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

[tigre_est]

Hello, I have configured the equipment that I have specified in this thread,

1x Intel Core I7 2600K 3.4Ghz Box Socket 1155
1x Noctua NH-U9B SE2
1x Asus P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3
2x Kingston HyperX Blu DDR3 1600 PC3-12800 8GB 2x4GB CL9
1x MSI GeForce GTX 570 Twin Frozr III PE/OC 1280MB GDDR5
1x Crucial M4 128GB SATA3 + Data Transfer Kit
1x WD Caviar Black 1.5TB SATA3 64MB
1x Be Quiet Dark Power P9 Pro 850W
1x Cooler Master Silencio RC-550
2x Noctua NF-S12B-FLX-1200 120x120 1200rpm
1x LG GH24LS70 DVD Burner 24x Black Lightscribe OEM

The use I am going to give it is professional work with cad 2d and 3d, rendering and video editing.

I would like to ask for your opinion regarding the graphics card, an MSI GeForce GTX 570 Twin Frozr III PE/OC 1280MB GDDR5, because I put it because I think it will be more than enough, but I am not sure (choosing MSI is because they are so quiet).

Regards.

[Bm4n]

Have you thought about a professional card like Quadro? Because spending 300€ on a card for games might not be the best thing.

[Fassou]

If it's to do something once a week, then the GTX is fine for you.

If you plan to work with blueprints and 3D, and you need to render and move parts for several hours every day, start looking at a workstation Dell with a Quadro :sisi:

Salu2!

[tigre_est]

Yes, the computer is for working all day with CAD and professional rendering. Especially CAD and graphic editing.

I had been reading on forums of professional CAD design and they commented that currently, with how advanced video games are, because of the complexity of their architecture, the current GTXs are perfect for CAD work and rendering. In summary, they said that it wasn't worth paying for a Quadro, and that getting an Nvidia with a lot of CUDA Cores would work just as well. But from what you're telling me, it seems that a Quadro is worth it. I'm a bit lost.

The truth is that I don't know what the difference is between a Quadro and a GTX, and if you could explain the differences I would be very grateful.

Fassou, regarding the Dell workstations you mentioned, leaving aside the graphics, do you think they are superior in performance to the computer I have configured with an i7, 16gb of ram at 1600, SSD for W7?

Regards.

[Bm4n]

So you understand, 500hp in a truck is not the same as in a sports car, don't try to put a truck at 300 per hour and try to pull a 10-ton trailer with a sports car.

Lower score higher performance.

Autocad 2010

Autocad 2011

The full article: Geforce GTX 480 vs Radeon HD 5870 vs VGAs profesionales - CHW

And as you will see, for each application, the graphics perform differently, even there are very important differences between CAD10 and CAD11, if it is for Photoshop I recommend a GTX, but for CAD and 3DMax I would almost recommend a professional one.

PD. For example, an FX1800 is 400€, and if you look at what you've seen, the 5870 is around 350€.

[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.