The 3d ray-tracer is obsolete as of AE CC. There are now much better, faster, more powerful ways to create 3d in After Effects. You get a version of Cinema 4d for free! It renders faster and has much more to offer. See here: details of CINEMA 4D integration with After Effects CC (12.0)
If you're heck-bent on using the ray-traced render (WHY WOULD YOU?!?), this page has the info you need: Adobe After Effects CC for Mac, Windows, PC - Tech specs
Doesn't C4D offer ray tracing? I guess I am asking if I should consider upgrading my graphics card, throw more ram into my machine, or something else to squeeze the best performance out of AE.
3D has nothing to do with raytracing. Raytracing is merely one possible method to determine shading properties, nothing more. C4D uses a hybrid renderer employing different methods to determine the final shading of a pixel and for sake of argument with proper settings even a quick shade render in it can look almost like a raytraced image in AE. You really need to understand this stuff a bit more and generally you can't fix a bad 3D scene or composite just by throwing hardware at it. You can make ugly stuff even in a sophisticated renderer like VRay if you don't know which buttons to push...
I have been animating in 3D since Paracomp moved from Gouraud to Phong shading in their commercial product "Swivel 3D" so lets assume I understand "this stuff" and lets not assume I am working on a "bad 3D scene or composite", okay? (Mylenium, can you see how your comment can be perceived as slightly condescending and a bit passive-aggressive?)
To my original point: I believe there is an error on the documentation page that someone from Adobe may want to correct. I am also asking to what degree a graphics card will make a difference in render time, or if RAM or CPU is a bigger factor.
The effect on render time depends entirely on the project. Temporal effects require CPU, particle effects require Ram, source footage that uses a codec that is hard to decompress line all mpeg formats load up the CPU, rendering large frame sizes may bog down the whole render if the pipeline to the destination disk is plugged up or the disk is slow. Personally I would say that once the minimum ram for your largest average project size is met, for my that is 4GB per core, CPU speed is the first consideration, then, GPU last.
Right now the only major consideration for me when considering a GPU purchase is compatibility with the Mercury playback engine used by Premiere Pro and it's inclusion in the approved for my 3D apps list.
My careful assessment of hardware requirements for the purchase of my new Mac Pro led me to the 8 core with 32GB and the D700 GPU because I could not find enough value in the nearly 30% price difference for the 12 core 64GB setup considering my projected work load for the next 2 years. If I end up doing larger resolution projects or Adobe significantly changes the way After Effects handles MP rendering I can always trade in for more capable system. Macs retain enough of their value that this was the best business decision. I'll use the savings for more storage and a couple of new plug-ins.
I hope this helps you make an intelligent business decision on your hardware purchase.
Regarding the original complaint about the web page: It seems that someone just copied and pasted from the main technical system requirements page without realizing that they had left behind the list of video cards.
Here's the full page of system requirements: