That would be the CPU. Having a better proccessor will mean better rendering time. You should use speccy to post your current specs.

If it is a pre-built then you'd be better off building a new one.

If you'd be interested answer these questions

Will you be OCing?
Do you need any peripherals?
What will this be used for?
What is your budget & currency? (Use GBP as pound sign doesn't work)
Do you need an operating system?

GT-R wrote That would be the CPU. Having a better proccessor will mean better rendering time. You should use speccy to post your current specs.

Correct, but it also requires a fairly good GPU as well. A 4790k and a 750ti wont render as well, so to say, than a 4790k with a 970. Its not as big an impact on GPU as it is CPU, though.

It depends what you already have as to whether or not it's worth upgrading. Something like a Xeon or i7 would be better than an i5 per-say.

Dinkleberg wrote

GT-R wrote That would be the CPU. Having a better proccessor will mean better rendering time. You should use speccy to post your current specs.

Correct, but it also requires a fairly good GPU as well. A 4790k and a 750ti wont render as well, so to say, than a 4790k with a 970. Its not as big an impact on GPU as it is CPU, though.

It also depends on the codec used to render with. The standard now is MPEG-4 AVC but there is two encoders that can be used, h.264 which is solely CPU and then there is Nvidia NVENC which is GPU. I can tell you now that h.264 encoded solely on the CPU gives far better looking results than NVENC.

Again this is all down to OP decision but if it was me I would be taking a better CPU over a more powerful GPU for rendering purposes.

CPU is main, more cores, renders better
some programs can use GPU for acceleration
a gpu with high CUDA cores is good for rendering

but, cpu first, then gpu

Shibongi007 wrote CPU is main, more cores, renders better
some programs can use GPU for acceleration
a gpu with high CUDA cores is good for rendering

but, cpu first, then gpu

Not fully true. Some CPUs with 4 cores out perform other CPUs with 8 cores. Ex. 15 4460>8320

Its mostly per-core performance.

Dinkleberg wrote Not fully true. Some CPUs with 4 cores out perform other CPUs with 8 cores. Ex. 15 4460>8320

Its mostly per-core performance.

Actually, video editing and 3D rendering, and similar tasks tend to favour more cores. That's why the FX-8320 is typically, going to render better than something like an i5. The i5's superior per core performance means it will win in gaming, and I'm pretty sure an i5 is going to be a little faster in photoshop operations.

Basically, if you need better per core performance, get the i5. If you need better performance in multi-threaded tasks, get the 8320. Or better yet, just get a Xeon/i7, win/win/win.