Hello everyone,

I am building my first computer! I am very excited. I have 1,000 dollars to work with and I am currently debating on what to invest the most in. First off let me say that the PC will be used for rendering and creating 3D graphics as well as for occasionally playing some games, but mostly for graphic design for a video game. I will be using programs like Blender, Unreal Development Kit and Visual Basic just name a few. However in order to make high poly 3D models a good graphics card is required. From what I understand Game Developers prefer the Nvidia Quadro series but that card is way too expensive for me right now. So I was thinking, I wanted to drop like 4 or 500 on a high end graphics card but that means that my CPU will not be top notch. I was just going to settle for the Core i3 2nd gen processor because I figured that although it isn't the best, it is still pretty good and it will fit in my budget. Or do you guys think it is better to invest more into a CPU and less on the GPU? Also does it matter what kind of Card you get in particular for Graphic Design?

Wrong forum...I'd say you need the Lounge.

About your question...I'd say that it depends on exactly what you are doing. Example, the Quadro series is built more for offline rendering. This isn't the same thing as creating 3d art. Blender can use your average gaming cards just fine. It does have support for GPU and CPU, but assuming you get a good enough video card for your purposes, I'd put the money into the CPU. You could maybe get a faster i7, a MOBO that supports quad-channel RAM, and at least 8GB of RAM, and then get a pretty good video card. Unless you are using a compatible video card, Blender will have to render on the CPU, so the CPU and RAM speed(and the quad vs.dual vs. tri. channel) will greatly affect that.

For game design itself, in general you need a machine that is built for gaming, even if it is lower level machine. My cheap acer laptop actually works just fine, with an i5 and integrated intel graphics. It can actually play many games, and considering I don't develop AAA games, rather mostly 2d games, it works fine. Game development software for the most part doesn't have high requirements, although that depends on the engine and the resulting game you are developing. Even photoshop doesn't have the requirements some people may think it does, though it can utilize higher capacities.

Quadro is not needed unless you are an industry professional. The NVidia GTX series are consumer cards. The 660 is the current gen gaming model. There are also 670 and 680 models if you can afford it.

Rather than spending $500 on a video card and getting an i3, you would be much better advised to put another $100 into an i5. The difference between a 670 and a 680 is about %15 whereas the difference between an i3 and an i5 in programs like 3dStudio and AutoCAD can be close to %100.

Rather than spending $500 on a video card and getting an i3, you would be much better advised to put another $100 into an i5. The difference between a 670 and a 680 is about %15 whereas the difference between an i3 and an i5 in programs like 3dStudio and AutoCAD can be close to %100.

Exactly this...and especially when the 660 or maybe even slightly lower gen(or maybe a cheaper ATI card) would be plenty for the games the OP wants to play. In general in the gamedev world you get more "bang for buck" factor in the processor. Lastly, I would see if you can make space to get atleast a 128GB SSD. Even the slow SSDs are much faster than "normal" HDs, and you can still get a nice cheap 1tb @7200rpm here at newegg and maybe cheaper if you search for it. This combination would allow plenty of space for most people, and the SSD would decrease boot time and program load time a lot if you have the core software(of course including OS) on that SSD.

I wish I had 1k to drop on a system. I used to just wait a few years and spend my dinky $300-$400 tax return check on a new box...

But then I took an arrow to the *BANG* (frying pan)

*Benny Hill music*

especially when the 660 or maybe even slightly lower gen(or maybe a cheaper ATI card)

Though I generally suggest people get AMD cards, as they're a better value for the money and use less power(especially the 7850), for 3d rendering, NVidia is really the best card to get. No, it's no quadro, but CUDA really does make a major difference.

I would second the ssd. I didn't realize that was not in the build. On a $1,000 budget, no ssd is unthinkable. You'll also want 16gb of ram for graphic design.

With a 660, you should still come in under budget.

I agree that the NVidia would be better, but depending on how much is going into the other parts, it may work better to have an AMD card. Though $1000 isn't a small amount, once you factor in the SSD it suddenly feels smaller...and if he/she has to buy a windowsOS, it's even smaller.

However in order to make high poly 3D models a good graphics card is required. From what I understand Game Developers prefer the Nvidia Quadro series

The only impact your graphics card will have on "making" models is how good of a framerate you'll get in your 3d editor. It has zero bearing on what you can actually make.

The 3d editor is actively rendering your model as you build it, so if you want to work on a 300k polygon model fully-textured and lit with immediate response and no lag from the tools(so 30fps or higher), then you'll want a nice healthy graphics card. But even for that, your standards (like everyone is mentioning, the 660 would almost be overkill) will work find, definitely no need for a Quadro. You'll want to make sure you have the memory/cpu/ssd (in that order of importance IMO) to handle your development tasks.

There's a vast difference between hardware needed for creating game assets, and hardware needed for efficient render-farms. If you were making Blizzard-quality rendered cutscenes, that Quadro would make a lot more sense.

but CUDA really does make a major difference.

Of course this only applies if the application in question is using CUDA; if it's using OpenCL or D3D's compute shaders then AMD are just as good, in some cases better depending on workload, than NV. Don't drink all of NV's CUDA Kool-Aid....

(In fact unless you know for certain that you'll never want to run on anything other than an NV card I'd just avoid CUDA all together. It isn't portable and its somewhat a dead-end technology. Placing your efforts into industry standard solutions is generally a better idea...)