Is rendering images highly CPU demanding or GPU? What about video processing?

Rendering is usually accompanied by a 3D scenario that requires computing the performance of light, such as refraction and reflection. Basically, the performance is calculated by the CPU. Therefore, the multi-core CPU has a great advantage in rendering speed, while the graphics card only takes the CPU the calculation result is displayed on the screen.
There is basically no difference in the quality of graphics cards when rendering static images, but professional graphics cards such as Quadro series have obvious speed advantages and Display Accuracy advantages (also because Quadro series for most 3D processing software) there are special driver optimizations, such as ArcGIS 3 DMAX Maya. You can choose different driver configurations based on the corresponding software. These are not available for common graphics cards)
The principle of video processing is the same as that of static images. However, the video does not seem to have any rendering content. Even if a 3D shape is displayed, the video is still rendered frame by frame and then formed.
In addition, there are a lot of software that supports very good hardware rendering effects, such as Maya (particle rendering ), softimage and so on are used for hardware rendering. GPU is a parallel processor and the display speed is faster than the memory (the size of the display space is much higher than the memory size ).
In addition, let's talk about the memory .. In rendering, it can be said that it is enough. It does not mean that rendering with a large memory is faster. For example, if a scenario requires MB of memory for rendering, the host has 2 GB memory and 16 GB memory (the same frequency ..) There is no difference in speed, but the memory clock speed is slightly related to rendering. DDR2 memory is 4-bit data pre-storage and ddr3 8bit pre-storage, of course, cannot be compared.