Despite best efforts in research, there is little to effectively answer something I have been mulling over when designating specifications. While I may not be building a PC within a year, the research and planning stage is critical to the building process, and graphics cards are among one of my major subjects to settle.
My intended purpose for the planned PC is having the capacity to perform as far as independent game development, video rendering, 2D artwork, and 3D modeling on par with workstation graphics, while capable of pulling the performance necessary in playing games with gaming graphics cards, be it from my own make or others. I am aware that workstation graphics are costly, but best suited when processing video and renders while not pulling as much electrical usage. I have 3 proposed solutions, but the benefits and costs are not as clear-cut as my findings have concluded:
"Unity" - Install one gaming and one workstation cards of different GPU manufacturer brands (most likely Nvidia Gaming and AMD Workstation) into the motherboard. Having two cards will affect cooling planning, especially when air cooling is preferred over liquid, and I maintain a stringent computer case criteria. I don't mind having more than one monitor requirement.
"Harmony" - Similar to "Unity" solution, but uses same brands of either Nvidia or AMD.
"Lone" - only the gaming graphics card will be used, but the major problem is that graphics card will be performing tasks out of its best fields and impact energy efficiency and life expectancy, as does affecting how soon would the processes be done. Though there would be less concerns for cooling planning. And no Nvidia GTX Titan series; having one graphics card of that would fill the budget already, and I don't expect to have a $1000+ workstation card for entry-level productivity in my spare time.
I would lean on having a workstation card as primary for general, rendering, and power conservation purposes, and bring the gaming card to bear when I start playing games. In terms of my game library, I actually have at least one game in development whose recent updates pushed minimum performance needs well past what both my current desktop and laptop computers can give at maximum. I support independent developers to an extent by playing their builds and report issues to appropriate channels.
The CPU and Motherboard problem would not be covered due to anticipation of next generation CPU releases in the future, though having two separate graphics cards would require planning which card gets to have the x16 speed slot priority or having a motherboard that supports x16 PCIe 3rd gen with the speed matching the slot size.
Bottom line, I would appreciate input on whether or not it is worth considering to have a workstation graphics card. Longevity and future-proofing is held at a greater priority and replacing components in a short period for upgrade reasons will not be tolerated.
My intended purpose for the planned PC is having the capacity to perform as far as independent game development, video rendering, 2D artwork, and 3D modeling on par with workstation graphics, while capable of pulling the performance necessary in playing games with gaming graphics cards, be it from my own make or others. I am aware that workstation graphics are costly, but best suited when processing video and renders while not pulling as much electrical usage. I have 3 proposed solutions, but the benefits and costs are not as clear-cut as my findings have concluded:
"Unity" - Install one gaming and one workstation cards of different GPU manufacturer brands (most likely Nvidia Gaming and AMD Workstation) into the motherboard. Having two cards will affect cooling planning, especially when air cooling is preferred over liquid, and I maintain a stringent computer case criteria. I don't mind having more than one monitor requirement.
"Harmony" - Similar to "Unity" solution, but uses same brands of either Nvidia or AMD.
"Lone" - only the gaming graphics card will be used, but the major problem is that graphics card will be performing tasks out of its best fields and impact energy efficiency and life expectancy, as does affecting how soon would the processes be done. Though there would be less concerns for cooling planning. And no Nvidia GTX Titan series; having one graphics card of that would fill the budget already, and I don't expect to have a $1000+ workstation card for entry-level productivity in my spare time.
I would lean on having a workstation card as primary for general, rendering, and power conservation purposes, and bring the gaming card to bear when I start playing games. In terms of my game library, I actually have at least one game in development whose recent updates pushed minimum performance needs well past what both my current desktop and laptop computers can give at maximum. I support independent developers to an extent by playing their builds and report issues to appropriate channels.
The CPU and Motherboard problem would not be covered due to anticipation of next generation CPU releases in the future, though having two separate graphics cards would require planning which card gets to have the x16 speed slot priority or having a motherboard that supports x16 PCIe 3rd gen with the speed matching the slot size.
Bottom line, I would appreciate input on whether or not it is worth considering to have a workstation graphics card. Longevity and future-proofing is held at a greater priority and replacing components in a short period for upgrade reasons will not be tolerated.