Search the Community

I'm planning to upgrade my rendering workstation and so far the best bang for the buck in compute power vs price is 8 x RX7900XT. I know this probably sounds nuts, but how would you go about building something like that yourself? I know someone out there knows what to buy and where. Or someone can tell me to stop dreaming this impossible dream. (EDIT: I've been advised to go Nvidia, so this is now 8 x RTX3070ti)

First of all, hello everyone. It's great to write here on LTT Forum. Budget (1400€): Country: Italy Used for:I will use the PC for 3D graphics and rendering, BIM and CAD / CAM, software use like Rhinoceros, AutoCAD, Revit, Blender Other details: Part list: 12700k MSI MAG Z690 Tomahawk WIFI DDR4 (a bit expensive but I would like to overclock in the future) Seasonic FOCUS GX-850 Gold Kingston FURY Beast RGB 32GB 3600 DDR4 (CL18) Crucial P5 Plus PCIe 4.0 1TB ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 360 A-RGB (it seems that it is more reliable than competition) MetallicGear Neo Qube ARCTIC P12 PWM PST A-RGB (3x120mm) X2 (1 kit for side and 1 for bottom) I have a Q6600 since 2007 with 8GB RAM, refreshed in 2015 with an SSD and a GTX 750 Ti, I will buy the components from Amazon that guarantees me to avoid customs and extra VAT, I am not particularly interested in gaming (although I love video games) The reason why there is no GPU in the list is that at the moment I can't / want to spend money on the shortage of GPU in the market. I think it is better to bet on a fast CPU and temporarily use the 750ti (please do not laugh ). In the future, maybe find a powerful average RTX to switch to the GPU rendering. Do you think it's the case to change the mobo as suggested by Igor'Lab and add the washers to avoid bending the CPU? I am open to any advice or suggestion. thank you all for your attention

Budget (including currency): $5,500 (including monitor) Country: USA Main Programs: Blender, Premiere Pro, After Effects, Photoshop, Lightroom, potentially C4D, and potentially Unreal Engine 5 Other details In particular, I'm having difficulty understanding if my choices for memory/storage are optimal or even work with the other hardware. PCPartPicker Part List: CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 3.4 GHz 16-Core Processor ($635.97 @ Amazon) CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 chromax.black 82.52 CFM CPU Cooler ($109.95 @ Amazon) Motherboard: MSI MAG X570 TOMAHAWK WIFI ATX AM4 Motherboard ($322.02 @ Amazon) Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V 64 GB (4 x 16 GB) DDR4-3600 CL16 Memory ($459.00 @ Amazon) Storage: Samsung 970 Evo Plus 500 GB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive ($74.98 @ Amazon) Storage: Samsung 980 Pro 500 GB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive ($104.99 @ Adorama) Storage: Samsung 980 Pro 1 TB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive ($139.99 @ Amazon) Storage: Seagate Barracuda Compute 4 TB 3.5" 5400RPM Internal Hard Drive ($67.98 @ Amazon) Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce RTX 3090 Ti 24 GB GAMING OC Video Card ($1539.99 @ Newegg) Case: Fractal Design Meshify 2 ATX Mid Tower Case ($176.89 @ B&H) Power Supply: SeaSonic PRIME PX 1300 W 80+ Platinum Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply ($294.43 @ Amazon) Operating System: Microsoft Windows 11 Home OEM 64-bit ($119.98 @ Amazon) Total: $4046.17 Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available Generated by PCPartPicker 2022-06-28 23:18 EDT-0400 And I'm also trying to decide which monitor to get since I do a lot of visual art stuff: BenQ PD2725U ($949.99) BenQ PD2705U ($536.68) I'd appreciate suggestions for better alternatives if anyone is familiar with the parts I'm picking out. Thanks in advance!

Hi everybody, I'm a artist/student and I'm going to build myself my first rig and I need a bit of help as I've never done it. Budget: 100,000 CZK (roughly 4,000 USD), I'm currently situated in Prague, Czech Republic Purpose: 3D graphics, rendering (mainly GPU, Cycles and Redshift), video editing, (basically a cgi workhorse), possible video streaming (I'm planning to do live classes on CGI) Monitors: I already have one 1920x1080 60Hz display and I might be adding another (probably 1440 one in the future) Why: I'm a freelance 3D artist and I'm upgrading because I'm tired of rendering all my stuff on AWS and other render farms. Got some spare money and I'd like to invest in my work. So far I've been doing all my work on a laptop (Dell Inspiron 15 7559) and even though it's handling most of tasks very well, I can't do more demanding tasks like advanced physical simulations or ray-traced volumetric rendering (technically I can, but it's a pain). Parts: -here's a list of parts I have picked and why I did so, I do need help with some CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X - I figured I will benefit a lot from a good single-core performance and this one looks like a great option if I don't exactly need a Threadripper (I think I don't need a Threadripper) GPU: Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti - I have no idea which manufacturer to pick, for starters I will only get one but I'm almost sure I will be turning it into a dual GPU setup later this year RAM: 64 GB - that much I'm sure about since some simulation tasks are RAM heavy, 4x16 or 2x32?, what cl-xx?, what speed? MB: ASUS ROG STRIX X570-E GAMING - will this one be good enough? Will it fit two 2080Ti later? Should I go for EATX? Honestly I have no idea how to pick, apart from the cpu socket. CPU Cooler: NOCTUA NH-D15 SE-AM4 - is this too much or good enough? Any other (better/cheaper) options? PSU: I honestly don't know, did some calculations I think that 1000W should be more than enough (can I go lower?) Storage: I want an ssd, probably M.2 is the best solution (500GB or 1TB) paired with something large but slower like a 4T HDD Case: I honestly don't care, all I need is a good performance/airflow (I do like the looks of Corsair 275R Airflow though) So, those are the parts I think will be best for me. From looking at local prices I think it should fit my budget. But if I can get something better for that price, or cheaper with the same power I'm in. I also want to mention that I am not a fan of RGB lights so... the less it shines, the better. I'll also be buying W10 with it, but I don't need to include that in the budget. Thank you for your time, ZED

Im an amateur 3D artist and running into hardware limitations and renders make it impossible for me to do anything else on my PC for atleast 8-16hours. (also do a lot of test renders so it really sucks that I have to wait 8 hours to make a 2 second change and wait another 8 hours to fix it). I prefer CPU rendering over GPU rendering because of I find the extra render noise is not worth the speed ( examples https://i.stack.imgur.com/1e7XR.jpg https://i.stack.imgur.com/I8LGf.jpg ) Any CPU that has a better render time than my current i7-3770 is a good CPU for the server (http://blenchmark.com/cpu-benchmarks this is an incredibly relevant chart) Thank you in advance for your time !

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/18/15660218/google-seurat-daydream-mobile-vr-rendering-star-wars-io-2017 This looks absolutely fantastic. It basically allows developers to define a space where the user can move around and interact with a scene from, then the program will calculate all necessary viewpoints in the scene. This allows the number of polygons to be reduced by 1000x and the textures by 300x with no perceptible loss of quality. The video above demonstrates a scene that took an ILM render farm 1 hour per frame to complete takes only 13ms on a Snapdragon 835 based chip. This could radically change the story driven semi on-the-rails narratives for mobile VR platforms. Even games would benefit from this as interactivity is preserved. Combined with the work that Google is doing with mobile neural nets and Nvidia's Neural Net Raytracing speedup we could be looking at a huge leap in graphical fidelity in mobile platforms. (RIP Imagination's bet on mobile raytracing) Visualisation of how the tech works (user constraints shown as a blue cube): https://im2.ezgif.com/tmp/ezgif-2-f428ceca5c.webm cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8538153/Seurat_Part3_v003_H264_3.gif

How much vram do i need in a video card to be able to produce a movie like Valerian city of a thousand planets? is 8gb of vram enough? is 12gb of vram enough? is 24 gb of vram enough? if 8gb of vram isnt enough and 12gb is plenty enough then now i know to buy like 5 video cards that have 12gb of vram in the future, since octane takes the lowest amount of vram if put with a 24gb video card toghther with a 4gb video card what i want to know is if an 8gb video card is plenty enough of ram, so then i can buy duplicates to speed up my rendering process but i dont know if 8gb is enough to satisfy plenty for huge work loads like move vfx that include abunch of materials provided with the software used i need someone to give me a range of how much i can do with the amount of vram in a video card . help?

A thread to discuss all things CG including your renders, setup, workflow, hardware ( *As long is It's used for CG), etc. Any 3D suite is allowed (I'm personally Team Blender)

if i were to build the the whole landscape/world of star wars, will three 1080 ti's and using octane plugin be enough? (i know ram, knowledge will matter but im talking about strictly gpus) also what if i where to have 1080 ti's with v-ray RT and 64gb of ram, will this be enough?

As I've been browsing YouTube and Reddit lately, I've noticed something. As technologies such as Nvidia RTX and SonicEther's SEUS PTGI for Minecraft are becoming more mainstream, people are getting bombarded with terminology they don't understand, and then misinterpreting and spreading misinformation. I'm not blaming the people who are reading about RTX, or watching a youtube video about SonicEther's latest Minecraft shaders. I'm blaming Nvidia, the youtube channels, and the uninformed web journalists who just want ad revenue. So I'm going to start at the very beginning, the definition of raytracing. What is it? Raytracing, simply put, is a mathematical procedure that calculates the intersection of a ray with a scene defined with solid geometry. Wait; that's not simply put at all! So let me clarify: What is a ray? A ray is basically like a line on a graph, but it's in 3 dimensions instead of 2. A useful way to think about a ray is like "point-slope" line format, instead of "y = mx + b." You can usually assume that when you're dealing with raytracing, the "point" of the point-slope will be the position of the camera in 3D space. This point is called the "origin" of the ray. The "slope" of the ray is called the direction of the ray. The direction of a ray determines, well, what direction the ray goes in. The direction and origin both have an X, Y, and Z value to represent their positions in a 3D world. It's more likely that the term that confused you was "scene defined with solid geometry." A scene basically just specifies that something exists, but it doesn't matter what it is. The solid geometry part means that there's a physical object there, like a rectangular prism, a sphere, or a Honda covered in pink... something. Basically, anything that you could touch in the real world is solid geometry. If raytracing is that simple, why hasn't anyone used it until now? Well, they have. Pretty much any three dimensional game you can think of probably uses some kind of raytracing to render it's graphics. For example, any game using: RAGE, Unreal Engine, Unity, Game Maker, and loads more engines all use some form of raytracing. How does that work then? This is really complicated and has been discussed by a lot of smart people who know more than I do, so I'm just going to talk about the basics. Almost all game engines up until recently relied on using math to sort of guess what color each pixel should be. The simplest example of this is shadows. When the first ray, or camera ray, is cast into a scene, you can figure out what color the object that the ray hit is. But really, that's going to look terrible and we all know it. Everything would just look like weird colorful blobs on the screen. That won't do. What computer graphics programmers figured out is that you can have a second ray, but instead of using it to figure out what color to put on the screen, you use it to figure out if part of an object has a direct line of sight to a light source. For example, let's say you hit a spot on the ground next to a tree when you calculate the camera ray. You can then figure out to color that part of the scene green, if the tree is surrounded by grass, or brown if it's surrounded by dirt. Next, you take a second ray and aim it from the spot under the tree up toward the sun. If the ray hits something on the way to the sun, you can say that the spot under the tree is in a shadow, and decrease the brightness of that spot on the screen, by reducing the brightness of the pixel for which the camera ray was cast. There are a lot more methods to try to figure things out like reflections, smoke, fog, water, and anything else that might need to be in a game. What's interesting about this is that you'll notice we're going to be calculating, or "casting" multiple rays instead of just one in order to figure out how the light from a lamp or the sun might interact with a scene. There are also more ways than just raytracing to figure out how a 3D object will look on your screen, one of the most prominent of which is called rasterization. I'm not really going to explain rasterization, because it's not really on topic and it would waste your time. So now you might be asking... what if we tried more power? Pathtracing. It's the holy grail of computer graphics, it features mind-bending math, needs ridiculous computers to render it, and... looks almost indistinguishable from real life. This is what RTX and SEUS PTGI are doing, and while it uses raytracing, it's not just raytracing. So what the hell is it then? Pathtracing is raytracing, but someone thought it would be nice to throw the guessing part out the window. With pathtracing, instead of just simulating 5 or 6 light rays to get reflections and shadows and whatnot, you simulate thousands, or even millions, per pixel. Pathtracing simulates what would happen if you took the solid geometry of a scene and put it into the real world with a camera by trying to simulate every light ray that would hit the camera in a scene. Pathtracing looks at all the objects in the scene, and it uses even more math to figure out how light rays will reflect off an object. For example a mirror might reflect the light straight off, but a white wall will reflect in all different directions. The simulation of all the light rays in a scene is called "global illumination." For a nice video explaining the basics of pathtracing, view Disney's Practical Guide to Pathtracing. So now I'll go over the two examples I brought up, Nvidia RTX and SEUS PTGI. First, RTX, because it's a little more straightforward. (Not the chip development, I'm not trying to insult Nvidia here). What RTX does is instead of simulating every single light ray in a scene, which can sometimes end up giving you say, 20 hours-per-frame instead of 60 frames-per-second, RTX simulates only about 4 light rays per pixel, and then uses some clever hardware to make really good guesses about what the scene would look like if you were to continue calculating the light in the scene to try to give the most realistic scene possible. Nvidia's RTX cards are specially built to make these guesses, which make the scene look much more realistic, but not quite as good as Pixar or Illumination's animation softwares. SEUS PTGI. Sonic Ether has been writing shaders for Minecraft for quite some time, using guessing tricks. More recently he started using global illumination pathtracing to make his "Sonic Ether's Unbelievable Shaders - Path Traced Global Illumination" shaders for Minecraft. Cody (Sonic Ether) uses a few of the same tricks that Nvidia uses, but he also uses some of his own. On his YouTube channel he has a great video that explains the most basic parts of what he's doing. His shaders use methods that, while very realistic, are technically not global illumination. Why? Sonic Ether came up with a technique that allows a computer to draw a frame over a period of time, like Pixar or another animation studio. The difference is that Sonic Ether figured out a way to move the camera and move objects in the scene while it's drawing. This means that while his new Minecraft shaders are still Pathtraced, they aren't exactly what you would see in the real world because he has to use some shortcuts to make it run on a regular graphics card at a playable framerate. And for clarification: On Cody's website, he specifies that his PTGI minecraft shaders DO NOT use RTX or require RTX graphics cards to run. I hope this clarified a few things, and next time you see an argument on reddit or a youtube comment section, or twitter, or anything else, you can kindly correct someone.

Just some more progress on the island project

Budget (dollar) : 840 to 1200 Country: iran Games, programs or workloads that it will be used for: most Update games and 3d max and belender and AutoCAD and Adobe Premiere Other details (prefer ram Trident Z AMD based PC)

Which GPU should i get for Graphics design ? I use Blender and Adobe premiere pro, . I just want to know that which one can render fast And which one is more future proofing for games

Hey everyone, decided to share some of my sh*t, lemme know what you think also criticism welcome This one took 1hour to make ( started with pre-made car model, materials/textures by me, besides the asphalt ). Brass material: Some Samsung Galaxy R&D's. Unfinished: Some video R&D's: 3ds Max / Octane ( quick test, tried to imitate these "caught on camera" fake videos ) Houdini / Octane learning... R&D Unfinished Logo part ( Full CGI ~2days of work ) : Some look-dev: Some works when i was starting ( ~2014 ):

Hello Linustech. I am a visual effects student from London and recently i decided to build a pc so that can handle my cgi works. Right now i have a msi gaming laptop with 16gb ram and gtx 1060, which is not bad for gaming, modelling and other stuff. But when it comes to simulations and rendering it can't handle it. So I'm completely new to pc building and i only have little knowledge about choosing a pc part that can give best performance out. I recieved a lot of suggestions to use AMD or INTEL. But im not sure which one should i go for. If anyone could help me choose pc parts that would be really great. Thank you

As a CG artist I do a lot of work in Maya. In 3d software, you often cache simulations of fluids, cloth, etc. When playing back the scene with a cached simulation, there is often a great deal of lag and latency. Could saving the cache to an Optame drive reduce this lag/latency?

Hi All: I am helping plan a video production class at the high school I will be attending next year, and we will need editing stations. I would like to have setups that would have good flexibility and be able to be upgraded in the future. Our main tasks are probably going to be: Video Editing Using After Effects Hopefully some more advanced 3D CGI/compositing stuff with tools like Autodesk Maya etc. Rendering and exporting projects from above software No Gaming. We will not be doing any overclocking of displays, GPU's, CPU's, RAM, or anything else you can overclock. We want stability and reliability, not flashy gaming stuff. Overall, I was thinking of getting an E5 Xeon processor, since you can use them with ECC RAM, as well as you can use them with 2 CPU's, if we ever need to in the future. For RAM, I was thinking of getting 32 GB of cheap Kingston or other stuff, nothing fancy, no ECC. For GPU, I was thinking of getting a middle of the line GeForce GPU, since we don't need the fancy features of a Quadro, as well as their cost being ridiculous, and since we won't need 10-bit color. I mainly want CPU suggestions on for the tasks above, or at least guidelines on what would be best suited to the above tasks (more cores, less cores, higher clock speed, etc.)

Hi guys... I just joined the forums in hopes of finding a few Blender Nerds around like myself that could help me figure out how well this setup would work... http://pcpartpicker.com/p/rJMv6X There's the part list, and basically, this is what I plan on raising for, for the next 2-3 months... I've got over $200 already, and I'll have $300 from a job I'm doing for a guy, by Memorial Day... I found parts on Ebay, and amazon, and all in all, I can make this for $1284.50... I suppose all I'm looking for, is confirmation as to these are good parts to run, and I'll be doing REALLY big scenes... Does anyone own this motherboard? The CPUs? Anyone use any of these parts? How has your experience been with them? Are there better options at the same price, a tiny bit higher? Other than the RAM, is there anywhere where I can upgrade, or stay the same speed, and get cheaper? 1 thing I must keep, is Nvidia GPU, and Intel... They work better with Blender... I heard the EVGA 970 SSC were better than standard 970s... Is this true? Is there somewhere in my budget where I can save $200, and upgrade to the 980? Is it worth it to stick with a 970, and use SLI later? Any info is appreciated... Basically, I just need a beast of a computer, so I can render quickly, and give previews to customers I get, of how their render will look

Hallo, My name is Jim and I'm a 3D animtaor, this will be my first post on this forum so hope it will be readable! To start off: I'm planning to build a new PC, and this wont be the first time I'll put one together, but it will be the first time I'll pick the parts myself! What do I want from it: As i said I'm a 3D animator and this is what I'm gonna use the computer for mainly: 3D character animation, 3D simulations, film editting and gaming cause, gaming! I wont render in a GPU based rendere and the programs I want to use on this PC will be things like: Realflow Cinema 3D Arnold Nuke etc. Setup: So I have 2 setups right now I'm considering, to keep it easy a 32GB ram version and a 64GB ram version: 32BG 64BG As far as I know, these PCs should work and the parts should work together, but as i said its my first time so if something doesnt match let me know n please go easy on me The questions: Oke so the questions i have are as follow: The 64GB PC obviously has more ram, twice as much to be precise. It also has DDR4 memory over DDR3 and 2400 over 1866. Since I'm doing 3D simulations and renders I thoughed it might be usefull to have 64GB over 32, but I'm not sure if it's overkill.. also its DDR4 because of the processor but as far as i know this doesnt make it a lot better. same story for the 2400 over the 1866. My question is do you guys think I need 64GB (also thinking of the "future" ) or do you think its a waste. the 64GB PC has a 3.3Ghz i7 Processor over a 4.0Ghz i7 (i dont know how to do the overclock/turboboost thing but maybe i should look into it?? I'm not sure what it means). the 3.3Ghz processor has a newer (?) socket then the 4.0Ghz does this mean its a lot slower or because its a newer socket it's about the same? the 3.3 has a 64GB memory limit and the 4.0 a 32GB limit. basicly what i want to know is: is the processor in the 64GB version slower then the 32GB version making the 64GB PC slower then the 32 one. The motherboard in the 64GB version is a 7 serie over a 5 serie because of the socket and the slots for RAM. the 64GB PC will use 700W over the 600W in the 32GB version. basicly making it more expensive in the long run. The price: Oke so the 64GB PC is 350,- more expensive, but if this means it will be a better PC and will last me longer then I'm fine with that. however.. if it means the diverance will be minor then i think its a waste. on the other hand if it means upgrading later on will be cheaper then that makes it interesting again. basicly what do you guys think pricewise is it worth it? Thank you everyone for reading this long ass post with like a milion questions from someone who clearly doesnt know everything about computer building just yet.. but if there is some advice you guys have for me please let me know! do you think its a waste of money? please tell me why and what you would change! If i wasn't clear about something, let me know as well since I will answer any questions asap. Jim ow yea on a sidenote.. this PC was put together on Alternate.nl and I also want to buy the parts here. Unless you guys say DON'T!! do it here: ***** these guys are way better/cheaper. (in the end it needs to be send to the netherlands)

Hi First time, first post, not the first build I've done some builds - mostly hackinto$h rigs for friends and colleagues who can not afford the "iTrashcan" but are forced, or felt like using Final Cut Pro. The times are changing and FCP is no more this powerhouse of innovation it used to be |* ....so I am Now using the Adobe Suite plus some NUKE and some mac specific fractalresizing tools - still need osx. After 6 Years (!!!) I am building a new rig for myself. The old one is still good enough for most work but I would like to edit 4K native and not proxy anymore and since it has to be somehow osx86 hackable I have to relay on the Gigabyte motherboards mostly because they are very well supported in the community. My questions for you all: 1. Do I really depend so much on the CPU for PremierePRO and AfterEffects? Do I still invest in a monster CPU (double Xeons) with many cores and some smart GPU (Gaming or low-end Quadro) or a monster quad SLI or double TITANs for the CUDA power and some smart quad-core CPU 2. I know the more RAM the happier but is there a glass ceiling? Is there much difference between 32, 64 and 128 Gb RAM for AfterEffects or is 32Gb + raid0 on SSD enough for smooth 4K and 1080p work. Asking because 64 and 128 Gb is only possible on more pricey X motherboards. 3. Is it still any Quadro over top GTX or is this only the question of reliability and computing precision which I would never really see on the screen? I am a freelancer with some knowledge in electronics so I have no problem with troubleshooting some problems with graphic output, but still there are some days I would prefer not to make my hands greasy - especially when the client is sitting beside me. 4. RAID 50 SSD or should i go to the wild side with RAID 0 SSD and daily backups to cheaper HDD RAID3 5. M.2, PCI-E or just "plain" SSD RAID for media cache? Does it really pay to invest in PCI-E storage or even M.2 or is it just early adopter and high end pro thing and the speed to $ ratio is insane 6. Water or AIr? I know, this question is somehow like "Windows or Mac" and every one can answer "if you can afford it buy it". My question is is the Water loop (not prebuild cpucollers, but system cooling with gpu) still worth the investment or are the newer CPUs cooled enough by air (noise, or better the lack of it, is super important to me) So this is everything I would like to know from You guys I hope there are some questions for other Editors SFX guys here Of course if You want some questions about Hackintosh I would be glad to answer them (hacking since Leopard) Thank You and Cheers K _______________ *sorry but the X version is elegant and sh..t but I never edited on a Moviola so I don't need/get this one timeline approach

why not use CGI like they did in fast & furious 7 and keep paul walker's character in the upcoming parts

As a VFX student , i am very excited about the new Jurassic park world this year , but something caught me eye in the new Superbowl Trailer , The entire CGI of the sea dino and the Matte screen had been changed , i immediately opened my archive of the 1st trailer and as i expect there were so many changes when i went through the trailer CC and BC aside. First Trailer Superbowl Trailer - Matte screen changed , Added Water Splash Dynamics , Color Correcting , Day Time Changed, CGI of the Dino Twaeked First Trailer Superbowl Trailer - Added Pterosaur + Shadows, Color Correction and Brightness and Contrast changed , Color Spill Added First Trailer Superbowl Trailer - Color Correction and Brightness and Contrast changed First Trailer and Superbowl Trailer

Hi, I'm planning on making a small render farm, 4 to 10 nodes but I don't have a big budget, The server i'm looking at is Dell PowerEdge 2950. Do you think that it will be good for a render farm? I plan to start with 4 and if they're good I plan to increase it to 10 or even more. I plan to do use them for Blender Cycles rendering, video rendering, 3ds Max and Maya Mantel Ray rendering. Thanks

Here is the new CGI trailer for Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. I know that it is a CGI and doesn't really show ingame graphics even though they will be amazing from what I saw in the 'developer log'. What do you guys think of the trailer and about the game? Source: EDIT: Higher quality of the video from the Witcher youtube channel.

I'm planning on building a new computer to play my games with the highest graphical settings available, but that's not the only thing I want to do with this future build. I actually want to get into film making (I am planning on taking a couple college courses which will bring me to it), and add 3D CGI elements to live action film, e.g. making a futuristic spaceship fly down my street or use the effects to blow up a building, or make a huge futuristic skyscraper in place where there is nothing. You know, compositing? My HP Envy will not be used for this purpose, I'm planning on building the system to be an i7-4790K based system to play my games and to possibly do this compositing in the future. My HP Envy, for example, can take 5-8 hours (sometimes longer) to render a 20 minute 1080p video with the highest quality settings and cuts, effects and transitions in the video using Sony Vegas Pro 10, with no compositing. Obviously, this will be vastly improved on an i7-4790K, as my HP Envy has a measly AMD A10-4600M APU and 8GB of RAM, which will be holding it back. But based a thread I just read, other people are making renderings in Blender 3D (which is software I plan on using as one of my programs), and a few posted examples of two second clips that took hours upon hours to render make me worried that my i7-4790K (future) build will not be adequate for this purpose, which will be to composite 3D CGI into live action. I want to make a movie so bad (trust me, you have no idea how badly I want to make this film I have in mind), but I fear that rendering will take unfeasible amounts of time. I'm all in for taking plenty of time to actually make the movie, but I don't want to have the computer running for days on end. I don't think that's good for my general safety, I don't want to rack up our power bill and I definitely do not want to over-stress the hardware by having it run for so long doing strenuous tasks. Here are my future build's specs: PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor ($354.00 @ Canada Computers) CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus 76.8 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($42.05 @ Newegg Canada) Motherboard: ASRock Z97 Anniversary ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($88.00 @ Vuugo) Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($164.36 @ DirectCanada) Storage: Kingston SSDNow V300 Series 120GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($64.99 @ Canada Computers) Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($54.97 @ DirectCanada) Video Card: XFX Radeon R9 290 4GB Double Dissipation Video Card ($389.99 @ NCIX) Case: Cooler Master HAF XB EVO ATX Desktop Case ($98.50 @ Vuugo) Power Supply: Corsair CX 600W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($58.99 @ NCIX) Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($99.79 @ DirectCanada) Case Fan: Cooler Master Blade Master 40.8 CFM 80mm Fan ($6.62 @ DirectCanada) Case Fan: Cooler Master Blade Master 40.8 CFM 80mm Fan ($6.62 @ DirectCanada) Total: $1,428.88CAD Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-09-03 05:04 EDT-0400 I want to know how this build will do with doing such rendering. As I mentioned I want to make a film so bad (I don't want to make it feature length, I really only want to make it about 45 minutes long. And I am not going to be doing 4K for a long time. 1080p is the highest) that involves CGI but I'm worried that I will not be able to render the video clips and the 3D elements in a reasonable amount of time. Also, I have never been able to find a definitive answer for this question, but would the i7-4790K truly be faster at rendering these elements than an AMD FX-9590? I do not want any fanboy answers to this question, I want a true answer, or a good source. CPUBoss doesn't seem to be all too reliable, after what I'm hearing about the site. And, as nice as a Xeon based machine would be, it's too far out of my price range. I do not want to exceed $1,700 and I want to keep it in the $1,500 range.