As a CG artist, what kind of computer setup do you use?

[R10k]

Shouldn't you upgrade in line with what you can afford, can best use for the programs you're running, and is reasonable for the money? People use all sorts of different setups in the CG realm, personally and in business. Asking for a big list of what everyone uses won't help you much. Also, whether you buy Amd or Intel will depend on what's available from each company at that time. I used Amd for years, but recently switched to Intel because when I upgraded, I got more for my money. Amd were great, though. But, there's no 'one or the other'.

So, what I'm trying to say is- just look around at what suits your needs. What you'll find helpful will change over time, along with your software toolbox and approach to CG in general. Alternatively, stick with what you've got and learn to get the most out of it.

[bls]

I 'll agree with R10K.And don't be nervous about windows 64bit.I use them about 3 years now (first xp64, now vista64) with no problems.

[Remoth]

I currently use a imac from 2 years ago as well as a 17" Macbook pro, and am currently in the process of upgrading to a intel Core i7 920 system with 6 gigs of ram (to start), and the Geforce GTX 280. My iMac was just too slow to do everything that I'm doing at home. It worked great, just not enough horsepower.

My new system will cost me about $1400 canadian (about $1200 USD), but I'm getting the 280, a keyboard, mouse, and optical drive for $200 from a guy. and I'm just gonna use the 1T B drive I already have. And the price also includes a $300 24" samsung monitor. So you can get an awesome computer for not all that much. Pretty much all my programs run on Linux, so that's what will be my main bootup.

I do a lot of dynamic simulations, so a machine with lots of Ram and really fast processor is a must, and a 2.16 GHz Core 2 duo just wasn't cutting it. But for mainly modeling and such, you don't need a computer of this magnitude, a simple core 2 quad would suffice perfectly. I plan on Overclocking my i7 to probably 3.5 GHz. I've heard of lots of people OCing to 4 GHz but 3.5 is good for me since it leaves headroom for when I have it simulating/rendering for long periods of time and I wont have to spend a fortune on cooling.

So, in the end its all up to what you do that determines if you should upgrade.

[RiKToR]

If you can afford it by all means upgrade. As far as what to upgrade to, the intel processors seems to be whats speedy on the market now. AMDs are good but its a back and forth thing from intel and AMD on who is on top. But do you have to upgrade? I mean your setup isnt that bad at all, given what some of the best visual fx films have used in the past. Keep in mind that when Episode I was in production intel announced the 500-600mhz pentium. So your leaps and bounds above what they could have had. Its all about being effecient with the bits that your pusing through your processor and rather then the amount of bits your pushing. If you can learn to be more effecient with your renders then when you get the high end power you can take full advantage of an effecient workflow. Just my opinion though. I started playing with 3d on 486 DX 66MHz personally so I try to be effecient just out of habit.

To answer your question though my setup is a base model Unibody 17" MacBook Pro.

2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo
4GB RAM
GeForce 9600 GT 512MB
320 GB HD

My work is mostly 2d but I do have zbrush in maya in my matte painting workflow. I also have a degree in animation so I have done more intesive work then I do now.

[R10k]

Its all about being effecient with the bits that your pusing through your processor and rather then the amount of bits your pushing. If you can learn to be more effecient with your renders then when you get the high end power you can take full advantage of an effecient workflow. Just my opinion though.

I think that's a great opinion :D

[BOXXlabs]

I think that's a great opinion :D

This is such an overlooked reality.

NO AMOUNT OF HARDWARE can effectively overcome the extra processing burden imparted by a sloppily constructed scene.

[rdeyoung]

Thanks for the input guys! I was just under the impression for a while that AMD processors work better for 3D applications and such.