vga for 3dmax, auto cad, sketchup?

[dvr]

what vga card(with the best performance/price ratio) do u think will be sufficient to do tasks such as 3dmax, autocad, and sketchup?

 

[wwswimming]

on the ATI side, the 4850.

 

[sgrinavi]

What's your budget and what does the rest of your system look like?

 

[SonicIce]

is there any point to workstation cards?

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: dvr
what vga card(with the best performance/price ratio) do u think will be sufficient to do tasks such as 3dmax, autocad, and sketchup?

Onboard video. The only thing those apps use 3D acceleration for are real-time preview or draft modes. Final rendering is done by the CPU.

 

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: dvr
what vga card(with the best performance/price ratio) do u think will be sufficient to do tasks such as 3dmax, autocad, and sketchup?

Onboard video. The only thing those apps use 3D acceleration for are real-time preview or draft modes. Final rendering is done by the CPU.

i tried on-board video since i like the micro-ATX form factor for 3D Max computers, and most or all micro-ATX boards have on-board video.

there's a noticeable difference just opening the aps. once you have geometry on the screen, it noticeably bogs down. that was with XP32, an opteron dual core, Max 9 - and the 6150 chipset.

granted, there's different on-board GPU's & some of them are pretty good.

as long as the computer has a PCI-E video card connector, it almost doesn't matter. you can always add a video card.

 

[dvr]

hm, means i don't have to use vga for now?

i'm thinking of getting mobo biostar TA790gx, it has AMD 790GX Chipset with ATI Radeon HD 3300 Graphics..

 

[sgrinavi]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: dvr
what vga card(with the best performance/price ratio) do u think will be sufficient to do tasks such as 3dmax, autocad, and sketchup?

Onboard video. The only thing those apps use 3D acceleration for are real-time preview or draft modes.

Huh?

Step away from the workstation and no one gets hurt.

Both AutoCAD and Max extensivly use the 3d acceleration available in a workstation card, Max IS a 3d program, that's about all can do with it. AutoCAD has some great 3d capability that you use, especially when you are exporting stuff over to Max.

Originally posted by: SonicIce
is there any point to workstation cards?

Mostly for stability, my workstation card is not really any faster than a gamer card, BUT it is way more stable. Less crashing, fewer artifacts, smoother panning, better textures. If you are doing it for a living then get the workstation class card, if it's just for fun then the 4850 would be fine.

Originally posted by: dvr
hm, means i don't have to use vga for now?

i'm thinking of getting mobo biostar TA790gx, it has AMD 790GX Chipset with ATI Radeon HD 3300 Graphics..

Depends on what you are doing and how large your models are. Again, if you are just playing around as a hobby with a few thousand polys then, sure, whatever will work. When you start to add textures and get into the several hundred-thousand poly models you are going to be hating life.

 

[dvr]

Originally posted by: dvr
hm, means i don't have to use vga for now?

i'm thinking of getting mobo biostar TA790gx, it has AMD 790GX Chipset with ATI Radeon HD 3300 Graphics..

Depends on what you are doing and how large your models are. Again, if you are just playing around as a hobby with a few thousand polys then, sure, whatever will work. When you start to add textures and get into the several hundred-thousand poly models you are going to be hating life.

ic, i'm architecture student now, wanna learn 3dmax, of course there'll be rendering things..
is 4830 ok? or should i just use 4850? i wanna get the best out of the cheaper..

 

[Modelworks]

Go for a card with the most memory that you can afford. The faster the card the better. Max 10 was just released publicly and has a new feature that provides full hardware support in the viewports. It supports real time soft shadows, ambient occlusion, HDRI, and interactive exposure control that all runs on the cards GPU. You can almost get render quality output in the viewports now using the video card to render.

 

[qbfx]

erm, I'm an architecture student too and I'm using 3DSMax and AutoCAD. I'm working with quite a few polys for every project (like the buildings, surroundings and interior) and some massive textures. I have an ATi Radeon HD3850 512MB and I think it's ok. The thing you need to worry about most is a GOOD quad-core cpu (or 2 of them and LOTS of ram because once it comes to Hi-res final rendering for the prints (and it always does you'll wish you had spend your money differently.

 

[sgrinavi]

Originally posted by: dvr

Originally posted by: dvr
hm, means i don't have to use vga for now?

i'm thinking of getting mobo biostar TA790gx, it has AMD 790GX Chipset with ATI Radeon HD 3300 Graphics..

Depends on what you are doing and how large your models are. Again, if you are just playing around as a hobby with a few thousand polys then, sure, whatever will work. When you start to add textures and get into the several hundred-thousand poly models you are going to be hating life.

ic, i'm architecture student now, wanna learn 3dmax, of course there'll be rendering things..
is 4830 ok? or should i just use 4850? i wanna get the best out of the cheaper..

4830 should cover your immediate needs just fine

 

[dvr]

hm., quad core? is X3 720 BE okay? it's cheaper than intel E8xxx ones.

@sgrinavi: i'm using notebook now, so, i don't have the computer rite now.. n wanna build one, my thought: Phenom II X3 720BE, 4gig RAM, biostar TA790GX, GPU? no idea yet..

 

[tcsenter]

i tried on-board video since i like the micro-ATX form factor for 3D Max computers, and most or all micro-ATX boards have on-board video. there's a noticeable difference just opening the aps. once you have geometry on the screen, it noticeably bogs down. that was with XP32, an opteron dual core, Max 9 - and the 6150 chipset.

Admittedly, integrated graphics is a bit overly optimistic for applications with the CPU and memory demands of 3ds Max and AutoCAD. Even modern IGP are going to cut into available memory bandwidth and host CPU time that may be better used for non-graphics application loads, and vice versa. I shouldn't have been so cavalier, but the 3D acceleration features ARE fully supported, even by something as lowly as GF 6100. Here is the difference that driver and application optimizations make:

Consumer Gaming Versus Professional Workstation Card Performance : Radeon HD 4870 Versus FirePro V8700

Originally posted by: sgrinavi
Both AutoCAD and Max extensivly use the 3d acceleration available in a workstation card, Max IS a 3d program, that's about all can do with it. AutoCAD has some great 3d capability that you use, especially when you are exporting stuff over to Max.

From AutoDesk on 3ds Max, which utilizes significantly more GPU acceleration than AutoCAD (applicable to 2008/2009/2010):

Some features of 3ds Max 2009 are only enabled when used with graphics hardware that supports Shader Model 3.0. The features that are impacted are:

[*]Interactive previewing of shadows: Provides users with the ability to see real-time shadows casted from the lights in the 3ds max viewport, hence allowing for previewing.

[*]3ds Max sun/sky environment: Allows users to see real-time mental ray Sun & Sky background in the 3ds max viewport. The viewport background will also update.

[*]Mental Ray Architectural and Design material: Allows users to do real-time previews of mental ray Architectural & Design Materials in the 3ds max viewport.

I repeat: "The only thing those apps use 3D acceleration for are real-time preview or draft modes. Final rendering is done by the CPU."

Someone obviously has never touched a real professional workstation or design application, and I think we can all agree who that is.

Originally posted by: dvr
i don't have the computer rite now...n wanna build one, my thought: Phenom II X3 720BE, 4gig RAM, biostar TA790GX, GPU? no idea yet..

Although these applications do utilize the 3D pipeline, it is very baseline acceleration. AutoCAD, 3ds Max, Catia, and other design applications have been using baseline acceleration features in combination with CPU rendering very effectively for years to create the impression among uninformed users that there must be a lot of "advanced" 3D acceleration going on, when it just isn't true (and has been proven over and over even by the application developers).

Here is a pretty good deal on an HD 4650:

POWERCOLOR Radeon HD 4650 512MB 128-bit GDDR2 PCI-E X16 - $41.00 plus shipping AR


However, you may want to seriously consider going with a workstation card:

Consumer Gaming Versus Professional Workstation Card Performance : Radeon HD 4870 Versus FirePro V8700

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: wwswimming

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: dvr
what vga card(with the best performance/price ratio) do u think will be sufficient to do tasks such as 3dmax, autocad, and sketchup?

Onboard video. The only thing those apps use 3D acceleration for are real-time preview or draft modes. Final rendering is done by the CPU.

i tried on-board video since i like the micro-ATX form factor for 3D Max computers, and most or all micro-ATX boards have on-board video.

there's a noticeable difference just opening the aps. once you have geometry on the screen, it noticeably bogs down. that was with XP32, an opteron dual core, Max 9 - and the 6150 chipset.

granted, there's different on-board GPU's & some of them are pretty good.

as long as the computer has a PCI-E video card connector, it almost doesn't matter. you can always add a video card.

My old boss was able to draw large houses using integrated graphics, no problem.

I was able to 3D-model a small commuter train station including a very large 3D topographic model using an ATI 9700 Pro modded into some sort of FireGL card (it doubled my performance, approximately).

 

[dvr]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: dvr
i don't have the computer rite now...n wanna build one, my thought: Phenom II X3 720BE, 4gig RAM, biostar TA790GX, GPU? no idea yet..

Although these applications do utilize the 3D pipeline, it is very baseline acceleration. AutoCAD, 3ds Max, Catia, and other design applications have been using baseline acceleration features in combination with CPU rendering very effectively for years to create the impression among uninformed users that there must be a lot of "advanced" 3D acceleration going on, when it just isn't true (and has been proven over and over even by the application developers).

Here is a pretty good deal on an HD 4650:

POWERCOLOR Radeon HD 4650 512MB 128-bit GDDR2 PCI-E X16 - $41.00 plus shipping AR


However, you may want to seriously consider going with a workstation card:

Consumer Gaming Versus Professional Workstation Card Performance : Radeon HD 4870 Versus FirePro V8700

4650? how about 4670? http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...rcolor/HD_4890/31.html tells that 4670 has better performance/dollar ratio..

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: dvr
4650? how about 4670? http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...rcolor/HD_4890/31.html tells that 4670 has better performance/dollar ratio..

That's dependent on the price. Newegg's prices seem to change every day. HD 4650 and 4670 are the same GPU with different clocks and memory. Here is an HD 4670 for $10 more (while the price lasts):

POWERCOLOR Radeon HD 4670 512MB 128-bit GDDR3

In the mid-range segment, there is always a better card for only a little more.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

I repeat: "The only thing those apps use 3D acceleration for are real-time preview or draft modes. Final rendering is done by the CPU."

Although these applications do utilize the 3D pipeline, it is very baseline acceleration. AutoCAD, 3ds Max, Catia, and other design applications have been using baseline acceleration features in combination with CPU rendering very effectively for years to create the impression among uninformed users that there must be a lot of "advanced" 3D acceleration going on, when it just isn't true (and has been proven over and over even by the application developers).

What you left out is how important those previews are. If I have to move a light, then render, change a material then render everytime I change something that is going to consume lots of time vs change something and see it instantly in the viewport.

3dsmax2010 makes extensive use of the GPU . It isn't just geometry speed improvements in viewports anymore. Use too low end a card on Max 2010 and you will lose a lot of features. When you can get accurate lighting and materials in a viewport without ever having to render a frame that is a huge time saver. Max2010 viewports are unlike any application before it except Mudbox which does even more with the GPU.


Watch the video:
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/s...teID=123112&id=7658360

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: SonicIce
is there any point to workstation cards?

They're useful if you like bragging about how much you pay for stuff. Gaming cards do horrible in synthetic benchmarks:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...quadrofx_12.html#sect0

Real world performance is a lot different. AutoCAD and Solid Works run great with a gaming card:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...iregl-quadrofx_15.html

X-bit Labs conclusion:

The last thing we can say basing on the obtained results, is that gaming graphics cards can also demonstrate good performance in contemporary CAD and CAM systems. The situation has changed: the top gaming graphics accelerator we took as n example this time ? GeForce 9800 GTX ? was completely defeated by its professional opponents only in one synthetic SPECviewperf testing suite working with an OpenGL driver. In real applications the systems equipped with this card performed very well. Moreover, in some tasks such as SolidWorks 2008 and AutoCAD, it worked even faster than 100-dollare professional solutions.

I just noticed this little gem on one of the earlier pages
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...quadrofx_10.html#sect0

I would like to point out that Nvidia offers not only basic drivers for its professional solutions. You can also download two additional utilities compatible with Quadro FX from the company web-site: MAXtreme D3Dand Powerdraft. These are specialized drivers for Autodesk 3ds max and Autodesk AutoCAD. These special drivers help boost the professional graphics cards performance in the above listed CAD applications.

How ironic.

 

[sgrinavi]

I repeat: "The only thing those apps use 3D acceleration for are real-time preview or draft modes. Final rendering is done by the CPU."

I'm not sure what you do for a living; I use AutoCAD 2009 every day and 3dsMAX 2009 a couple times a week. In fact I get paid to do it and run a department full of drafters.

I have been down the gamer card route many times both softmodded and with standard drivers, they do not perform as consistantly and get down right un-reliable when you tax them. There is significant artifacting in the display windows and frequent crashes.

I am forever working in shaded and textured models to see my work without stopping to render it. And if you want to test motion without a preview then you can forget anything but a high-end workstation card.

NO, I don't get my 2d drafters anything special with regard to their video cards, just a cheap workstation class card so I can use decent drivers.

Someone obviously has never touched a real professional workstation or design application, and I think we can all agree who that is.

Someone obviosly doesn't get the point, doesn't work with large models, doesn't do it very often and has their head up their ass.

 

[dvr]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: tcsenter

I repeat: "The only thing those apps use 3D acceleration for are real-time preview or draft modes. Final rendering is done by the CPU."

Although these applications do utilize the 3D pipeline, it is very baseline acceleration. AutoCAD, 3ds Max, Catia, and other design applications have been using baseline acceleration features in combination with CPU rendering very effectively for years to create the impression among uninformed users that there must be a lot of "advanced" 3D acceleration going on, when it just isn't true (and has been proven over and over even by the application developers).

What you left out is how important those previews are. If I have to move a light, then render, change a material then render everytime I change something that is going to consume lots of time vs change something and see it instantly in the viewport.

3dsmax2010 makes extensive use of the GPU . It isn't just geometry speed improvements in viewports anymore. Use too low end a card on Max 2010 and you will lose a lot of features. When you can get accurate lighting and materials in a viewport without ever having to render a frame that is a huge time saver. Max2010 viewports are unlike any application before it except Mudbox which does even more with the GPU.


Watch the video:
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/s...teID=123112&id=7658360

which ones are too low end card?
and which ones are decent ones? (for 3dmax n autocad especially)

 

[JonnyBlaze]

any of the current $150+ gaming cards will do just fine with autocad and max unless you are working on HUGE models. in that case you can probably afford a workstation card anyways.

i use autocad 12+ hours a day with only a x1650 pro and never have any problems. i play a bit with max also it works just fine.

 

[SickBeast]

Like I said, the 9700 Pro did fine to draw up a commuter rail station.

Even a modern low-end card is faster than that.

Just buy a card that is a good bang for the buck.

 

[SickBeast]

If you want to draw up an entire condominium in 3D or something like that, you might want to go with a midrange or high-end card. The same goes for something like a stadium, or another large-scale project.

Mine was small to mid sized, for comparison.

 

[qbfx]

Originally posted by: dvr
hm., quad core? is X3 720 BE okay? it's cheaper than intel E8xxx ones.

The more cores the cpu has, the more render buckets it uses during rendering - 2 with a dual core, 4 with a quad and so on.

Looking at beches Core i7 is the way to go for rendering - in some cases they excel with 30-40% over similarly clocked C2Qs.