Jump to content

video card


idllc

Recommended Posts

Wondering if anyone has any recommendations on the following video cards:

Quatro 1800 fx (450$ range)

Quatro 2000 (450$ range)

Quatro 4000 (775$ range)

Quatro 3800 fx (850$ range)

 

I do alot of 3D CAD as well as NAVISWORKS. Just wondering if the 700-800$ cards are worth the extra money?

Thanks for the input!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quadro and Quadro FX cards by nVidia are very popular choices for CAD users. My new system utilizes the Quadro 4000 and I'm very satisfied with its performance. I believe the FX cards are targeted mainly at those who need high quality rendering capability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nvidia.com/content/PDF/product-comparison/product-comparison-master-revised.pdf

 

Here's a comparison directly from nVidia that shows hardware and performance comparisons. The 3800 wins in some categories but mostly beats the 1800 by a small margin for twice the price. Plus, it draws twice the power consumption. A $200-$300 gaming card would more than suffice but a workstation card does give you an edge in some areas. Just don't go buying a $600 gaming card, keep it under $300 if you're gonna go that route since it's considered a budget choice. Workstation cards and gaming cards are almost identical in hardware. If I remember correctly it's the workstation level graphics cards that have access to the full OpenGL extensions for certain video rendering tasks and capabilities.

 

A workstation card has always been a better pick in my opinion. It displays things better, runs a little better, and more importantly has never glitched the display of the visual picture on the screen like some gaming cards I have used. It doesn't completely blow a gaming card out of the water in performance, either. Just seems more stable and runs more smoothly overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Workstation cards can run 3-times faster (or more) than their gaming counterparts, even with the same hardware. Of those cards, hands down the Quadro 4000. I would never buy a gaming card for a 3D workstation machine unless I was on a super tight budget. It's in the firmware, processing priorities and architecture. Also RAM...the same GPU will have twice the RAM (or more, ie. Q6000 vs 480GTX) in a Quadro card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When AutoDesk announced, a few years back, that it was going to standardize on DirectX and forgo OpenGL it seemed all one had to do to enjoy the best of both worlds (CAD and gaming) was to buy a mid-range to high end gaming card. But it seems AutoDesk is dragging its feet or at the very least planting one foot in both worlds. I think this just makes it more difficult for the end user to make a good choice that he/she will be satisfied with in the end. Obviously the preceding was my very biased opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've ran the stock GsTest.ARX benchmark across dozens of computer builds and the workstations have not be 3X or more faster in live use. Rendering functions, yes. I've never ran the Cadalyst benchmarking system though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was the benchmark across multiple 3D programs? GsTest.ARX is AutoCAD only, right?

 

Here's a couple links...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/quadro-fx-4800,2258-10.html

http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=539&pgno=5 (5-pages of performance tests, Page 9 for comparison to true Quadro)

 

Also don't forget about customer support, workstation vs gaming. Workstation cards, they want repeat customers so they're a lot nicer. Gaming, they just tell you to buy the next one up rather than try to actually help you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was the benchmark across multiple 3D programs? GsTest.ARX is AutoCAD only, right?

Yep.

 

Also don't forget about customer support, workstation vs gaming. Workstation cards, they want repeat customers so they're a lot nicer. Gaming, they just tell you to buy the next one up rather than try to actually help you.
Haha, I know right?? ;)

 

Tests do provide a good overall general guideline in performance benchmarking but still, after all the years I've been messing with parts, custom builds, different technologies, I've found that real world use never lives up to the very specific tests. I have even swapped a decent gaming card with a Quadro FX that had a faster proc, more onboard RAM, etc, in the same system, so only the graphics card was updated and I just simply wasn't impressed with the very little increase in overall live use performance. Rendering kicked butt, but live usage didn't increase all that much, although it corrected a severe glitch in Revit, and in certain Visual Styles in AutoCAD it was much more impressive. I want to say after extracting the OpenGL extensions from the gaming card to the workstation, there was only like 30 +/- extra extensions that were available to take advantage of. That was it. The gaming card still had over 100 of the extensions available for AutoCAD to utilize.

 

So that's why I'm just not ever going to jump to the ceiling and say that workstations are "all that" because in my experiences they are, but they lack too. And when someone says "3D" I often wonder what exactly they are referring to. My 3D projects are HUGE. Lots of people might just be working on small mechanical parts, which in no way requires a $800 workstation card to run, not at all.

 

My $0.02 is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I refer to 3D, it's two things actually. From an architecture point of view, it's materials/textures/lighting/rendering/etc, any size model. From a mechanical point of view, it's 40k sq/ft per level of offices/shops/conference rooms/etc.

 

When doing a small project (simple single convenience store), not as visually demanding as a 4-5 story office building, therefore doesn't necessarily require the processing power. However, I much prefer the larger projects so that's where my biased opinion comes from. I run the computer into the ground at every opportunity, and notice big change in smoothness in my 3D mechanical models between the GeForce machines and my Quadro FX machine.

 

Also when rendering in RAC, there was an indescribable change from GeForce to Quadro. But you've also noted the improvement in rendering, so that's almost a moot point.

 

Edit: And to note, our NVidia Quadro FX's appear to handle Revit MEP 2011 better than our ATI Fire GL's. This is still being evaluated, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the feed back! I'm a little ignorant on some of the "lingo" :) But I greatly appriciate it all! I just ordered a PNY Quatro 4000. for about 750.$ It was a little more than I wanted to spend but I will not be second guessing my decision, after all it's for work, so not that big of a cost. I also just got a new NZXT case (Artic Digital Camo! Sweet!) that has 5 fans on it so it should keep the 4000 as cool as possible. I have read some reviews that it runs really hot!. I am upgrading from a XFX HD-Radeon HD 4890 1GB, 256 bit GDDR5 gaming card, so this should be quite a jump (XFX HD-489A-ZDFC Radeon HD 4890 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card).

Thanks again for all the feed back, this forum is really a great source! You are all great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...