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

granitecrane2 said:Oh, absolutely. It’s easily the best chip out there right now. Take the 5950x, for instance—it’s got 16 cores, sure, but the clock speeds are lower, so each individual core is actually slower. What we have here are the fastest possible cores, and we have plenty of them. Honestly, having 12 cores is a massive sweet spot, especially when you're grinding away in New York City or After Effects. Forget the benchmarks for a second; it's all about how you actually use Premiere. That’s what I’m buying. Twelve cores beats eight any day of the week. And this isn't just an argument for gamers—since more and more games are being programmed by amateurs these days, they tend to rely heavily on single thread performance. But when you're doing actual video work? Parallelism is king. Premiere, After Effects, Max, Blender... these programs have known how to utilize every available core for probably 15 years now, even down to the granular level.

Fair enough, but I think I'll just grab the 5800x for now. I don't think I need that much overkill quite yet—gotta save some cash for other things, right? Anyway, here is the build I've put together so far:

1. monitor $1000
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/monitor-28-inch-black-100300830
2. processor $1033
https://www.newegg.com/product/processor/67907
3. motherboard $367
https://www.newegg.com/asus-tuf-gaming-b...65878/product
4. memory 2x (2x16) 64GB - 2x $447 = $893
https://www.newegg.com/ddr4-32gb-2x16-gs...63641/product
5. graphics card - $1667
https://www.newegg.com/70772/70772/product
6. ssd 1tb - $257
https://www.newegg.com/63075/63075/product
7. hard drive 1tb - $96
https://www.newegg.com/wd-1tb-35-7200rpm...60921/product
8. power supply $147
https://www.newegg.com/seasonic-power-supply...m_medium=click
9. case $200
https://www.newegg.com/59026/59026/product
10. cooler $115
https://www.newegg.com/56150/56150/product

Roughly $5.75

Give it a look, guys—is this gonna be solid?

If you're opting for a case without a glass side panel, there’s really no reason to waste money on RGB RAM.

You can actually get much better performance for the exact same price, so you might as well go with 3600 MHz regardless...

wanderingbison9 said:Look, if you aren't getting a case with a glass side panel, why even bother with RGB RAM?

You can get way better performance for the same price—you definitely want at least 3600 MHz...

Alright, check these out, they're actually cheaper:
Both of those are 3200 MHz, by the way. Did you misread the specs or something? You said 3600...

I'll keep looking, though I have to say, this case looks a little lame, indeed.
Actually, this one's much better:

mellowcyclist3 said:these ones are a bit more budget-friendly, https://www.amazon.com/example/
they both run at 3200 MHz by the way, so did you decide to stick with 3600 or did you go that route?

I'll have to see, because this case looks a little lame indeed,
this one seems better: https://www.amazon.com/example/

Not really, 3600 MHz should work just fine with the 5800x at those speeds... I mean, while it's technically considered an overclock, it usually works without much trouble...

So, how about this: https://www.amazon.com/example/ the price is almost the same

But now we're back to the issue of them doubling the price for a case just because it has glass; are we really switching back to RGB again? Is that flashy RGB look actually what you're after, or... I mean, it's nice to have the tempered glass so you can check on your components if something goes wrong, but the price really needs to come down...

wanderingbison9 said:Nah, 3600 MHz should be totally fine with a 5800x at those speeds... I mean, sure, technically it counts as an overclock, but it works just fine...

So anyway: the price is basically the same

But now they've gone and doubled the price of the case just because it has glass—so what, are we going back to the old RGB madness again? Is that whole RGB thing even your vibe or...? I mean, look, having the glass is great if you actually want to peek inside and see if your components are melting or whatever... but seriously, the price needs to come down...

Alright, I'll see. I'll probably just grab them because honestly, I love the lights and a better case with a stand, dammit. 😁>

You might want to act sooner rather than later, because everything seems to be getting more expensive by the day...

wanderingbison9 said:Don't wait too long—prices just keep climbing higher and higher...

Nah, I'm actually pulling the trigger today or tomorrow—I'll send over the full specs once it's done and we can finally put this whole thing to bed😁 haha

The crew over at Best Buy has completely lost their minds right out of the gate; they seriously cannot handle me😁

wanderingbison9 said:@granitecrane2: After Effects and Premiere don't utilize more cores efficiently—that’s just a fact. They never, ever push past 50% utilization. The Benchmark links I shared cover various scenarios. Sure, rendering in Blender works, but even then, rendering via an NVIDIA card is faster.
Forget about the budget for a second.

I have to disagree. Especially regarding "rendering via the GPU." These programs absolutely make use of more cores. And it isn't just a myth that software like Premiere is essentially Premiere single thread. Having more cores always leads to a smoother workflow, particularly when you're multitasking. I've noticed some of today's "editors" don't even know how to use Proxy workflows. Well, when you're working with Proxy files while simultaneously rendering a 3D scene, all while editing or doing compositing on something else—you need those cores. Those are the facts. And besides, Blender isn't the only 3D tool out there. There are plenty of them: LW, Cinema 4D, Max, Maya... I honestly feel like the younger web-focused generations haven't even heard of half of them.

Speaking of amateur drone footage enthusiasts...
https://community.adobe.com/t5/premi...e/m-p/10794038

Premiere is multi-threaded, seems quite good at using up to 12 to 16 or so cores according to say the Puget Systems testing and others. Not so good at utilizing cores past that at the current time. So a 16 core CPU would be a good choice, where a 24 core CPU may not get you much additional throughput.

granitecrane2 said:I have to disagree, especially regarding the idea of "rendering via the NVIDIA." These programs definitely utilize more than one core. And it isn't just because software like Premiere single thread behaves that way; having more cores always makes the workflow smoother, doesn't it? Especially when you're multitasking. Looking at the discussions here, it seems like many modern "editors" don't even know how to use Proxy workflows. When you are working with Proxy files while simultaneously rendering a 3D scene and trying to edit or composite something else, you are going to need those extra cores. That is simply how it works. Also, Blender isn't the only player in the 3D space; there are plenty of others like LW, Cinema 4D, Max, or Maya... I honestly get the feeling that the current generation of web creators hasn't even touched half of those tools.

Setting aside all those amateur drone videos you see floating around...
https://community.adobe.com/t5/premi...e/m-p/10794038

I wasn't suggesting that Adobe programs aren't multithreaded; rather, I was pointing out that they don't utilize multiple cores with maximum Efficiency. Isn't it often better to have eight high-speed cores rather than twelve slower ones? If CPU-based 3D rendering and DaVinci Resolve can push almost every core to its limit, why can't After Effects and Premiere do the same? Now, regarding this whole idea of simultaneous rendering and editing... well, that's fine until you saturate every single core and the task you are actually focusing on starts to lag. Perhaps we should ask him if that is specifically how he intends to work...

Blender is free, DaVinci Resolve has a free version, but for everything else, you either pay a massive amount or you turn to piracy. If people don't seem to know these other tools, isn't it just because they are expensive and primarily designed for professional studio use? We certainly aren't here to promote piracy, after all. Personally, I spent a lot of time working in LW and a little bit in Maya...

If I were buying a computer where the CPU, motherboard, and NVIDIA $3.25 were all bundled together, I would absolutely never pair them with $147 a power supply that hasn't been thoroughly reviewed by reputable experts like Puget Systems testing and others!!!

Alexander Moore67 said:If I were buying a PC where the CPU, motherboard, and NVIDIA $3.25 were the main focus, I would absolutely never pair them with $147 a power supply that hasn't been thoroughly reviewed by actual industry experts!!!

On my old rig, I'm running a Tagan BZ modular unit with screw-on connectors and those RGB light rings around every port. It’s been an incredible power supply to this day, yet apparently, the online "experts" have decided it failed their tests. I don't know which specific test they're talking about—it's from some ancient forum from ages ago—but that Tagan has been the best PSU I've ever owned. And honestly, I'm looking for something even better now.

It’s a lot like the whole debate over Proxy workflows... you'll find people bashing the Apple Mac Mini M1, calling it a "little cube," simply because it can't playback 8K video in real-time like their massive $15,000 workstation $0.00. Those folks clearly aren't using proxies even though they have enough RAM to power a small city. Look, just convert your 8K footage into a Proxy like 1080p (where the NVIDIA will really shine), and you can edit smoothly without a hitch. Once you're done, you hit render, and the system swaps back to the 8K source to process everything exactly as you edited it. In a few minutes or an hour, you have your finished project. Nothing lags, nothing stutters; it works like a charm, and the final output is full-quality 8K. But I guess nowadays everyone follows the "faster, higher, stronger" mantra or just tries to smash through paradigms—as if a bigger machine will magically solve everything.

As far as NVIDIA goes, developers making plugins and special effects don't always write software optimized for the GPU. Take Boris Red, for example. If your hardware doesn't support the GPU acceleration, you're stuck relying on the CPU. And in over 70% of cases, that's exactly what happens.

From a strictly performance-driven perspective, the ABS / Tagan BZ blew us away with its incredible benchmarks. The Efficiency, voltage regulation, and ripple suppression were absolutely flawless, and that 135mm fan truly redefined what "silent operation" actually means. I also have to give Tagan a massive shout-out for packing in every little extra an enthusiast could possibly dream of. It’s way too common to find modular power supplies that leave you with nowhere to put all those leftover cables, but with this unit, you get a dedicated carrying case plus basically everything else under the sun.

There is no way in hell I’d be putting a Bronze power supply in a rig that costs over $2,500 😵

Alexander Diaz4 said:There is no way you'd put a Bronze power supply in a rig worth over $2,500. 😵

Some Bronze units actually work quite well, though nowadays Gold and Platinum are the standard benchmarks.

granitecrane2 said:They definitely use them efficiently, though I suppose it really depends on how you define "efficiently."

I'm just not so sure about that... For instance, when I load a 5K JPEG sequence into After Effects and try to play it back, shouldn't I be seeing real-time playback at 24 fps? Instead, I'm barely hitting 4 fps, and my CPU is sitting there idling at a measly 15%, mostly just pulling data from the SSD. But then, if I take that exact same sequence over to DaVinci Resolve, the CPU jumps up to 60% and I get smooth 24 fps playback instantly, without any caching at all. It gets even more confusing when I load the same sequence as a .cr2 RAW format; it plays back at 24 fps right out of the gate. I mean, come on—RAW files require decompression and debayering operations, right? In that case, I see the NVIDIA usage spiking near 80% for the debayering, yet it still feels seamless.

Alexander Diaz4 said:I mean, seriously—who in their right mind puts a Bronze power supply in a rig worth over $2,500? That's just asking for trouble. 😵

Just my luck, man... I ended up grabbing a Gold one instead :P

wanderingbison9 said:I'm not so sure about that... For instance, when I'm loading a 5K JPEG sequence into After Effects and then hitting import,

Why would anyone even bother doing that? You should probably go ask someone in the TV industry if that's actually how they handle their workflows.

mellowcyclist3 said:just my luck—hit the jackpot instead :P

So, you actually know why you picked it?

granitecrane2 said:Why would anyone choose to work that way? You should probably check with the networks to see if they actually operate like that.

It really just comes down to a logical desire to work at the highest possible quality. I don't feel the need to go asking around because, having spent ten years working at ABC, I've been constantly embedded in the television world and have seen firsthand how people try to handle offline editing on Adobe using external USB 2.0 drives instead of just investing in a proper real-time system. Real-time systems are an absolute necessity for major networks, rather than relying on sluggish proxies, especially since there's rarely enough time in a production schedule to do everything twice. I know for a fact that newer stations aren't messing around with proxies either. At some point, you have to move away from the proxy workflow and you need full resolution during playback; besides, building out proxies eats up precious time when you're facing a tight deadline. And thirdly, if a program is capable of pulling 5K, why wouldn't I want to work in full resolution and bypass software that hasn't seen a meaningful optimization in twenty years? The industry is moving forward, after all.

wanderingbison9 said:Don't wait too long to pull the trigger, because prices are just going to keep climbing higher and higher...

What actual evidence is there that things will get more expensive? Looking at what's sitting on the shelves right now, I don't see it.