$10k-$15k PC build for digital art, 3D, and gaming?

Hey everyone,

So, I’ve been rocking a laptop for over 15 years now, but honestly? It’s getting painfully slow, and trying to actually get anything done on it is just pure frustration at this point. I think it’s finally time to ditch the portable life and head back to a beefy, reliable desktop setup.

I’ll be the first to admit—I’m pretty out of the loop. I haven't really kept up with the hardware scene, and I probably picked the worst possible time to start looking, too. GPU prices have gone absolutely through the roof lately... I was actually hoping that since everyone seems to be obsessed with laptops or just living on their phones these days, desktop prices might have finally dipped, but clearly, I was dreaming.

Anyway, here’s the gist of what I need this machine for:
1. Design work—mostly Photoshop and Illustrator (think 2D and vector art).
2. 3D stuff—working in Blender and ZBrush for modeling.
3. Gaming—I really want to run Red Dead Redemption 2 on very high settings. Man, I just love those Westerns.
4. Audio—I definitely need some solid speakers so I can listen to music without being tethered to headphones all day.

Since I’m doing visual arts and design, I’m thinking I’ll need a high-quality monitor. Is aiming for 4K overkill?
From what I gather, gaming at that resolution requires an absolute beast of a rig—something so powerful that even an $5000 wouldn't cut it for gaming purposes. So, I’m thinking I might just drop the resolution down to something high-end HD; hopefully, a decent build will be enough to handle that.

mellowcyclist3 said:Greetings everyone,

I've been using a laptop for over 15 years now, but it’s getting slower and slower, and honestly, working on it is becoming incredibly frustrating. I’m thinking about switching back to a more powerful and durable desktop PC setup.

I don't even need to mention that I've fallen out of the loop and haven't really followed the scene lately. I think I picked a bad time to start looking, too—graphics cards have skyrocketed in price. I was hoping prices for desktops would be much lower now that most people seem to prefer laptops or just their smartphones.

Basically, my primary needs for this machine are:
1. Working in Photoshop and Illustrator (2D art, vector art)
2. Working in Blender and ZBrush - 3D modeling
3. Gaming; I want to run Red Dead Redemption 2 at very high settings—I absolutely love Westerns.
4. Good speakers are also a must so I can listen to music without needing headphones.

So, I'll likely need a pretty high-quality monitor since I deal with visual arts and design. Is aiming for 4K resolution asking too much?
From what I understand, gaming at that resolution requires extremely powerful machines that even $5000 might struggle with for pure gaming purposes. I'd probably drop the resolution down to a high HD setting; hopefully, a solid build will be enough for that.

You are definitely going to need a dedicated graphics card because modern editing software (like Adobe Premiere, not to mention After Effects) relies heavily on GPU acceleration and specifically asks for things like an Nvidia Quadro RTX (a consumer gaming card might work, but I can't guarantee it).
It doesn't have to be a monster, and it doesn't need to cost you $17 $0.00; you can find them starting from $500, but realistically, you'll want something from the $1333 line. Graphics cards are expensive these days.
I'd suggest a PNY Quadro P2200, 5GB GDDR5X, PCIe 3.0 x16, 4x DP, $1533 available at Home Depot.

Motherboard: It is actually quite difficult to find a good motherboard in the US these days because everything is marketed toward gamers, so you end up paying extra for features like Crossfire and similar tech that you objectively DO NOT NEED.
It is vital that it has SATA ports for "old school" magnetic drives (HDDs) because you are going to need them. Therefore, picking up some NAS drives is highly recommended (they can run 24/7; I just picked up a 12TB Ironwolf), but when setting up a NAS, it's best to have multiple identical drives for configuration.
Also, an NVMe SSD is a given because your OS needs to boot fast, and your apps need to launch quickly. I recommend 1 TB; they are everywhere now. However, do your video editing on magnetic drives—even if they are slower, they won't wear out from constant overwriting like an SSD might.
As for the motherboard... maybe something with a Z590 chipset and a 1200 socket. You won't get any advice on AMD from me; I'll leave that to the others (including all the capacitor debates that used to drive that guy who used to hang out here, known as Western). Given how much everything in the US market is geared toward gamers, look for an ASUS ROG Strix 590-F or E (if you can track one down) $900 at Best Buy. Don't let the "ROG" branding throw you off—it stands for Republic of Gamers, so yes, it's a gaming board, but that's just how the market is shaped today. $823 You can find it at Best Buy.

And the processor: the more cores, the better. I'd suggest an i9 with 10 cores. As for those 'K' and 'F' designations, well, it varies depending on what's available in the US. Ideally, you don't need one that's overclockable, so you don't necessarily need the 'K' in the name. 'F' means it lacks integrated graphics. Personally, I think it's good to have that extra bit of insurance, so go without the F. The 'K' does signify a desktop processor, so check the pricing to see what fits your budget. Why 10 cores? If you are doing video work, running Adobe Premiere or After Effects, and editing 4K video (you can use proxies, of course, but the final render will demand full CPU power), those extra cores will provide the necessary headroom so your whole system doesn't freeze up while you're trying to do something else. Macintoshes now have 8 cores—4 fast ones and 4 efficient ones in their laptops—which is why they feel so smooth (though in reality, an M1 isn't anywhere near the speed of a true desktop i9, especially when paired with a decent GPU). Sometimes smoothness matters more than raw speed. Because if you can't edit video without constant stuttering, none of the power matters. I'd suggest an INTEL Core i9 10900KF BOX, lga 1200, 3.7GHz, 20MB cache, Deca Core (no integrated graphics) or an INTEL Core i7 11700K BOX, lga 1200, 3.6GHz, 16MB cache, Octa Core (not 10 cores, but it has the integrated graphics). 3700/$1263 at Best Buy.
P.S. Regarding whether you actually need integrated graphics on your desktop—someone is bound to jump in my inbox just to lecture me about it. It’s always the same story; they won't let it go until they try to use some kind of social media engineering tactic to get me banned. The same goes for the advice claiming AMD is better and that you'll get more bang for your buck (if that's your thing). However, when it comes to GPUs, do NOT buy a Radeon, no matter how much they tempt you. That isn't just an opinion; it's a rule.

The only thing he doesn't need is a dedicated workstation for editing and compositing...
Back to talking about Blender again... does rendering actually happen within it, or what exactly is the workflow there?

My two cents:

When you look at the price point, Quadro cards feel a bit underwhelming if you're trying to use them for gaming. Plus, we have to consider that modern RTX cards can now handle 10-bit color in professional graphics apps anyway.

If I were in his shoes, I’d definitely set aside a significant chunk of the budget for a solid 32" 4K IPS monitor.

wanderingbison9 said:The only thing he doesn't need a workstation for is video editing and compositing...
There goes Blender again... what exactly is being rendered in there? What is the actual workflow?

In Blender, you can handle just about everything you'd do in Max or Maya. It covers 3D modeling and rendering, but it also handles video compositing (similar to After Effects) and even non-linear editing (like Premiere or Avid). Since he brought up Blender specifically, I assumed he was doing video editing as well.
https://www.shopify.com/blog/best-fr...iting-software

Here is a rundown of some of the best free video editing applications out there:
Lightworks
VideoPad
HitFilm Express
DaVinci Resolve
VSDC Free Video Editor
OpenShot
Shotcut
Blender
Movie Maker 10
iMovie
Vimeo Create
WeVideo

As for 4K, honestly, he might be better off waiting for microLED monitors rather than settling for an IPS panel right now—assuming he even needs 4K in the first place.

granitecrane2 said:Look, you can basically do everything in Blender that you'd do in New York City's top studios using Max or Autodesk Maya. It handles 3D modeling, sure—but it also does video compositing (kind of like After Effects) and even editing (think Adobe Premiere Pro or Avid). Since he brought up Blender, I figured he might be interested in video editing too.
https://www.shopify.com/blog/best-fr...iting-software

Here’s a rundown of some solid free editing apps:
Lightworks
VideoPad
HitFilm Express
DaVinci Resolve
VSDC Free Video Editor
OpenShot
Shotcut
Blender
Movie Maker 10
iMovie
Vimeo Create
WeVideo

As for 4K? Honestly, he should probably just hold out for microLED monitors instead of dropping cash on an IPS panel right now. That is, if he even needs 4K to begin with.

Thanks for the list! I'm not doing any editing at the moment—maybe something down the road for a YouTube channel, but nothing crazy. And honestly, for YouTube, you probably don't even need 4K.

The main reason I'm looking at 4K is for watching movies and stuff. I doubt there's much difference between viewing my Photoshop art in HD versus 4K... and 4K for gaming? Pffft... I'd have to dump way too much money into my whole rig just to get decent frame rates.

@wanderingbison9/">@@wanderingbison9

I actually think 32" might be overkill for me,
so what's your take on this one?
https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/philips-brilliance-279p1

@mellowcyclist3/">@@mellowcyclist3:

Since you brought up Illustrator and vector art, isn't it true that when you're working with curves rather than pixels, having a higher resolution and a larger screen for those fine details makes such a difference? That being said, does it really make sense to go for UHD resolution on anything smaller than a 32-inch monitor? If you don't scale up your system UI elements, those menus and icons might end up being tiny, and I'm not entirely sure how well Blender UI plays along with system-wide scaling since it tends to have its own way of doing things. Honestly, you might barely notice the jump from QHD anyway... and trust me, a 32-inch screen isn't too big at all! I actually work on one myself. Also, if you're planning on watching movies—assuming you don't already have a high-end TV—wouldn't a VA panel be a better choice? Having HDR 600 wouldn't hurt either, right?

YouTube is absolutely killing it lately with 4K content. As for gaming, you can always just run things at a lower resolution or maybe turn off that heavy anti-aliasing if you really want to push 4K performance.

@granitecrane2/">@@granitecrane2: Look, I know everything that’s possible to do in Blender, I was just trying to ask specifically what his actual workflow looks like within the program 😉 My wording was a little clumsy there...

Sure, 4K on YouTube is great, provided you can actually shoot and render at a higher quality than just 1080p. Honestly, the bitrate for 4K on YouTube ends up being similar to what a standard 1080p stream should be, so you get a noticeable boost in quality even if the viewer isn't sitting in front of a 4K monitor.

Alright, alright, you guys convinced me—so, if I’m going with a 32" 4K monitor, it basically has to be 😁?

Can someone please point me toward a "best buy" setup? I really want the rest of my rig to actually keep up with that screen, you know? I can bump my budget up to 18000, but that is absolutely the ceiling!

mellowcyclist3 said:Man, you’ve totally talked me into it. So, if I want a 32" 4K IPS monitor, it absolutely has to be 😁 ?

Give me a Best Buy-style solution if possible, where the rest of my rig actually matches the quality of the screen. I'll bump my budget up to 18000, but that is the absolute limit!

Don't do it. Build the PC first; you can always grab the monitor later. Honestly, they told me not to even attempt video editing—let alone 4K—on this setup.

mellowcyclist3 said:What do you think about this one?
https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/philips-brilliance-279p1

I actually own a similar model (though an older version) in WQHD resolution (2560x1440). It features 10-bit color and an excellent IPS panel. Honestly, I haven't found a better monitor yet—I've never been much of a fan of Dell products. This one looks identical to the model you linked and is the exact same size. If the build quality is just as solid, I’d say go for it. My main advice? Just make sure that in today's market, you insist on 10 bits per channel (Hi Color / True Color). That's a total MUST. Even MacBook laptops come standard with that now thanks to the P3 wide color gamut.
Plus, it’s fully ergonomic; it swivels on all three axes and even has height adjustment.

Alright, I’m on board with that Philips monitor; besides, Blender actually has an option to scale up the UI elements, like the text and icons, if you need them larger.

wanderingbison9 said:Fine, I'll give that Philips the thumbs up. Besides, Blender actually lets you scale up the UI elements, like the text and icons, if you need them larger.

Even Windows users have those options (as do Linux and macOS). It’s never really been an issue. Huge monitors come with their own set of headaches, too—you end up constantly cranking your neck just to see everything in your field of vision. And if you push the monitor back to compensate, you might as well just be using a smaller screen that happens to be closer. Honestly, it feels unnecessary unless you're someone who needs to stare at very specific sections of the screen all day. That's why most editors stick to a dual or even triple monitor setup.
To be honest, this screen size is a bit overkill for my taste. When I picked up that Philips, I didn't realize quite how massive it actually was. If I were doing it again, I'd go for something smaller but with much higher pixel density. My eyesight is pretty sharp, so I don't need the extra real estate.

Thanks, guys—well, at least I’ve finally sorted out the monitor situation, going with a Philips 🙂 everything else is still up in the air, though

mellowcyclist3 said:thanks guys, at least I've sorted out the monitor situation for now—Philips it is. 🙂 Everything else is still up in the air.

I'm actually thinking about upgrading my current setup to that 4K model myself.
But there's one thing you really need to know about that Philips model. Users actually end up hating this specific feature, even though it's technically a "pro": it has a built-in surge protector mechanism. It’ll momentarily cut power not just during a grid surge, but also when you plug in things like external hard drive enclosures. Basically, anything that causes a tiny voltage spike will trigger it to shut down for a second.
People complain to Philips that they made a monitor that isn't reliable in places like Africa, but let's be honest, our power grid can feel pretty similar to that sometimes (as Sim Shagay, that major Nigerian entrepreneur and one of the top 10 business leaders in Africa, might say). It's not necessarily a dealbreaker, but it's definitely something to keep in mind.

granitecrane2 said:They have their own operating systems too (like Linux and macOS), so that was never really an issue. Large monitors come with their own set of headaches, though; you find yourself constantly turning your head just to take everything in. And if you try to push the monitor further back to compensate, you basically end up with the same experience as having a smaller screen sitting right in your face. Honestly, it seems mostly unnecessary unless you're someone who needs to stay hyper-focused on very specific sections of the display. That’s probably why most editors tend to go with a dual or even triple monitor setup instead.
Personally, this screen size feels a bit excessive for my taste, but when I picked up that Philips, I didn't fully realize just how massive it would feel. Looking back, I think I'd prefer a smaller screen with higher pixel density. My eyesight is actually quite sharp.

Some software packages struggle with or simply ignore system-wide UI scaling settings... for instance, DaVinci Resolve can be a bit finicky with that... whereas from what I recall, neither Adobe Premiere Pro nor After Effects really seem to care about those limitations

I don't find myself turning my head at all when working on a 32" monitor, or even a 40" UHD TV... since I hear people complaining about this so often on the forums, I have to wonder if I'm just some kind of outlier. 😬

wanderingbison9 said:Some software just struggles with or completely ignores system-wide UI scaling settings... take DaVinci Resolve, for example... and if I recall correctly, neither Premiere Pro nor After Effects really cares about those settings either.

I don't find myself cranking my neck just to see things on a 32" monitor, let alone a 40" UHD TV when I'm working... since I hear people complaining about this on forums all the time, I guess I must be some kind of outlier. 😬

Actually, that isn't an app-specific issue; it’s an operating system function (font size scaling).
The resolution stays the same for images and everything else, but the graphical elements scale up (this includes Photoshop, Premiere Pro, DaVinci Resolve...).
Sending this from a Mac, but Windows users deal with this too.


Keep in mind that for a MacBook Pro screen which actually has a native resolution of 2560x1600 (13"), the scaled resolution for graphical elements is 1440x900. This doesn't mean other elements are being displayed at that lower resolution, or that the image looks grainy and shrunk. Even the fonts are rendered at the full native resolution—that is, 2560x1600—but they are drawn larger, as if they were on a 1440x900 screen. And you can adjust this.

Here is DaVinci Resolve on that exact same screen, but dropped down to just 1024x640. Just to clarify, the screen is still physically 2560x1600, and everything is rendered smoothly at that native resolution even though the letters look massive.

And here is the same thing at 1680x1050 (on the same 13" screen).


As for the whole "neck turning" thing, I'll just say I've met plenty of people who buy massive monitors, and I won't even bother explaining why they do it.

Look, macOS is macOS and Windows is Windows—what you’ve posted here just doesn't work on a PC when I'm using the apps I mentioned. Come on now.

To be fair, I’m not entirely sure which version of DaVinci Resolve you're running; I’m still on version 16, so maybe they finally patched those issues in 17... it's the same story with After Effects CC 2021 for me—absolutely nothing works.

wanderingbison9 said:I don't find myself cranking my neck on a 32" monitor, let alone a 40" UHD TV when I'm working... hearing people complain about this on forums constantly makes me feel like an alien. 😬

A 32" setup is perfect for me. Obviously, you set it back a bit further than a 24" screen—you shouldn't be squinting at it from 12 inches away. For me, it sits about an arm's length away when I'm sitting normally.

wiredotter14 said:A 32" screen feels just right for me. Of course, you wouldn't set it up the same way you would a 24" monitor; there's no need to be staring at it from just twelve inches away. For my setup, I usually sit about an arm's length away from the display while sitting comfortably in my chair.

That puts it at roughly 32 inches or so, plus a little extra, since that's where things start getting blurry for me because I wear glasses for nearsightedness... which is why a 23" screen looks like a tiny postage stamp to me.

wiredotter14 said:A 32-inch screen feels just right to me. Of course, you’d set it back a bit further than you would a standard 24-inch monitor; there's no need to be staring at it from three inches away. For me, the sweet spot is roughly an arm's length away when I'm sitting comfortably in my chair.

But if you're just pushing it further back to compensate, you might have been better off buying a smaller screen and keeping it closer. If you're having trouble visualizing the setup, try sketching it out on a piece of paper first.
The other possibility is that you actually need the distance because of vision issues.