as required hassle free and woudl of been cheaper.

Either way your new rig will do what is required of it and more
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top