getting a PC for AM

[new guy]

Hey Gang!

 

I am going to get a PC to run AM. Anyone know what specs I should get? Is it possible to get something for $500 or less? I am currently running a Mac with 10.6 and I've heard that AM (currently) runs better on Windows 7. Any input would be wonderful.

 

Thanks in advance!

Shawn

[HomeSlice]

$500 would be pushing it. A:M will run on a $500 machine, but if you want A:M to run *well*, you should invest in something more in the $1K range or above. I'm sure there are hundreds of people with cheap computers who will say AM runs just fine for them, but in my experience, the #2 cause of A:M related problems is trying to use a cheap machine with not enough resources.

[robcat2075]

You've got a Mac?

 

If it's an intel Mac you're cheapest solution would be to set it up to boot into Windows or whatever it is that Macs do now to do that.

 

The intel Macs seem to have pretty good specs and people seem to be pleased how A:M works on them in Windows.

 

You can get OEM Windows 7 for about $100

 

That would be the easiest way to get your feet wet in A:M.

 

But in general...

 

I think you want 64 bit windows since A:M is going 64 bit in the next version.

 

I think you want at least 2 gigs of RAM to run A:M in, and if have a multi-core you can run A:M several times to render more frames but that may need more RAM.

 

You do want the a fast CPU. Right now it seems dual cores can have faster speeds than quad cores. When doing character animation I find being able to see things at full frame rate in on-screen shaded mode without having to render to a quicktime is a HUGE advantage and the faster your CPU the more likely you'll be able to do that. On the other hand, If I did lots of "Final" rendering I might opt for a slightly slower quad core so i could run more instances of A:M simultaneously to get more total throughput on frame rendering. On the third hand, if you do lots of preview renders of lighting and materials your single core speed is indicative of how fast your preview gets done.

 

(No matter what you get, you're always going to wish rendering were faster.)

 

You don't need a screaming graphics card, something in the $100 range that isn't a HomeTheater card would do fine.

 

I get by on a single core Athlon XP 2600 with 2 gigs RAM and a 128 MB ATI video card which could be built now for way less than $500. But I'm not trying to get anything done on a deadline.

[apprentice]

I found AM on 64bit Win 7 with 3GB RAM very snappy. Snappier than the 32bit version. I think it's because 64bit handles memory better so make sure you get lots of RAM.

[Fuchur]

I'd say, get a 4-core-system with high GHz-specs...

One of the best performance/money-ratio has the AMD Phenom II 955.

It is overclockable without anything needed to about 3,5-3,7GHz (boxed) and with the right cooler you may even go higher with it.

 

If you want something newer you could get the AMD 6-core-CPUs (2 are available, one with 2,8 GhZ and one with 3,2 GHZ each core) which are nice too...

they are way less expensive than Intels 6-core-cpu but although not that powerful... (but we are talking about 1/3 of the price).

 

It doesnt cost the world to built one.

It is DDR2/DDR3 compatible and since DDR3-RAM is very expensive in these days (twice as much for the same product compared to a few month ago)

I would recommend to get DDR2 which is much cheaper and doesnt have big performance-decreases compared to DDR3...

 

DDR3 however can be good if you want to update later... but till now it is not worth the extra-money.

 

I would get a mid to high-end gaming-graphic card (maybe a HD 5850 or 5870, which is very fast)...

Motherboards are not too expensive and I had very nice results with my 790FX-based one... although there is a newer platform available you want to check out.

 

In the end: The more RAM and the faster the CPU the better. 64bit Win7, 4-8 GB of RAM and a 4core / 6core-system should do it...

 

I would not recommend to buy a 2-core-system anymore... yes they can be a bit faster for single-core-operations, but in the end in Rendering they just suck against 4 or 6-core-systems.

And these are capable of much too nowadays...

 

All these I told you about are available for about 1K Dollars or even a little less.

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[new guy]

WOW! You guys certainly know your PCs. This is a link to a company that I will be buying from... http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_r...&web_group=

 

If anyone could take a look and choose the best (not necessarily the most expensive, just the best) PC for AM, that would be awesome!

 

Thank you guys!

Shawn

[new guy]

You've got a Mac?

 

If it's an intel Mac you're cheapest solution would be to set it up to boot into Windows or whatever it is that Macs do now to do that.

 

The intel Macs seem to have pretty good specs and people seem to be pleased how A:M works on them in Windows.

 

You can get OEM Windows 7 for about $100

 

That would be the easiest way to get your feet wet in A:M.

 

But in general...

 

I think you want 64 bit windows since A:M is going 64 bit in the next version.

 

I think you want at least 2 gigs of RAM to run A:M in, and if have a multi-core you can run A:M several times to render more frames but that may need more RAM.

 

You do want the a fast CPU. Right now it seems dual cores can have faster speeds than quad cores. When doing character animation I find being able to see things at full frame rate in on-screen shaded mode without having to render to a quicktime is a HUGE advantage and the faster your CPU the more likely you'll be able to do that. On the other hand, If I did lots of "Final" rendering I might opt for a slightly slower quad core so i could run more instances of A:M simultaneously to get more total throughput on frame rendering. On the third hand, if you do lots of preview renders of lighting and materials your single core speed is indicative of how fast your preview gets done.

 

(No matter what you get, you're always going to wish rendering were faster.)

 

You don't need a screaming graphics card, something in the $100 range that isn't a HomeTheater card would do fine.

 

I get by on a single core Athlon XP 2600 with 2 gigs RAM and a 128 MB ATI video card which could be built now for way less than $500. But I'm not trying to get anything done on a deadline.

 

Hey Robert! Does the current version of AM run on a 64bit PC?

[robcat2075]

Hey Robert! Does the current version of AM run on a 64bit PC?

 

Yes it does. In general 64-bit Windows can run all the old 32-bit apps. They have the same memory limits, but they do run. Maybe slightly slower, maybe not.

[Phil]

lesson learned -> do a little home work by comparing other places for the spec's you what.

 

Check out

NEWEGG

Tiger direct

Price watch

 

Good hardware information

Tom's Hardware

 

I was able to get a good machine for under $1k

[HomeSlice]

WOW! You guys certainly know your PCs. This is a link to a company that I will be buying from... http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_r...&web_group=

 

If anyone could take a look and choose the best (not necessarily the most expensive, just the best) PC for AM, that would be awesome!

 

Thank you guys!

Shawn

 

None of the three computers listed will work *well* with AM because none of them have descrete graphics cards. A real graphics card, even if it is a cheap one, helps immensely. Also, if you plan on rendering with all four of those cores, in addition to installing a much-needed graphics card, I would recommend replacing the cheap 300 watt power supply in those computers with (at minimum) a better quality 450 watt psu.