[Tip] Graphics card for CAD, 3D rendering and graphic design

[tigre_est]

I am very surprised that in that review it seems that ATI performs better than NVIDIA GTX, when everything I have read so far talked about Nvidia and its cuda cores being the best in CAD.

How can that be?

Regards.

[etgasu]

hello little tiger, hehehe...
I use an NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT, 65nm technology, 512MB and 256 bits
and it runs well not highly but enough for good performance.
I think your card is good for ok performance.
I have an Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 Socket 775 LGA 2.80GHz,

SO YOUR MACHINE MUST BE SUPERIOR AND YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY MORE THAN TO IMPROVE
CONSTANTLY TO NOT STAY, AXTRACTO IN TECHNOLOGY, BUT YOU ARE ALREADY DOING WELL IN SERIOUS...:hangover::rollani:

[Bm4n]

@tigre_est:

I am very surprised that in that review it seems that ATI performs better than NVIDIA GTX, when everything I have read so far talked about Nvidia and its cuda cores being the best for CAD.

There is no such thing as a CUDA core, CUDA is a programming to exploit the GPU for different tasks, CUDA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It's not that it's wrong but that only works for certain processes as long as they are developed for CUDA, not in general.
@etgasu:

hello tigre-ito, he,he,he…........
I use an NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT, 65nm technology, 512MB and 256 bits
and it runs well not highly but enough for good performance.
I think your card is good for ok performance.
I have an Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 Socket 775 LGA 2.80GHz,

THAT MEANS YOUR MACHINE MUST BE SUPERIOR AND YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY MORE THAN TO IMPROVE
CONSTANTLY TO NOT STAY, AXTRACTO IN TECHNOLOGY, BUT YOU ARE ALREADY DOING WELL IN SERIOUS...:hangover::rolling_eyes:

We are talking about buying a new PC, it has nothing to do with what you say, for the rest take care a little more of that writing man it doesn't cost anything

[tigre_est]

Well I don't know, in the characteristics of all NVIDIA graphics cards it comes with how many "CUDA cores" it has or manages. That's why I said that. Look at the first row of the table, inside the "specifications" tab:

GeForce GTX 570

I don't think a quadro is about the price, more so that for some design tasks normal cards are better. So, I ask for advice, do I mount NVIDIA or ATI?

Regards.

[Bm4n]

If you want to call them TIGRE cores, the manufacturer calls them as he wants, but they are cores that do not perform any more or less. If you do not want to spend those 400€ that the FX1800 is worth, I would look for a conventional but cheaper graphics card like for example a GTX560, why spend 300€ on a graphics card that you are not going to use for 3D games which is what you get the most out of? And in the future you will buy something more suitable for your needs.

[Fassou]

NVIDIA graphics are better for most CAD and 3D programs, because NVIDIA takes care of it, actively collaborating in the development, something that ATI (AMD) does not do so intensively.

On the other hand, since NVIDIA has seen that it is better (in costs) to modify its consumer graphics for the professional market, than to develop two completely different products, the consumer graphics have been able to "mutate" to a greater or lesser extent into their Quadro sisters, and thus "deceive" the programs and make them take advantage of certain optimizations. It still renders less but something improves.

If you had taken a few seconds to look at the Dell workstations, you would see that the chosen platform is Xeon, with ECC memory, etc... and I suppose that soon they will release Ivy Bridge models (LGA2011).

Salu2!

[Bm4n]

If that's funny, theoretically the core of the graphics uses the same architecture, anyway I had not heard of mutating the graphics. But well let's see if we talk about buying a 4800 that costs 1200€ but a 1800 of 400€ I think it's feasible compared to a mid-high range GTX (570/580/590).

PD. The original article in English is much more complete in case you had not read it http://www.cgarchitect.com/news/newsfeed.asp?nid=4960

[Fassou]

Now I don't know how it will go, but in other generations they flashed BIOS to do it, in some models with putting some modified special drivers it was enough, but in any case they were small improvements, and always very far from the performance of a real Quadro.

Looking in specialized forums, you can find comparisons between consumer graphics and Quadro, because the new consumer models come out first and months later their Quadro sisters, so you can have new GTX graphics in SLI performing better than the latest Quadro, for being still of the previous generation, but that months later the Quadro will return to be above, with the new models.

Salu2!

[tigre_est]

@Fassou:

NVIDIA graphics are better for most CAD and 3D programs, because NVIDIA takes care of it, actively collaborating in the development, something that ATI (AMD) does not do as intensively.

On the other hand, since NVIDIA has seen that it is better (in costs) to modify its consumer graphics for the professional market, than to develop two completely different products, the consumer graphics have been able to "mutate" to a greater or lesser extent into their Quadro sisters, and thus "deceive" the programs and make them take advantage of certain optimizations. It still renders less but something improves.

If you had taken a few seconds to look at the Dell workstations, you would see that the platform chosen is Xeon, with ECC memories, etc... and I suppose that soon they will release Ivy Bridge models (LGA2011).

Salu2!

Fassou, believe me that I have read the information you have passed on to me very carefully, and I have seen what you comment about the Xeon processors, but I am a total layman in the matter and I do not understand why they put that processor and not an i7. Not to mention ECC memories, I do not even know what they are. Maybe you can explain it to me, I would appreciate it very much.

The truth is that suddenly you are talking to me about a lot of things that I had never heard of, and I can't keep up with searching on google...

Regards.

[tigre_est]

@Bm4n:

If that's funny, theoretically the core of the graphics uses the same architecture, anyway I had not heard of mutating the graphics. But well let's see if we talk about buying a 4800 that costs 1200€ but a 1800 for 400€ I think it's feasible compared to a mid-to-high range GTX (570/580/590).

PD. The original article in English is much more complete in case you hadn't read it Welcome to CGarchitect.com

Yes, I read it before, and I saw that less in Autocad 2010 and in SketchUp, the Quadro are left behind by the GTX in almost everything, including in Autocad 2011 and in 3DStudio. So I don't know if I'm not reading the graphics correctly, because if that's the case, I don't see the investment in a Quadro so clear. I wouldn't mind spending 500€ on a Quadro, but always as long as that guaranteed me a higher performance than with a GTX 350 in all my work,… and I don't see it clear.

If I was confused before, now I'm more... I really don't know what to do.

Regards.

[Bm4n]

This is how it works, look at what tool you work with and what graphics it renders for that, if you use CAD11 or 3Dmax then a Quadro, if it's CAD10 then the 5800, etc. There is not much else to do, the performance of these graphics depends entirely on the optimizations, the program, the graphics drivers, etc. if there are none then one will perform as well as the other. I obviously would not spend €1200 on a professional graphics card, but around €500 yes, on a normal one I would not spend €300 because I know that it will perform as well as one that costs €200. But everyone has their preferences.

[tigre_est]

Currently I am working mainly with Autocad 2012 and Photoshop CS5. Between them I usually alternate SketchUp7 and 3DStudio or FrayRender.

I certainly don't see the Quadro thing very clear, even if I had the money.

Thanks again and Regards.

[Fassou]

From the programs you handle, then you want a team for Graphic Design and it doesn't seem like you need a Quadro.

With your initial idea of a team based on i7 2600k, you will have enough.

Salu2!

[tigre_est]

@Fassou:

For the programs you handle, then you want a team for Graphic Design and it does not seem that you need a Quadro.

With your initial idea of a team based on i7 2600k, you will have enough.

Salu2!

It's what I had said from the beginning, graphic design: Autocad 2012, Photoshop CS5, SketchUp7 and 3DStudio.

So, out of curiosity, when should I use a Quadro? I say it because I believed that the Quadro was precisely for Autocad and I would like to have it clear in the future.

Thanks again and greetings.

[Bm4n]

You've already seen it. AutoCAD and 3DMax and similar are the ones that need the most, the rest need little graphic help. Photoshop goes with opengl and sketchup is not anything complex. There you are 50/50 you will know how long the renderings take in each thing and with what you spend more time so that I can compensate you or not. No one here is going to buy you the PC, you decide, the data is there... in fact, they are a few google searches away, it's not a secret.

[tigre_est]

This post is being processed/translated. The original version will be shown:

@Bm4n:

Ya lo has visto Autocad y 3DMax y similares son los que más, el resto poca ayuda de gráfica necesitan. Photoshop va con opengl y sketchup no es nada complejo. Ahí estás 50/50 tu sabrás cuanto tiempo te llevan las renderizaciones en cada cosa y con que pasas más tiempo como para que te pueda compensar o no. Aquí nadie te va a comprar el PC, tu decides, los datos están ahí… es más están a unas búsquedas de google no es nada secreto.

Ok tomo nota.

Por otro lado, ¿de que depende el rendimiento de OpenGL?… Lo que és, ya lo he mirado por google, aunque no me aclara demasiado.

Saludos.

[Fassou]

This post is being processed/translated. The original version will be shown:

@tigre_est:

Es lo que había dicho desde el principio, diseño gráfico: Autocad 2012, Photoshop CS5, SketchUp7 y 3DStudio.

Entonces, por curiosidad, ¿Cuando debería usar una Quadro? Lo digo porque yo creía que la Quadro era precisamente para Autocad y me gustaría tenerlo claro en el futuro.

Gracias de nuevo y saludos.

@Fassou:

Si es para hacer algo una vez por semana, entonces la GTX te vale.

Si pretendes trabajar con planos y 3D, y necesitas renderizar y mover piezas varias horas todos los días, empieza a mirar una estación de trabajo Dell con una Quadro :sisi:

Salu2!

Para decirlo de forma todavía más clara, si trabajas en ingenierías, oficinas técnicas, etc … con elementos complejos, la Quadro será tu mejor amiga :sisi: , si por el contrario, todavía eres estudiante o estas más orientado al Diseño Gráfico la GTX podrá con el trabajo.

Mucha gente piensa que la potencia se necesita para el renderizado, pero aunque es cierto porque determinará el tiempo empleado en esta tarea, la mayor diferencia está en que si pones a una GTX, o las que quieras a mover una pieza compleja, sufriras tirones continuos, mientras que con una Quadro podrás trabajar sin problemas.

Sobre el OpenGL, quédate con la idea de que es mejor, pero Microsoft consiguió convencer a los fabricantes de hardware de las bondades de su sistema Direct3D (DirectX), y la mayoritaria salida de juegos para Windows hizo el resto. Para información adicional pregunta a kynes, pero la respuesta puede ocupar decenas de post.

Salu2!

[Bm4n]

This post is being processed/translated. The original version will be shown:

@tigre_est:

Ok tomo nota.

Por otro lado, ¿de que depende el rendimiento de OpenGL?… Lo que és, ya lo he mirado por google, aunque no me aclara demasiado.

Saludos.

Busca que es en la wikipedia macho… es programación para gráficos 3D, de que va a depender?

PD. Si quieres puedes mirar también OpenCL que está relacionado con CUDA y DirectX que está relacionado con OpenGL. Todo eso evidentemente funciona con gráficas actuales y programas que utilicen dichas tecnologias, las gráficas profesionales no tienen ni más ni menos, simplemente están optimizadas para sus usos concretos.

[tigre_est]

This post is being processed/translated. The original version will be shown:

@Fassou:

Para decirlo de forma todavía más clara, si trabajas en ingenierías, oficinas técnicas, etc … con elementos complejos, la Quadro será tu mejor amiga :sisi: , si por el contrario, todavía eres estudiante o estas más orientado al Diseño Gráfico la GTX podrá con el trabajo.

Mucha gente piensa que la potencia se necesita para el renderizado, pero aunque es cierto porque determinará el tiempo empleado en esta tarea, la mayor diferencia está en que si pones a una GTX, o las que quieras a mover una pieza compleja, sufriras tirones continuos, mientras que con una Quadro podrás trabajar sin problemas.

Sobre el OpenGL, quédate con la idea de que es mejor, pero Microsoft consiguió convencer a los fabricantes de hardware de las bondades de su sistema Direct3D (DirectX), y la mayoritaria salida de juegos para Windows hizo el resto. Para información adicional pregunta a kynes, pero la respuesta puede ocupar decenas de post.

Salu2!

Fassou, acabas de dar en el mismísimo clavo. Precisamente es eso lo que intento evitar, los tirones al mover un plano 2D o un 3D en Autocad (también en Photoshop cuando intento mover un dibujo pesado). Creo que estamos hablando de lo mismo, pero por si a caso te comento lo que yo entiendo por tirones:

-en 2D, cuando voy a seleccionar una linea por ejemplo y se queda como micropillado unos microinstantes, o cuando estoy dibujando una linea y al darle al punto final, tarda un pelin en volver a dejarme dibujar otra linea. Y en 3D, por ejemplo, cuando intento girar una pieza y da como pequeños saltillos-.

Yo pensaba que eso lo hacía porque mi gráfica actual en una de 512 ya con 7 años montada en un Sempron, pero si me dices que con la gtx-570 eso no va a cambiar, y que la Quadro (por ejemplo, la Quadro 2000) lo soluciona, entonces me la compro sin parpadear. Si no te importa dame confirmación de lo que te digo, vaya que meta la gamba.

Para acabar, ya que lo preguntas, me dedico al trabajo profesional en la arquitectura y representación gráfica, aunque últimamente está la cosa como está y parezco un estudiante

Y una cosa más. Queda claro que para Autocad y 3DStudio es mejor la Quadro 2000, pero qué opinas, ¿en el caso de Photoshop y Adobe Premiere tambien es mejor la Quadro?

Saludos.

[defaultuser]

This post is being processed/translated. The original version will be shown:

@tigre_est:

Pues no se, en las característica de todas las gráficas NVIDIA viene cuantos "CUDA cores" tiene o maneja. Por eso lo decía. Mira la primera fila de la tabla, dentro de la pestaña "specifications":

GeForce GTX 570

A una quadro no creo que vaya por el precio, más visto que para algunas tareas de diseño son mejores las tarjetas normales. Entonces, os pido consejo ¿monto NVIDIA o ATI?

Saludos.

Lo de "Cuda Cores" es un termino comercial, son a final de cuentas los nucleos del procesdor grafico.
Cuda es la tecnologia de gpgpu de nvidia, de ahy lo de cuda cores, o sea nucleos compatibles con cuda.

AMD usa otro sistema de gpgpu no se si es el opencl o cual.

Salu2.