Recommended Video Card

Hi Everyone,

I'm IT support for a large company. I have 3 users that have HP 6200's with i3 CPU's and 4GB's of RAM using AutoCAD 2013, 2012 and 2011. They are complaining about lag issues which I was monitoring their computers and their CPU usage is between 60% to 100%. When they zoom out on their work it really peaks at 100%. I am sure the reason is because it's using onboard video graphics. So the CPU is working hard to keep their AutoCAD and other programs working. I noticed that it AutoCAD points to Nvidia Quadro cards but I am not sure how much power is needed. I don't want overkill but also don't want lack of performance. Any Advice???

Thanks

nVidia and ATI both make graphics cards geared towards AutoCAD. You can see what AutoDesk recommends just by visiting their website.

Are these drawings 2D or 3D or a mix of both?

Are these 32-bit or 64-systems? What OS is being utilized?

You might want to look at this...http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/syscert?id=18844534&siteID=123112

Yeah, on-board graphics are generally not good for AutoCAD, but I personally wouldn't recommend Nvidia Quadros (or ATI FirePros) unless it's fairly complex 3D, as regular gaming cards like you can buy off the shelf usually do better than MUCH more expensive "workstation" cards in 2D benchmarks.

Given what the systems may have cost originally putting a Quadro or a Quadro FX might not be cost effective. I would second nestly's suggestion re: GeForce card.

Also consider the size, whatever you decide. I don't know about Quadro's, but FirePro cards seem to run long and won't fit in some cases.

They use Windows XP 32bit.

They mainly use 2D with AutoCAD. 3D is only used occasionally. Other programs we use frequently are Excel and Adobe.

Most of the time we are using all of these programs simultaneously.

Maybe one reason why their systems might be running slower is that someone installed 4GB of RAM in each machine which will actually slow it down without making a tweak to the boot.ini file.

Maybe one reason why their systems might be running slower is that someone installed 4GB of RAM in each machine which will actually slow it down without making a tweak to the boot.ini file.

Interesting.....The computer's came with 2GB of ram and they did add 2GB's more to the system. What tweak must be done to the boot.ini file?

It is called the "3GB Switch". It will allow Windows to address more than 3GB of RAM. Note that, without some additional tweaking, which can be a bit challenging, Windows will not address the full 4GB of RAM and it is a known fact that installing 4GB of RAM in a XP computer will actually make it crawl. The computer would actually perform better with only 2GB of RAM!

The "3GB Switch" has been documented by both Microsoft and AutoCAD. One caveat: some graphics cards do not play well when this switch is set in which case you'll have to remove the offending line that enables the switch that you just added. Keep an original copy of the Boot.ini file handy in case this occurs. Of course the Boot.ini file is a hidden file so you'll have to change the Windows file setting that allows you to see it.

I'm going to have to disagree that installing 4GB will actually cause a WinXP system to slow down if the /3GB switch is not applied. You're going to have to show me the "documentation" on that. And WinXP absoultely does support 4GB without the switch, the switch only changes how much is reserved for the user vs the kernel. All of my XP machines started out with 2GB and I upgraded them to 4GB. They certainly did not slow down, but none of them liked the /3GB switch either as a lot of 32bit software/drivers are not designed to operate in that memory range.

If the OP is in doubt, I suggest he remove 2GB in one of the machines and test it for himself. Try the "Switch" as well with 4GB installed. Perhaps you'll see some benefit, but I think it's just as likely you'll start experiencing more application crashes.

Well I added a 8500 GTS video card to the computer and defrag the harddrive and looks like its handling a it much better now. The CPU only peaks at 60% not 100% which the user feels its running better.

Maybe it was fixed with a patch of some kind in a later release but it was definitely a problem when XP was released.

Could it have been Vista instead? Memory....fading....