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

wanderingbison9 said:Look, macOS is macOS and Win is Win. What you just posted won't actually work on a PC within the specific apps I mentioned. Get it together.

Once I get home, I’ll test this out on my PC myself. You can adjust the UI scaling in Windows too, and once you do, AE, AP, and DaVinci all run perfectly fine.
I'll let you know.

granitecrane2 said:If you’re going to push it back that far, just buy a smaller screen and move it closer. Draw it out on paper if you can't visualize it.
Then there's the other issue—if you can't see clearly up close, you actually need more distance.

That's not how it works. At that distance, I can actually see everything clearly and fit way more content on the screen. A small screen fails here because the resolution is lower and there's less surface area; you can't fit much. If I move a small screen too close, it strains my eyes. If I move it far enough to be comfortable, the screen is too tiny and everything becomes illegible.

By your logic, I could just grab a 7" tablet with high res and hold it 8 inches from my face.

It's the same deal with a TV. Watching a 65" 4K set from a distance is much better than sitting right in front of a 40" 1080p set, even if the theoretical resolution seems comparable.

Plus, if I need to see something tiny, I can just lean in. I don't have to minimize windows, maximize them, or constantly zoom in.

wiredotter14 said:It’s not the same thing because at that distance, I can see clearly and pack a ton of content onto the screen. It just doesn't work on a smaller display; you have less surface area and lower resolution, so you can't fit nearly as much. If I pull a small screen too close, it strains my eyes, but if I push it back to a comfortable distance, the screen is just too tiny and everything becomes microscopic.

Well, that is precisely the point we are discussing: smaller screens can also feature massive resolutions (higher pixel density). There’s been talk about how this General Electric 27-inch model is too small despite having 4K. So, what's the real choice: 4K on a 27-inch panel or 4K on a 32-inch panel? In my view, it’s better to go with the 27-inch than to constantly strain your eyes scanning a 32-inch. And if you move the monitor further away, from an optical standpoint—if you visualize the viewing frustum—it functions identically to having a 27-inch sitting right in front of you.

Speaking of resolution, I’m running 2560x1600 on my 13" MacBook Pro. Honestly, many people don't even get that kind of clarity on their 27" monitors. Apple, however, utilizes 6K displays for their 32-inch setups (like the Pro Display XDR, though that's really geared toward the high-end graphics industry where teams gather around a single screen to debate whether a logo looks right or not). That extreme level of pixel density is essentially what they market as a "Retina display." It's a clever branding term for pixels so incredibly fine that they effectively mimic the density of the photoreceptor cells in the human retina, making them virtually invisible to the naked eye.

If I want a 27" screen to fill my field of vision the same way a 32" does, I’d have to sit much closer, which just isn't a viable option for me because:

- My keyboard and drawing tablet are sitting right there between me and the monitor

- I end up having to hunch forward instead of leaning back against my chair; since the tablet and keyboard are basically resting against my chest, I end up looking and feeling like a praying mantis, which leads to some pretty nasty back pain

- And when I do lean in that close, everything gets blurry because of my nearsightedness—it's like I've hit this weird negative "sweet spot" where the screen looks out of focus whether I'm wearing my glasses or not...

Anyway, have you had a chance to check how things run with Leonardo da Vinci, After, and Premier on Microsoft Windows?

It's funny, though; we never really helped this guy figure out his setup. It seems like this forum's PC-build forensics can be lightning-fast whenever someone needs a gaming rig, but when it comes to actual workstation builds, everyone goes quiet...😬

granitecrane2 said:That’s exactly my point: smaller screens can still pack massive resolution (higher pixel density). People keep saying this General Electric 27-inch model is too small because it’s 4K. So what? 4K at 27 inches versus 4K at 32 inches? I’d rather grab the 27-inch than strain my eyes scanning a 32-inch. If you push the monitor back, optically speaking—just draw yourself a frustum, a visual pyramid—it ends up being the same as having a 27-inch sitting right in front of you.

It's just a marketing term for pixels so tiny they act like photoreceptors on a retina—basically, the human eye can't distinguish them.

I already explained why I prefer a 32" setup further away over a 27" one sitting close to my face.

As for the "retina" thing, sure, that matters when you're obsessing over fine details in graphic design or whatever. For me, 1440p at 32" is basically retina quality at my viewing distance. On a 27" 1080p, I can see the individual pixels and it bugs me. My current resolution and size combo is the sweet spot. If I lean in too close, yeah, I see pixels, but that rarely happens.

Heh, hey guys, doesn't matter—honestly, I’m just glad you all jumped in to break this down. This is all super helpful stuff, really.

So, looks like we’re in agreement then—I’m going with that 27" 4K General Electric monitor. Assuming one of our local Best Buy stores actually has it in stock—fingers crossed—then that part of the puzzle is solved.
People keep telling me that if I want 4K, I really ought to go for at least a 32" screen, but I don't know... I'm not buying it. I think this will be plenty for what I need.

Alright, now that that's settled, let's move on to the rest of the build.
Most people keep pushing me toward an Intel Core i7 or an Intel Core i9, and they aren't exactly selling me on the AMD route—so, what do you guys think about that? ^^

Technically, both will perform fine. One might edge out the other on certain tasks, but really, you just need to bundle a CPU and motherboard and see which combo hits the sweet spot for your budget. A 2% speed difference isn't even worth sweating—it's not like you're running a massive data center or a Disney render farm.

Say you go with a Ryzen 9 5900x + MSI X570 combo plus a cooler, maybe that's around $600-$650...

An Intel Core i9-11900K + MSI Z590 Tomahawk + cooler would probably run you closer to $750-$800.

If you drop down to the i9-11900 non-K, it'll be about $333 cheaper than that top-end setup.

So, the Ryzen 9 and the non-K i9 are basically sitting in the same ballpark... the real choice is whether you need heavy single-core power or raw multi-core muscle.

If your workload is hammering just one core, go Intel. If you're doing rendering or stuff like that (including preview effects), I’d lean toward Ryzen.

Once you pick your base, just throw in your drives, PSU, RAM, and a case.

mellowcyclist3 said:hehe guys, doesn't matter, I'm actually glad you all chimed in—this is all pretty solid, useful info.

So, I guess we're settled then. I'm grabbing that 27" 4K General Electric monitor, assuming some Best Buy somewhere actually has it in stock—fingers crossed. That settles that part of the puzzle.
People keep telling me I need at least a 32" for 4K, but I'm not buying it; this should be plenty fine.

Now let's move on to the rest of the build.
Most people are pushing me toward Core i7 or Core i9 chips, and they aren't really feeling the AMD stuff—what do you guys think about that? ^^

If you want my two cents, just stick to what the experts over at PC Enthusiast recommend.

At this stage, everything seems to point toward a configuration that prioritizes high IPC, especially since the budget allows for an RTX card. Having that kind of GPU power really eliminates the need for an excessive number of cores when you're rendering in Blender, and it handles effects in other software beautifully too, given how many modern apps are offloading processing tasks directly to the GPU. If we’re looking at the best bang for your buck in terms of price versus IPC performance—and if we're talking about an Intel chip—then honestly, Intel it is.

mellowcyclist3 said:Now we can move on to the rest of the build.
Most people keep pushing me toward Core i7 or Core i9 processors, while they seem pretty hesitant about AMD. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. ^^

Reliability is my main priority. When I sit down to build a desktop, I want to build a beast that won't give me any grief for the next decade. For me, that means choosing a motherboard that won't act up and a processor that plays perfectly with everything else in the system. I never overclock my rigs, and honestly, I think paying extra for overclocking headroom is just throwing money away. You might squeeze out an extra 10%, but you risk ruining the whole stability of the machine.

I hate having work to do only to turn on my computer and have it start acting glitchy.
Regarding the brands, I feel like Intel is more battle-tested and maintains stricter quality control than AMD. Aside from that, the underlying technology is quite similar, and AMD actually offers slightly better performance per dollar. However, that performance gap is so negligible that it's practically irrelevant (just like overclocking).

William Richardson12 said:So, basically, the Ryzen 9 and the non-K i9 sit somewhere in that sweet spot regarding value... and really, the deciding factor is whether you need heavy lifting from a single core or if you can lean on all of them at once.

If you find yourself stuck with massive workloads hitting just one single core, then Intel is your best bet; however, if you're diving into rendering or similar tasks (including preview effects), I’d personally lean toward Ryzen.

That logic certainly applied to the older generations, but with Zen 3 (Ryzen 5 x00) arriving, we saw such a significant jump in single-core performance that you really have to look closely at the specific software you intend to run.

granitecrane2 said:Reliability. For instance, when I'm putting together a desktop build, I want a beast that I won't have to touch again for another decade. I need a motherboard that doesn't act up and a processor that plays nice with everything. I never overclock my machines; honestly, chasing overclocking feels like throwing money down the drain. You might squeeze out an extra 10%, but you sacrifice stability, and that's just not worth it to me.

When it comes to 3D work (CPU-rendering) and those kinds of heavy-duty tasks where you can never have enough horsepower, ten years is an eternity—especially considering how drastically the landscape has shifted in just the last five years.
You seem to be mixing up hardware compatibility with how software is optimized for a specific architecture. It's highly unlikely that AMD would be "incompatible" with the 64-bit extensions they helped pioneer. For example, even Windows itself required several patches just to properly recognize and utilize all the cores on a Threadripper, and even now, plenty of software is still waiting on better optimization for high core counts.
Ever since the days of the early Pentium chips (back when we dealt with the pi-bug), reliability has had more to do with the motherboard (unpolished BIOS, driver issues, etc.) or RAM compatibility than the processor itself—all of which can be avoided by simply picking quality components. During the early days of Ryzen, motherboard manufacturers were definitely caught a bit off guard after Intel's long reign, but today, it's a very mature and stable platform.

granitecrane2 said:I just hate it when I have work to do, I turn on the computer, and it starts acting up.
Regarding Intel, I feel like they are more established and undergo stricter quality control compared to AMD, even though the underlying technology is quite similar; besides, AMD often offers slightly better performance per dollar. But that gap is so marginal it's almost irrelevant (much like overclocking).

Well, nobody likes dealing with technical headaches, but you're really pinning the blame on the processor, which is actually the most reliable component in the whole chain.
It depends on which specific models you're comparing, but that idea of "slightly better performance" has caused such a mess that I can't even kill time effectively while waiting for a render to finish anymore.🙂.

Do you remember when we used to feel like kings just because an SD frame finished rendering in a few dozen minutes? Back then, a thirty-second TV spot could easily take a week to wrap up. I honestly think people in today's generation would lose their minds—maybe even jump out a window—if they ever had to deal with those kinds of wait times.
One colleague of mine is still out there grinding, using three RTX 3090s to spend days on a single frame... but then again, he’s old school, and he hasn't quite kept pace when it comes to modern rendering quality standards.
To be honest, I have never once had a real issue with AMD, aside from the occasional loud stock cooler; over the years, I've just swapped out about five or six AMD processors and motherboards as things evolved.

Alexander Diaz4 said:Honestly, if I were you, I’d just stick to what the crew over at PC Enthusiast recommends.

Look, I was just trying to get a few different perspectives—you know, see how things stack up elsewhere—but man, the elitism is real. From what I can tell, those guys got pretty offended because I didn't jump immediately on their "expert" advice. Instead of actually laying out the facts or explaining *why* a certain choice makes sense (or doesn't), they just started acting like they knew everything. It’s a bit much, isn't it?

Anyway, the consensus there was basically that any 4K monitor smaller than 32" is a total waste of money. At least, that's what they're claiming.

mellowcyclist3 said:Ugh, I was told 4K monitors under 32" are basically useless. At least, that's what they told me.

only a Sith deals in absolutes

So, forget about the 4K monitor for now—it’s way too early to be worrying about that,

Right now, I need to hunt down a solid, high-quality 1440p monitor,

And this one was actually recommended to me over on the PC Enthusiast forums

But from what I can tell—unless I'm totally tripping here—it doesn't have those 10-bit color depths (or whatever you call it ^^*) that granitecrane2 mentioned I really ought to be looking for.

Still, this thing seems to check almost every other box for me. It's pretty great, right? It's a tiny bit pricier—maybe $500—but honestly, who cares?
https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27...gaming-monitor

Or maybe this one? It's a lot cheaper and it's curved... is that curvature actually any good? I don't know. I'll probably just stick with the Samsung, link above.
https://www.samsung.com/us/computing...c27g55tqwnxza/

mellowcyclist3 said:so basically, nothing comes of the 4K monitor idea—it’s just too early for that stage of the workflow,

now I actually need to hunt down a high-quality 1440p monitor,

https://www.samsung.com/us/computing...c27g55tqwnxza/

You don't need a 144 Hz monitor for video editing. In fact, you should probably steer clear of gaming monitors if you're doing serious work. You never edit anything above 60 Hz; there isn't any industry standard that requires it, and the electronics used to drive those 144 Hz refresh rates can actually degrade image quality. I know, I know—the gamers are going to come for me, but that's just the reality.

Just for comparison, here is what a professional monitor looks like (I'm not recommending this one, just using it as a benchmark):
https://www.apple.com/pro-display-xdr/
The refresh rates are 47.95 Hz, 48 Hz, 50 Hz, or 60 Hz.
Nothing near 144 Hz, because that's not meant for professional production.
It features 6K resolution, P3 wide color gamut, 10-bit color, and 1000 nits brightness (peaking at 1600 nits). Honestly, none of the specs you mentioned even come close to this level of performance.
That said, you can find similar specs in more affordable 4K monitors from General Electric. Why would anyone need 144 Hz? Just because the kid next door has one?

wanderingbison9 said:Back in the day, you actually felt a rush of joy if an SD frame rendered in just a few minutes... We used to have thirty-second TV spots taking a full week to finish. Today’s generation would probably jump out a window if they ever faced a situation like that.
The same colleague of mine is still struggling today, spending days rendering a single frame even with three RTX 3090 cards at his disposal... But then again, he’s old school, and he hasn't quite kept up when it comes to modern rendering quality...
I have honestly never had any issues with AMD, aside from the occasional loud stock cooler; I've upgraded about five or six AMD processors and motherboards over the years.

I haven't either. I've never owned one. But I'll let you in on a little secret: a friend advised me to pick up an AMD build, so why not give it a shot? I'm putting together a configuration with 12 or 16 cores, and I'll report back with the results. It won't be fast, because I'm in no rush, but hey—after Apple, AMD is heading straight into my shopping cart.
As for rendering for days on end... thank God, never again. I have absolutely no desire to deal with the kind of people you find in the video industry anymore.
Yes, rendering is demanding; it always has been, and it always will be if you're chasing that "wow" factor. Regarding RTX cards, while they seem impressive, they don't actually help as much in heavy-duty rendering as people think. You're better off having several powerful processors than just piling on more RTX cards.

granitecrane2 said:You don't need a 144 Hz monitor for video editing. In fact—if you want my advice—stay away from gaming monitors for serious work. You’re never editing video above 60 Hz; it’s just not how any industry standard works. That high refresh rate electronics... they actually mess with the image quality. I know, I know—the gamers are going to come for my head—but it’s just the truth.

Just for comparison, here is what an actual professional monitor looks like (not saying you should buy this, just for context):
https://www.apple.com/pro-display-xdr/
The refresh rate is 47.95 Hz; 48 Hz; 50 Hz; 60 Hz
Nothing even close to 144 Hz, because that's not meant for serious production.
And we're talking specs like 6K resolution, P3 wide color gamut, 10-bit depth, and 1000 nits brightness (peaking at 1600 nits). So, none of those things you mentioned even come close to this level of performance.
But hey, you can find something similar if you look for a cheaper 4K General Electric monitor. Why do you even need 144 Hz? Just because the guy next door has one?

Ugh, okay, now you've gone and made things complicated again... 😁
1. Look, I need a high-quality picture. Everyone seems to be recommending 144 Hz, but I have zero clue—is there actually a scenario where a lower refresh rate is better?
2. And about this whole "video editing and rendering" thing—it's not my job, so let's not get too hung up on that part, alright?
3. I'd really love for the PC to be geared toward gaming—which you seem to hold in such high regard :P haha. I've been a gamer forever, and even though I don't have as much free time these days, it would be awesome to play some newer titles without overdoing it. An RTX 3060 is plenty for me; I'm definitely not looking to drop $6,000 on a GPU.
4. If you actually read the whole thread, you'll remember I mentioned that people aren't recommending that specific General Electric monitor I liked—apparently, 4K doesn't "fit" on a 27" screen properly, or something like that? I'm not sure if that actually matters...

So yeah, I'm back in a bit of a dilemma. Right now, I'm leaning most heavily toward the Samsung option.

Let me give you another example to work with: say I'm doing digital art in Photoshop, working at 4000x6000 resolution and 300 dpi (that's mainly for print, obviously, though you could go higher, but 300 is fine). Will that artwork look the same on a 27" high-quality HD monitor versus a 27" 4K or even a 6K monitor?

mellowcyclist3 said:Well, now you've gone and made things complicated again 😁
1. I need high image quality. I see everyone recommending 144 Hz, but I honestly have no clue—is there ever a situation where a lower refresh rate is actually better?
2. As for video editing or rendering, that isn't my profession, so let's not get too bogged down in those specs.
3. I want this PC to be primarily for gaming, which seems to be your specialty :P haha. I've been a gamer forever; even though I don't have as much free time as I used to, it would be great to play some newer titles without overdoing it. An RTX 3060 is plenty for me—I'm not looking to drop $6,000+ on a GPU.
4. If you read the whole thread, you might recall me mentioning how people were advising against that General Electric model I liked because they said 4K doesn't really make sense on a 27" screen. Does that actually matter?

So, I'm back in a bit of a dilemma. Right now, I'm leaning most heavily toward the Samsung option.

Let me give you another example: say I'm doing digital art in Photoshop at 4000x6000 resolution and 300dpi (which matters for print, obviously, but 300 is the standard). Will that artwork look the same on a 27" high-quality HD monitor versus a 27" 4K or even 6K monitor?

Who exactly is "EVERYONE"?

granitecrane2 said:Who exactly are "EVERYONE"?

I mean, I don't know—gamers, tech experts from PC Gamer or whatever, people like that... but honestly, can we just get back to my other questions? I’m trying to finally settle this monitor situation so I can stop stressing and actually move on to buying the rest of my hardware. 🙂