OdeToNo1 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Hello, my company recently upgraded to ACAD 2009. We are a fairly small, low key operation which does landscape / hardscape design and installation. I personally do the design work in Autocad, and am starting to do 3D visualizations with the new software. The vast majority of my work is on single, residential homes, so I am not working with huge buildings or very large scale projects. I would like to upgrade my graphics card, as right now I am only using an on-board video device, and can tell that it is struggling to handle the new software, especially the 3D work. Budget wise, I'd be looking to spend around $300-$400 or so...less, if possible. The rest of my hardware should be fine, I think (AMD dual core, 3 gig ram). I've tried to do some research, but it seems hard to find a straight answer on which cards would be best for my needs. Also, should I upgrade to Vista? I have a friend who works at MS and can get it for very cheap. Will it offer any benefits? Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzframpton Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Don't worry about Vista right now at all. Here's a workstation level graphics card specifically designed for 3D modeling programs that's under $200: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133208 Match that with the most RAM you can put in your machine, and you'll be whizzin' by in 3D with no problems. If you want a much better graphics card, get this one for a bit over $400: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133207 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxwellEdison Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I've seen nothing but positive reviews for the second one there, the Quadro FX 1700. But pretty much anything in the Quadro line that fits your price range is a safe bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OdeToNo1 Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share Posted January 16, 2009 Ok. So, even though I have read that DirectX is where things are heading I should still go for a Quadro card rather than a gaming card? I don't know much about the differences, just that I look at the specs between them and see much higher ones for the price on the gaming cards. Now, I am sure there is a reason for this, which as I understand is OpenGL support? I want to set myself up with something that will be better in the short term but also get the most bang for my buck in the long term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzframpton Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Ok. So, even though I have read that DirectX is where things are heading I should still go for a Quadro card rather than a gaming card? I don't know much about the differences, just that I look at the specs between them and see much higher ones for the price on the gaming cards. Now, I am sure there is a reason for this, which as I understand is OpenGL support? I want to set myself up with something that will be better in the short term but also get the most bang for my buck in the long term. My current machine has a GeForce 7300GT which is a pretty stout gaming card. Since its debut, it was not a recommended graphics card for AutoCAD at the time. But now it is recommended for AutoCAD 2008, 2009, etc. I can tell it it runs that complete bird crap in 3D modeling in AutoCAD & Revit. Ugh, its just horrid. ESPECIALLY when I'm ready to do a final render. sloooooooooooow....... The problem is, a Gaming card actually supports the mini OpenGL driver, not the full instructions of a full OpenGL driver like a true workstation graphics card does. There's talk about Autodesk going to Direct3D but nobody in the field has seen any difference in a real working environment. We have some workstation level graphics cards in my office and I can assure you to stick with them for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxwellEdison Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Gaming cards are designed for gaming, the Quadro line is designed for 3D modeling. It will almost always perform better than a similarly priced gaming card. As far as any OS upgrades, I'm personally holding out hope for Windows 7 (currently in public beta and reviews look promising). Hopefully by the time it hits street we will be able to upgrade our office to utilize the 64-bit version. 64-bit is nice in that it will better distribute the load to multi-core processors, also theres none of the 3GB memory limitation or fussing about with the boot.ini file for teh 3GB switch. If you are considering that change you need to be sure that there won't be any conflicts with the 64bit though, especially printers as the drivers have been the biggest sticking points in this changeover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OdeToNo1 Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share Posted January 16, 2009 Ok, thanks. I think I'm going to try the FX570 and see how that works for my needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OdeToNo1 Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share Posted January 16, 2009 I guess its the nature of hardware, but things like this give me pause...these are 2 comments taken from the FX570 page: works fine for CAD Pros: works for what it is intended for CAD 3D applications Cons: really none Other Thoughts: these gamer folks that get on here and say that it is not a good gaming card....no duh, its not a gaming card, thats like saying a hammer doesnt make a good screw driver, right tool for the job, common sense, next time know what you are buying. and then... Doesn't work good for CAD Pros: None. Cons: Terrible performance for CAD applications. A cheap gaming card works better for CAD than this thing. Other Thoughts: To the people who knock my review because they didn't read the whole thing (CAD guy); I could care less about it's performance in games, that's not what I bought it for. I bought it for my CAD 3D and OpenGL accelerated programs: 3ds Max, Maya, ZBrush, XSI, and After Effects. The fact that this card performs WORSE than a gaming card bought for less money is the only reason why I mentioned games. Why spend more money on a workstation card that is more expensive and doesn't work any better than a cheaper gaming card??? Next time read my whole review before posting nonsense. lol... I'm going to try it anyway and just assume the 2nd guy doesn't really know what he's talking about. I trust what I've read here so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzframpton Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I guess its the nature of hardware, but things like this give me pause...these are 2 comments taken from the FX570 page: and then... lol... I'm going to try it anyway and just assume the 2nd guy doesn't really know what he's talking about. I trust what I've read here so far. That's always been a debate. You have to remember, its a sub $200 card. If you go cheap on hardware, you're always taking a risk of a performance hit - Period. Trial and error, see if it works for you. A friend of mine is an I.T. Admin at a company that uses CAD, and they have 10+ machines using the FX570 and it works great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxwellEdison Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 My guess would be the second guy is working on an underpowered system, specifically the with respect to RAM. You can get a gaming card with more RAM than a workstation card of the same price which might have shown the results he specified. Also...its possible he got a lemon, stranger things have happened. An aggregate rating is more useful than individual anecdotal evidence, I'd say you'd be hard rpessed to find someone here on this fine forum who would point you towards a gaming card. Take that for what its worth to you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzframpton Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 My guess would be the second guy is working on an underpowered system, specifically the with respect to RAM. You can get a gaming card with more RAM than a workstation card of the same price which might have shown the results he specified. Also...its possible he got a lemon, stranger things have happened. An aggregate rating is more useful than individual anecdotal evidence, I'd say you'd be hard rpessed to find someone here on this fine forum who would point you towards a gaming card. Take that for what its worth to you Well, unless Mark comes in here. He swears by an 8800GTX.... even then, that's more expensive than even the FX1700, haha. Well, maybe not anymore, but it was at one time. :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxwellEdison Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I'll stick with my FX3500 thankyouverymuch:shifty: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OdeToNo1 Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share Posted January 16, 2009 Ok one more question, would changing to XP 64-bit help me in any way? I have a 64 bit processor, and HP offers 64 bit versions of my printer drivers so I'd be good there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzframpton Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Ok one more question, would changing to XP 64-bit help me in any way? I have a 64 bit processor, and HP offers 64 bit versions of my printer drivers so I'd be good there. Yes there is a performance increase, but only if the rest of your system makes up for it. Don't just upgrade the software itself if you're running a moderately low/medium configured system. Plus, you have to get a 64bit version of AutoCAD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxwellEdison Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I would agree with Styk...probably not the best idea in your current situation, especially trying to keep this upgrade on the cheap. It should be factored into any future upgrades however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OdeToNo1 Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share Posted January 16, 2009 hehe ok, I wish I'd of looked into this before settling on the software last year but oh well...live and learn. thanks for the advice guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.