1 person found this helpful
1) more GHz = faster in AE render preview & final video encoding?
2) more Ghz = 3d rendering(maya,3ds max) ?
No and no, most likely. You're oversimplifying. There are many more factors that determine the actual or perceived speed/ performance of a system and AE being memory hungry and I/O dependent when working with footage alone could negate any speed gains of a new CPU. Likewise, rendering in 3D programs could be just as much dictated by memory more than CPU power, e.g. if you use shadow maps a lot or large textures. So for what it's worth, you may see a minimal gain on some projects, but not others and I doubt it is worth spending the money as well as the trouble of opening the notebook and forefeiting the warranty it comes with...
thx Mylenium for the reply
"I doubt it is worth spending the money as well as the trouble of opening the notebook and forefeiting the warranty it comes with..." ---> nope, it wouldn't void the waranty,for i order it from gentech PC ... if you don't mind, could u judge this spec --> www.gentechpc.com/config.asp?config_id=GT780DXR-099US
as you can see there from the link, The standard of RAM of those notebook is 16GB DDR3 1333 Dual-Channel (4G X 4), which i could upgrade it into 16GB DDR3 1600/PC3 12800 Dual-Channel (4G X 4). is RAM speed really affecting rendering speed in any 3d software and AE? or is it worth to buy?
so, AE and like other 3D software are more likely craving for RAM ,instead of CPU clock speed? Correct me if i'm wrong
AE definitely thrives on memory, for 3D programs this is much more complicated. Pure raytracing is processor driven, but that would only apply if you consequently use MentalRay and in addition do not use lights with shadow maps or extensive bitmap textures. In reverse, using lights with shadow maps, large textures and just Maya's old scanline renderer would consume very little processor power (beyond calculating the shadow maps), but need lots of memory. The same applies of course to particles, hair, fluids or point cache data - they need to go somewhere in addition to your scene geometry, which, if you only use rigid meshes from ZBrush without retopologising them could already be a few hundred thousand or million. Again, it's much more complicated than just seeing one side of the equation. With regards to getting faster RAM - I wouldn't bother, either. This would mostly benefit games that load levels dynamically and when you want to squeeze out that tiny bit of performance to be ahead of your clan buddies. Most "serious" apps use lazy memory mangement and try to hold data as long in memory as possible so it can be reused, so there would be no benefit in a few microseconds faster memory access. Within reason, you probably already have the fastest mobile workstation one would expect and unless you are hellbent on parting with your money, you might spend it better on a fun weekend in Disneyland or something like that...
i don't like to go to Disneyland .lol it's kinda childish
thx anyway for the looonngg explanation
yes i agree with u, i shouldn't upgrade it, the notebook isn't bulid to be upgradeable, it's wasting my dad's money though
and more question mylenium, this is about GPU card...in my notebook it has GTX 570M which have 336 CUDA cores and 1150 MHz
is CUDA technology could be useful in AE, zbrush, maya, 3ds max?
Some third-party plug-ins like Sapphire can use CUDA, if present, but how noticable the acceleration is depends on the effects. On most effects you won't see much of a difference. Same for OpenGL - unless a plug-in is expressly designed to use specific OpenGL features like magic Bullet Looks or Shapeshifter do, it is usually very much a moot point.