Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4897328 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:28:24 +0100 Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id lz20so2251893obb.28 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:31:36 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=gUuwqvnQ3k+kJ4RCJm+YcuqXIVIEwWnk86pt3B+gHI0=; b=m83puVpG1YnoKxeUbSe00vuujJLOxGUSdDJusV40fEIkJqWbNpNP2GpHjMu90ev0oA QwvPAX8xKjnRtki5Rmwf8pCm9EhjelP7XQvARtgCbA7fhnhhi6JmGZUCXvRHo7WPcD7+ wGUOY1tUni0PaWiuLOK9OzN/SwqHFgRByUzBjgIZ4EVZezUrlaUgHj3tBVR3oIJRHEf9 7WD+xuMHdGuVt6Nu9hbStrVTEiXYTxNNci4N6pJxHw5Mm5SCdPatJajNOeDnw0BJQNfY cAlvRUvAHw3ERCDw5ebCLtkHwgVj7XsTOKlfUGWlhyISlSbvFNOT+N3nYPHH4OxDDzSR dxJw== Received: by 10.60.27.97 with SMTP id s1mr3511657oeg.6.1352759496280; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:31:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.108.1 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:31:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Walter Soyka Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:31:16 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Semi OT: Yet another mac mini render farm thread To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1ef4a3e0a7604ce53dde7 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmTbSCiTw4V/m/srLZpBLSPvRxCoZ58g9S/oxmR3gPjm4BLSA8iVbQbHqA8GdCw3jV30xbI --e89a8fb1ef4a3e0a7604ce53dde7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'd say an SSD would not provide significant benefit for networked C4D renders in most cases, unless you regularly work with huge amounts of cached data (like baked particles or dynamics caches). CPU and RAM are more important. * * *Walter Soyka *| Keen Live On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Tony Romain wrote: > How significant of a speed bump do you see going this route rather than > just the stock hard drive=85 for C4D rendering? Is that a bottleneck fo= r 3d > renders? Internal drive speed? > -- > *tony romain* *|* *principal/creative director* > > *trance* > *motion graphic animation and design* > 323 651 1114 > www.trancedesigns.com > > --e89a8fb1ef4a3e0a7604ce53dde7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'd say an SSD would not provide significant benefit for networked C4D = renders in most cases, unless you regularly work with huge amounts of cache= d data (like baked particles or dynamics caches). CPU and RAM are more impo= rtant.

Walter Soyka =A0|=A0=A0Keen Live



On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Tony Ro= main <tonyr-aelist@trancedesigns.com> wrote:
How significant of a speed bump do you see going this= route rather than just the stock hard drive=85 =A0for C4D rendering? =A0Is= that a bottleneck for 3d renders? =A0Internal drive speed? =A0
--
tony romain | principal/creative director

trance
motion graphic animation and d= esign

--e89a8fb1ef4a3e0a7604ce53dde7--