The pixel dimensions are only a small part of the rendering pipeline. The source layers and the effects you apply to them are what affect the rendering times.
You can bump your CPU specs and get 64G of RAM and these improvements might actually be tangible but they won't freak you out or make you leap with joy. In my experience, the only thing that improves rendering speeds is the experience of the After Effects user. After a really long time you learn how to do stuff, how to anticipate the bottle encks and pinch points,to build your projects in the correct order, when to prerender, and when to use external apps to modify your source media before throwing it at AE.
(Network distributed rendering is often discussed here but I think you only see improvement if you have lots of machines to process very large projects.)
Tell us more about your project.
Thanks for you feed back bogiesan!
Well the project was basically a bumper video promoting the brand of the company. I used basic tweens and effects to finish the project.
Cc Particle world
** all these were with motion blurs and w/ Easy Ease.
Typically, there's no need to runder at such large horizontal & vertical dimensions. How are you going to play it back, and how are you going to display it?
But Particles can indeed slow down a render big-time, and with a comp that big, there are no doubt a lot of them on the screen at any one time. But that's just a guess.
Hence the question about telling us more about your project.
Particle World requires a lot of processing because every frame is a function of all the frames that came before. But Motion blur was the likely killer since it requires previous frames to calculate the beginning and end positions and then to create the vectors.
But using the camera implies you were doing a 3D project and, even without lights, 3D is about four times as processing intensive as 2D work. Each light (and each light's settings) can multiply the time per frame required for rendering by a factor of at least 2.
Try to have fun as you learn this application spend lots of time watching the thousands of tutorials (both the good and the terrible so you can learn from their mistakes) and, sure lobby for a better computer. The graphics card is not a factor in AE rendering.
These are great feed back! Thank you! Much appreciated! @Dave LaRonde bogiesan
With all this information, does the processor play a big role prior to rendering?
Like I stated before I am leaning towards a iMac with this functionalities:
Processor: 3.5GHz Quad-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz
Memory: 32GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 4x8GB
The machine looks fine. I would put more RAM into it if I could, and I'd invest in a big solid state drive, too.
But to speed up your rendering RIGHT NOW, please tell us why you're rendering at sich a large size, how you intend to play this back and how you intend to display it.
AHA! You owe it to yourself to find out what the folks who play this stuff actually need. In other words, you need delivery specifications.
Do they play back six individual files?
If the device needs six individual files, how are those vertical monitors oriented so it doesn't play back a file upside-down?
Does the playback device want one monster file in gigantic proportions?
What sort of video file do they need: AVI? Quicktime Movie? Mp4?
What sort of codec do they need: Photo JPEG? H.264? PNG?
Does the playback system transcode your files as it ingests them?
What frame rate does this thing need for playback?
Once you know what you should actually DELIVER, you'll have a much better idea of how to proceed with your project. From what you've divulged so far, you have a lot of nothing.
You know how I did that in the olden days?
I used a primitive video projector (an LCD panel on an overhead projector) and a piece of cardboard that masked off the screen into individual holes.
We created the individual comps to fi the wholes and then pulled the pre-rendered movies into a master comp that filled the screen.
It was easy and foolproof and fun but it was not very bright or pretty.