Need advice for a new build to render

Hey there!

I’m diving into the world of video editing and 3D rendering and need some advice on building PC. I want something that can handle all the heavy lifting my current pc is taking forever…

Here’s What I’m Thinking About:

  1. CPU**: AMD Ryzen 9 or Intel i9? What’s the better pick for rendering?
  2. GPU**: Should I go for a top-tier NVIDIA RTX or try an AMD Radeon?
  3. RAM**: Is 32GB enough, or should I splurge on 64GB?
  4. Storage**: Would an NVMe SSD for my main drive and an HDD for storage be the way to go?
  5. Cooling**: Liquid cooling or air cooling—what’s your take?
  6. Power Supply**: What wattage should I aim for to keep things future-proof?

My Budget
I’m looking at around $1500 to $2500.

I was thinking of requesting an estimate from https://fenn.systems/
They are based in Belgium; do custom build and overclocking and have good reviews.

Thanks!

1 Like
  1. Intel CPUs have quality-related issues. (Search to find out)
  2. Nvidia products are better for blender.
    Whichever product you choose, search for any issues with blender in advance.
  3. The more RAM the better.
  4. For storage, SSD is better for the work area where the OS is located, and HDD is better for the data storage area.
    ※ In the case of SSD, if there is a problem, it will break down without time to back up.
    In comparison, HDDs mostly send abnormal signals.
  5. For the power supply, it is better to have a product with sufficient output and a certain level of quality certification.

※ Overclocking is not recommended.
Blender is a software that puts a lot of burden on the hardware and is used for a long time.
If you overclock, it can cause errors and shorten the life of the hardware.

3 Likes

I’d add something to what is already said: get a good UPS, it’s really important.

I did not know that Hdd’s can send signals before failing. Thank you for this wisdom!

2 Likes

I was just about to create my own thread on exactly the same thing. Need a new PC for Blender, Unreal, Video Upscaling etc. I’m an old-codger, so this could very well be my last build. I struggle to understand the technicalities of these things now-a-days so need help to get something sorted. I’m also NOT a gamer, so have no need for that side of things.

As above, I’m also uncertain about the Intel / AMD question as well → always had Intel.

I put a brief out to numerous PC builders here in NZ → two came back with a Ryzen 9 9950X, and the other an i9 14990K. One even said that they wouldn’t consider the build if I didn’t use liquid cooling on the i9. Intel’s recent reliability issues also have to be taken into consideration. I don’t want liquid cooling, so perhaps AMD IS the way to go? They are also more efficient and with the price of power in our country, something that has to be considered for long term use.

One store also said 2x sticks of RAM where better than 4x sticks. They suggested 2x 48Gb.

A case is also a tough one to find. Practical cases were everywhere when I build my last PC. It’s difficult to find good ones these days that will take 5.25 bay components and I also have to mention that lack of SATA ports on modern day motherboards.

I have even considered holding off my build because Intel is releasing new CPU’s early next year, and the 5000 series cards are probably due soon (although probably also wickedly expensive). Isn’t AMD releasing a new CPU this week??

A 4090 is out of the question for me as they are approx $4k here.

I’m looking at a RTX 4070Ti Super 16Gb, or maybe with a stretch a RTX 4080 Super 16Gb (was told this was 15% faster than the 4070, but also 20% more expensive)

Would like to hear a few more comments. Thanks in advance.

Correct, the 14900K needs an AIO, it just uses so much power and gets so hot. Of course, given it’s recent issues, likely best to avoid anyway.

This is also true, it puts less stress on he memory controller and always for faster RAM speeds. You ideally only use 4 sticks if you can’t get the total amount of RAM you want/need with just 2.

Have a look at the Fractal Design Define series.

Actually they are already releasing them, the 3 main tiers are out and reviewed. Short story, they largely aren’t worth the wait. So still better off with AMD.

Yes, its the 9800X3D. The main focus of this is for gaming. Sure it will work OK for other stuff, but you will pay a high price for it, compared to say a 9700X which will work just as fast (if not faster) for Blender, etc.

Having 16GB is a good thing, so really, just depends if you want to pay more for the faster 4080.

2 Likes

Thanks very muchly. You answered all my questions. The only thing I’m still uncertain about is the CPU - Ryzen 9 9950X VS Ryzen 7 9700X.

The 9950X is a $1600 CPU here, while the 9700X is a $650 CPU. Is there perhaps one in between these two (giving more performance) than the 9700X but at a lesser cost than the big boy 9950X?

Also, it would appear the GPU is doing most of the heavy lifting these day (not always but mostly). Should the cost focus be there instead of the CPU? I am looking for ways to decrease the cost of the build. Do I need a 9950X? And…as a last thought…anything will in all reality be better than the PC I currently have - especially with a modern GPU (I only have a GTX 1060).

Since my above post, I found a Ryzen 9 9900X. The price is certainly friendlier.

I was also thinking of putting in a M2 SSD for a project drive. What do you think?

Currently, I only have a 3.5 HDD for data and all my projects run from there. Will a M2 make that much difference? And…if it does, how big should I go?

I was thinking about a 4Tb M2 for the OS and the same for the project drive. But, when I see the price, perhaps this is overkill. Maybe 2Tb M2 is enough for the OS and maybe the same for the project drive (if I need one at all).

I currently only have a 250Gb M2 and I’m always deleting stuff for extra space. Want to make sure this doesn’t happen again - especially as so many developers are putting so much on the OS drive.

Yes, there is that 12 core. Frankly, I think it’s in a bit of a no-mans land really. If you actually need more then the 8 cores of the 9700X for full multi-core workloads, then one should just get the 9950X.

If not, then chances of you really noticing any day to day difference between the 9700X and the 9900X is pretty unlikely. While the savings from the 9700X could be better spent on something that will make a difference, like a faster GPU or one with more VRAM for long term usage.

The OS, main data, temp folder, swap file, etc should all be on a SSD or faster. Old and large HDD are great for just general archive/final video/media library storage.

At the moment, my main OS/Apps and data are all on a single 2TB SSD. It’s about half full or a bit less.

So unless you are using a massive bloated OS or install a truck load of apps (or a lot of games, they do take up large amounts of space thesedays), then the OS drive won’t need much more then 300MB.

As for data, well, you should know how much main data you have and if it needs 4TB.

1 Like

Thanks again for the insight.

The 9950X is approx twice as expensive here as the 9900X. I have discounted it because of that. Whereas the 9900X is only a little bit more expensive than the 9700X.

I haven’t got a full price yet, so the final cost will determine which CPU to go for.

I’ve also decided a 2Tb M2 SSD is probably enough (I do have a lot of software).

I’m still unsure about adding another 2TB M2 SSD for a project drive??

This would be used while I am actually doing a project → and then the resultant data would be moved to and stored on a 3.5 HDD. This extra SSD sounds a lot faster → but I have no experience on how much difference it will make in the real world.

Hope to be getting some final prices this week.

Build is currently looking like this…

Ryzen 9 9900X CPU
2x 48gb RAM
RTX 4080 Super GPU
Gigabyte X870E AORUS ELITE WIFI7 Motherboard.
2Tb M2 SSD for Operating System, programs and all the dreck software puts there.
2Tb M2 SSD for Projects (still considering this??)
Corsair RM1000x 1000W 80 Plus Gold PSU

Some of these components are just what one store suggested. They may not be these - depending on which provider I use.

Thanks again for your help. Truly appreciated. These things make my tiny little brain groan :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

It’s worth investing in because the price difference between 9700X and 9900X is not high. :slightly_smiling_face:

Simulation does not take advantage of all threads, but high clocks help with fast simulation processing.
In addition, many threads will be helpful because they support multiple processes in shading processing.

How it can make a noticeable difference will really depend on exactly how you set things up and the size of the files.

If just reading or just writing to a drive from RAM (think opening a file or saving a file you are working on or rendering out a image sequence, etc) then you won’t notice a difference.

On the other hand, consider extracting data from a compressed .zip file, in this case you are both reading AND writing data at the same time to the same drive. No matter how fast a single drive is, that will always be noticeably slower.
Do the same thing between two different physical drives, so only reading from one and only writing to another and that will be way faster.

But in that case you need to consider temp folder location or cache folder or where you save the file first vs where you ultimately want it. So that all takes a little understanding and planning. Get it wrong and most of the time you are reading/writing to the same drive and hence having two makes little difference, other then having twice the storage space.

Second factor is file size, even if you set things up perfect, if you are only reading/writing small files, then most of that happens in RAM cache, either system RAM or a cache on the drive. In which case it’s near instant no matter how you set things up. On the other hand, move around GB’s of data and the cache filss very quickly and now you do notice a difference.

If you can get a 850W cheaper (as in price, not a cheaper quality PSU), then you can do so. Based on the rest of the specs, you’d top out at around 650W and that assumes pushing both the GPU and CPU to the max at the same time (something that generally doesn’t happen). So 1000W is likely way more power then you’ll ever need. Assuming no future plans for a 5090 and the like, in which case all bets are off.

1 Like

Really appreciate the input. It’s helping a great deal.

oo_1942 → I did think the small amount of extra money was worth stepping up the 9900X CPU and amping up the shading processes has to be a good thing!

thetony20 → Considering what you are saying, I think I will skip the 2nd M2 SSD (saves $250) and just set things up with an OS M2 SSD and a normal 3.5 Data HDD. That’s how I’ve got my current PC setup. You are correct, all I’m doing is opening and saving files, so it won’t make a difference. I do already write between separate drives though when needed - for example, I have a Video In drive and a separate one as a Video Out. That is a lot faster than trying to read and write on the same drive.

I was also told today, the 2x48Gb Ram is more for an intel setup (and expensive) (AMD has different RAM requirements or something). Anyway, 64Gb RAM in 2x Sticks will be a saving, but I also might ask for an option of 128Gb to see how much it is. I don’t know anything about the limitations of the bandwidth or memory controllers using 2 Vs 4 sticks.

Sometimes, I’m not sure these computer shop guys really know either. I could be wrong.

If I could use a smaller PSU it would obviously save some money as well.

One issue I do face is I want more than 4x SATA ports. One of the stores mentioned that if I use a PCIe expansion card to add more, it will half the bandwidth of the GPU because there aren’t enough lanes or something. Got told today getting more would be a real issue as most MB’s only have 4x. However, I did find an adaptor that converts an M2 SSD slot into more SATA ports. That sounds like the way to go. There sure is a lot of stuff in a PC to mess with my brain!

Thanks again.

Memory support varies slightly depending on the OS.

It sends a lot of abnormal signals.
Reading and writing may be slow or abnormal noise may occur in hdd.

You can also check the status of hdd with tools such as Crystal Info. :slightly_smiling_face:
Very rarely, HDD can also suddenly stop working, like SSD.

In simple terms, 4 sticks will run slower then 2. While 6000 is more then doable on the AM5 platform with just 2 sticks, you can expect that to drop to 5600 or maybe even 5400 with 4 sticks. Making things slower overall. Ideally, 2 sticks at 6000 CL30 is best, unless you actually need the extra RAM.

Having said that, I doubt you need 128GB, unless you are processing large AI data sets or rendering massive scenes on the CPU or have 100 Chrome tabs all open at once. Basically, if you need 128GB, then chances are you know exactly why you need it. If you don’t know, then mostly like 64GB will be fine for the next 5+ years.

Correct, most recent boards only have 4 SATA ports and some only have 2.

This is also generally correct, however, there is a but with this. If its a latest gen board (like the X870E), then that first GPU PCIe slot should be a Gen 5 x16. I can promise you now, you won’t be putting a GPU in that slot over the next 5 years that will need that much bandwidth. So it being halved likely won’t really make any noticeable difference.

Yup, that is the other option. But again, those M.2 sots can also share bandwidth with the PCIe slots and/or the SATA ports (and even some of the USB 4 ports). So one does need to check and plan a bit for the board you are getting and just how much and where you are plugging it all into.
This is just how consumer CPU’s and boards are and the limited number of lanes.

It’s also why when it really becomes a problem, people get a Threadripper, which have way more lanes, but of course cost way much more.

1 Like

This is comforting. Very much so :slightly_smiling_face:

One PC store got back to me today with the same MB (but an “A” variant model) that supposedly will do the job. It has a PCIEx2 slot that doesn’t interfere with the GPU slot. I’ll have to take their word for it, but that’s what they tell me. This is the link → here

This here is the SATA expansion card they are suggesting.

Having 50 tabs open in a browser is often the case with me :smiley:.

I can see me only using 64Gb RAM to keep the price down. You are correct, if I needed 128Gb I would know why. Still…opening one of those 100Gb unreal engine projects must eat a lot of RAM!

I currently have 32Gb in my PC, and I don’t remember ever having an issue with it (my memory isn’t so great, so I could be wrong) → whereas, I’m constantly running out of VRAM in Blender (crashing) and the nasty red error messages in UE. I only have a 1060, so I guess that’s understandable.

As you can see…I finally figured out how to quote - wahoo. :roll_eyes:

Thanks again for the input.

How do you guys learn all this stuff?? I have trouble tying my shoelaces! :thinking:

Yeah, it’s mostly just a bit differently wired board and so one can adjust and place items in a partly different way. It still has much of the same limits when it comes to impact on M.2 slots and all that, given the total PCIe lanes aren’t all that different. At the end of the day, if one can make it work on whichever board suits, then its all good.
Really you just need to keep in mind, that with all consumer level boards, just because a whole mass of slots/ports, etc are listed, doesn’t mean you can use them all at the same time and that all will run at full speed at the same time. Everything will be a compromise in one way or another.

I’m sure it does, but most of that is likely image textures and far from all of it would be loaded in at once. Besides, even if you had the system RAM to do so, it still needs to load much of that data to the GPU in order to display it. So you will run out of VRAM long before you run out of system RAM.

Yup, really not helping, with at best a 6GB card or maybe worse, you only have a 3GB version. Either way, jumping to something with 16GB VRAM will make a massive difference no matter anything else. O’ and I can tell you right now, if you render with Cycles, then going from an old GTX card, to basically any RTX one and select OptiX as the render API, make sure you are sitting down the first time you hit render…

I worked for 30 years in IT. Also, you caught me at a good time, I’m right in the middle of doing an upgrade myself, so been looking fairly deep into all of this lately.

1 Like

I have the 6Gb version (thankfully).

Figured.

Man…I hope this is so true. I try to keep away from cycles because everything is so slow with my card. Been using it more lately doing some tutorials, but I spend a lot of time waiting. And…the final renders were the tutorial sets it to 1024 samples (yeah…right!). I set it to 32 samples and call it a day.

I didn’t get my first PC until I was middle-aged, so I didn’t pick it up like young people do today. Now that I’m an old man I just can’t remember enough to keep track of it all. Actually, one of the reasons I do Blender | UE is to help keep the old brain active. I find it helps and keeps me inspired.

However, on a final note for this post, after reading some of the stuff here, I have gone to bed with my brain bleeding a few times :laughing:

Really appreciate the help. Don’t think I could of done it on my own without getting busted at some level of the build.

Well, at least that’s something, tho still a fairly old and slow card.

I can promise you it is and I even tested it when I went from a 1070 Ti to a 3080 Ti.

Now the 4080 Super would be a good 30-40% faster then my 3080 Ti.

Of course, for something really scary, the 4090 is actually twice as fast as the 3080 Ti. Mind you, it cost a lot more as well, so that’s unfortunate.

1 Like