jitindhillon Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Hi, My dad, who is a heavy user of AutoCAD, is looking to buy a new graphics card for his machine. Currently his computer only has the onboard GPU integrated in the motherboard, and he has been complaining about the slow performance in AutoCAD. So naturally he asked me to look for a new budget card, but I'm not quite sure about what are the advantages of Quadro cards. I was looking at the Quadro 400, and GeForce GTS 450 as candidates for his machine. Naturally, as a gamer, I would assume that the GTS 450 is better, as the specifications are much higher, with double the amount of CUDA cores. However, the Quadro is more expensive and boasts GPU acceleration for AutoCAD, but has half the cores, so there has to be something that I'm missing here. He's also looking for dual monitor support, which is clear on the GTS 450, but I am unsure about the Quadro. If anyone could help me make a more informed decision, it would be greatly appreciated. What would you recommend getting? The Quadro or GeForce? Thanks! Jitin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack_O'neill Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I have a Geforce in my cad machine. It's an older one now, but I never have any problems with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I too used a Geforce card in a previous home system and it performed adequately. I have a Quadro 4000 in my work computer and it is a very nice card but it is somewhat expensive. If budget is a problem then go with the GeForce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScribbleJ Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I too used a Geforce card in a previous home system and it performed adequately. I have a Quadro 4000 in my work computer and it is a very nice card but it is somewhat expensive. If budget is a problem then go with the GeForce. I agree with ReMark. I have a Geforce at home and the Quadro at work and I do not see any difference. However there is a 'but' to this. Quadro's drivers are specifically designed with graphics design in mind whereas Geforce cards are not. Check out Tom's Hardware article about this here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBox Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I use an AMD Radeon (home - MacBook Pro & VMWare/BootCamp), and a Nvidia Quadro 3000M (work - Dell Precision M6600), without issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzframpton Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 No need for a high-priced Quadro unless you have an exact need for it. Use the Autodesk Certified Hardware tool here: http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/cert?siteID=123112&id=16391880 Go by that and find a gaming card in the $60 to $100+ range and you'll be just fine. If you have a higher budget then obviously get better and faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gmhall Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I tend to agree with the non need for a high end card as I built up a high end workstation with a Quadro 4000 and my cad performance in 3d modeling is not much better than my old 32bit computer with a small $75 FireGL card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f700es Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I also agree. Quadro FX 580 on a dual core Xeon at work and a GeForce GT430 on a quad core AthlonII at home. Acad is just about the same on both in terms of smoothness in it's use and performance. SketchUp tends to be a bit smoother on the GF unit. I imagine that shaded display on the Quadro would be a bit better than the GF but probably not by much. Edit: My Quadro has support for 3 monitors. My GF has DVI, VGA and HDMI. I would look to see that whatever card you get has DX11 and OpenGL 4.0 support. These are emerging technologies that you might as well be ready for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjsilen Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Hi guys, I believe that there are some areas that should be explained in a little more detail. I am a Heavy CAD user and know the reasons why one is better than the other. When you do regular 2D CAD it doesn't matter much which one you use for it will not make a lot of difference. When you are working onbig 3D files, that is when the quadro will give you the advantage. Quadro's are optimized for 3D solids and to give an example, a 40 megabyte 3D drawing can take up to 10 minutes or more to regen with a cheap gaming card as opposed to less than a minute with a quadro. That will basically sum it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzframpton Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Those statistics doesn't sound right to me. Also, it seems Autodesk is leaning more towards Direct3D drivers instead of OpenGL drivers. The new 2013 versions of Revit and AutoCAD are even taking advantage of Windows Advanced Rasterization Platform (WARP) which is a newer development of D3D. It seems OpenGL have been sitting idle for a long time now while Microsoft has really been revamping their drivers. In a lot of cases, gaming cards are out performing workstations by a good margin. I know f700 found some good articles not too long ago that showed statistical evidence for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjsilen Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I am not basing my facts on stats, I had a GE Force at work with a gig ofram and it was taking that long, I'm not lying to anybody, the IT people replaced it with a Quadro 2000 and the difference was unbelievable, we weren’table to switch from one drawing to another without waiting about 5 mins and now is almost instant. There are many differences but you have to talk from experience, sometimes stats are overrated, sometimes not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzframpton Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Well there are other things to consider. Most of the time, the Quadro card is the exact same physical card as the GeForce equivalent, just with added drivers from OpenGL. And I know you're not basing your facts on stats, you're using stats to verify your facts. My point was that I've never seen that aggressive of an increase in performance. Nor have I seen a stout gaming card take literally ten minutes to "regen" either. Hell my wife's 4 year old laptop doesn't refresh some of my Revit or AutoCAD MEP models that slow when I have to carry around her laptop from time to time. But then again I'm one person that can only comment on my experiences. I'm simply stating out of all of my experiences with hardware, I've never came across the same type of scenario. I still stand by the fact that gaming cards and D3D drivers are being adopted more and more by Autodesk products. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f700es Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 But you also need to look at what GPU the Geforce card had. Ram means almost nothing if the GPU is a slower one. Look at this example, here is a 1gb GF card but it is an older, slower, not as powerful GPU as say a newer unit. I am just saying that there is a lot more to look at then just how much ram it has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjsilen Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Remember, gaming cards deal with triangular faces because it's lighter on games to create a hollow building than a solid one, Quadro cards deal with tessellations and they render true solids much faster, I do know they are the equivalent to their gaming counter parts but the drivers attack a very different animal and they do an excellent job at it and not because I was told, it’s an everyday routine for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjsilen Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I believe it was a GE Force 7300 GT with a gyg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzframpton Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 *shrugs* Either way, a $200 gaming card almost has identical performance as a $2000 workstation card, and in some cases can out perform them in some cases, even with some of the driver extensions not being available. Things have been evolving from OpenGL to Direct3D for a while now. I'll agree that some things look a bit more polished on a workstation card in a live rendering environment but that neither here nor there in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzframpton Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I believe it was a GE Force 7300 GT with a gygOh well no wonder... That's almost a six year old card!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjsilen Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I have a question for you, are you refreshing 40 megabyte files on your wife's comp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzframpton Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 My Revit models are usually 80MB+. On occasion I've had an AutoCAD MEP file that hung around the 25-30MB mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f700es Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Oh well no wonder... That's almost a six year old card!! And a very basic card as well. 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.