Graphics card for rendering / design work.

[seb]

My brother has had an update to his design software on his work PC's.

He bought two new computers last year that did the job great but with the new design software the rendering has slowed down. He needs to get a third computer but he was speccing one up and it came to £1200 on Scan...

Here are the specs that compusoft say are needed for the design software Winner:

Here is what they say about recommended graphics cards:

The two computers my brother got last year have this graphics card in it. From researching the card it seems it is more of a gaming card? As far as I know really it should be a specific card for rendering really?

Now, considering the above points, can anyone point me in the direction of what card would be a good one to buy for the role of doing rendering work for 3D images? Used to get realistic photos a bit like this:

 

[Josh107]

The Geforce series are aimed at gaming, for rendering / CAD type stuff he will want a workstation graphics card, either a Nvidia Quadro or AMD FirePro.

It's funny you mentioned this, as I have an AMD FirePro W5000 which I mentioned in a thread yesterday and am considering selling and I would be interested in one of the HD 7850's.

Another option he could try is installing both 7850's in one machine and see if that copes with the load better (they work together in a mode called SLI), if so then at least he only has to upgrade one graphics card.

 

[seb]

Yeah cheers, could be an option doing SLI

Looking at the specs required surely a Nvidia Quadro card for about £100 would be fine for the job?

 

[adamlstr]

Quadro 600 card would be good for this.

 

[seb]

Funnily enough I had done a bit of googling on the quadro 600 as it seemed reasonable price (£150 ish) and decent performance.

 

[GiT]

The spec is almost what I have sat at my knees right now.

i7 4770K 1150 Haswell.

16GB Vengeance Ram.

HIS HD 7970 GFX

TX750 Corsair Power

400GB would be awesome on SSDs (But that would be barmy cost!)

 

[seb]

///Munson got any experience with this?

 

[Munson]

Negative. It's not really my area of specialty.

 

[Darren S]

Andy (SharkyUK) is your man!

D.

 

[Gray]

I support a large number of 3D / CAD workstations in my role. We use HP z420's as the base unit with the below spec:

Intel Xeon core processor

24Gb DDR3 1600Mhz RAM

Nvidia Quadro K3000 GPU

2 x 1Tb HDD's in RAID0 configuration for storage

256Gb Samsung Evo SSD

Our engineers work on large schemes / drawings and the machines handle almost everything which is thrown at them.

 

[seb]

Andy (SharkyUK) is your man!

D.

cheers will message him.

I support a large number of 3D / CAD workstations in my role. We use HP z420's as the base unit with the below spec:

Intel Xeon core processor

24Gb DDR3 1600Mhz RAM

Nvidia Quadro K3000 GPU

2 x 1Tb HDD's in RAID0 configuration for storage

256Gb Samsung Evo SSD

Our engineers work on large schemes / drawings and the machines handle almost everything which is thrown at them.

that sounds a bit overkill for my bro!

Currently a render takes about 5 minutes to process. Is that slow?
SharkyUK you have been name dropped. Any advice?

 

[SharkyUK]

Hi mate, just seen the 'name drop'

Firstly, do you have a budget in mind with the graphics card? Or is it a simple case of as cheap as possible? Also, do you know much about the software package itself? I'm assuming the software is for actually creating and building the 3D scenes as well as purely rendering them?

Either way you'd be better off looking at an nVidia Quadro solution. However, I wouldn't recommend the Quadro 600 as mentioned above. Sure, it's nice and cheap but the spec isn't brilliant and, despite being geared more towards 3D CAD as opposed to gaming, it won't offer anything much more than the AMD Radeon 7850's. Also, I wouldn't bother with the hassle of trying to set the two Radeons up in CrossFire mode as this won't yield much of a gain (if any) in terms of performance. My recommendation would be to buy the best single card solution Quadro card you can get within budget.

Sadly, the Quadro cards (especially the better spec ones) are more expensive than gaming cards. I currently use a mix of 6000 series cards and they weigh in at around 4-8 grand a card. Not cheap. However, the 'lesser' Quadro cards would certainly meet the potential needs of your brother. Something like a Quadro K2000 would be useful but you're probably looking at around £400 for a 2GB model - which is what I would recommend. For rendering, the more CUDA cores and larger the onboard RAM the better.

 

[SharkyUK]

Currently a render takes about 5 minutes to process. Is that slow?

Too difficult to say, mate. It all depends on the complexity of the scene and how realistically light sources are bounced around the scene, the complexity of the surface properties of objects in the scene, the algorithms used... and so on and so on.

 

[deansmylie1993]

I would say the GeForce GTX 780 or GTX Titan. But that's if you have the money for it.

 

[SharkyUK]

I would say the GeForce GTX 780 or GTX Titan. But that's if you have the money for it.

Very good for rendering performance and memory bandwidth, but not necessarily the best 3D solution overall. Whilst they are incredible for gaming and have immense number-crunching power, they lack the internal accuracy/precision of the workstation cards. They are also generally pants at rendering wireframe and line primitives in comparison to the Quadro cards - a point that may/may not be important to the guy who is looking for a card. Especially if a lot of the build and composition work is performed in wireframe in a multi-viewport software package (which is highly likely). The GTX cards also tend to draw a LOT more power than Quadro cards; which may or may not be a problem for the guy in question.

 

[Munson]

I imagine noise is also a factor worth considering for a machine that's going to be used professionally.

 

[seb]

SharkyUK cheers for your advice, i'll speak to my brother and see how much rendering they would do.

would processor and ram of the computer have a significant impact on the performance or is it mainly the graphics card? Seeing if down spec computer for a better card may be the way to go? My brother was looking at an i7 processor and 16gb of ram.

 

[seb]

I imagine noise is also a factor worth considering for a machine that's going to be used professionally.

The new computer is going in the office so not major issue but my bro won't want his office on standby for take off.

 

[Munson]

The new computer is going in the office so not major issue but my bro won't want his office on standby for take off.

That's kinda what I meant. I only have experience of game cards, but they're not normally renowned for being suited to nice relaxing environment when under heavy load. My SLI GTX580 setup sounds like Naith's Megane when playing something like Crysis 3. Headphones are for the win

 

[SharkyUK]

would processor and ram of the computer have a significant impact on the performance or is it mainly the graphics card? Seeing if down spec computer for a better card may be the way to go? My brother was looking at an i7 processor and 16gb of ram.

Yes mate - the processor and RAM can have a significant impact on performance. Whilst the graphics card can do a fair bit of grunt work it still needs to get this information from somewhere; hence a fast CPU with plenty of RAM is important. If the rendering process is constantly having to pull data from a hard drive (or even an SSD) before committing it for rendering then this can slow the rendering process down by an order of magnitude. I would argue that a beefy CPU on a good motherboard, plenty of RAM and a fast hard drive / SSD is as important as the GPU solution you decide to go for.

It's hard to give a definitive answer without having experience of the software package in question.

Quadro (e.g. nVidia Quadro K2000)

+ great for 'viewport' work where a lot of building and compositing is required (using wireframe modes and similar)
+ greater internal precision / accuracy and colour depths compared to gaming-class cards
+ generally a lot more stable in terms of operation and driver status
+ pro-system certification (probably not important)
+ quieter, run cooler and use less power than a high-spec gaming-class card
+ typically longer lifespan

- can be very expensive, especially for high-end setups
- bandwidth is a lot less than gaming cards
- not so good for gaming (possibly not important if it's purely a work machine only)
- less parallel GPU cores than gaming-class cards

GTX (e.g. nVidia 680 GTX)

+ lots of GPU cores and fantastic number-crunching and raw GPU rendering performance
+ high bandwidth for fast data transfer
+ cheaper than a mid- to high-end workstation-class card

- use a lot of power
- can be very noisy under load
- generally not as stable for 3D / CAD work (due to hardware and drivers)
- poor performance compared to workstation-class cards when working with multiple viewports in wireframe-like modes

That's kinda what I meant. I only have experience of game cards, but they're not normally renowned for being suited to nice relaxing environment when under heavy load. My SLI GTX580 setup sounds like Naith's Megane when playing something like Crysis 3. Headphones are for the win

^ Very valid point actually.

 

[Nigel]

We have 3 CAD machines. 2 have quadro's the other has a normal geforce card. The geforce card actually performs better for us in AutoCAD and Inventor. The only real difference I can see is that the quadro has certified drivers. I've never had a display crash on the quadro's but have had a couple on the geforce.

Application dependant, usually the graphics card is used during the modeling environment. So the more complex the model the beefier the GPU needs to be to display anything other than wireframe. When it comes to rendering though a lot of the time this is CPU dependant, hence why companies have render farms. Some newer software can use GPU accelerated rendering though.

 

[Darren S]

Interesting. Apart from Josh's mention of them, no one else has commented on the ATi FIRE cards. Are they that out-gunned by the Quadros in terms of performance? Or is it just that the nVidia offerings are more common-place in industry now?

D.

 

[SharkyUK]

I don't think they are particularly out-gunned, D. It's just that, admittedly in my own experience, the vast majority of workstation class systems running these sorts of GPU solutions have been nVidia-based. That's why I tend to talk about the Quadro and GTX hardware as I'm more familiar with their setup and what makes them tick. I'm not anti-AMD/ATi, I just don't have much hands-on experience with them.

 

[Darren S]

I don't think they are particularly out-gunned, D. It's just that, admittedly in my own experience, the vast majority of workstation class systems running these sorts of GPU solutions have been nVidia-based. That's why I tend to talk about the Quadro and GTX hardware as I'm more familiar with their setup and what makes them tick. I'm not anti-AMD/ATi, I just don't have much hands-on experience with them.

That makes sense m8. I only know of a very small group of people who use high-end cards and all have been nVidia users. I guess you end up using whatever the industry has in common place - especially if you're sending files to CAD/rendering staff in other businesses?

D.

 

[SharkyUK]

That makes sense m8. I only know of a very small group of people who use high-end cards and all have been nVidia users. I guess you end up using whatever the industry has in common place - especially if you're sending files to CAD/rendering staff in other businesses?

D.

In terms of data files and collaboration then the graphics hardware used shouldn't make any difference. As long as data is stored in industry standard/compliant formats it should not be tied to a specific hardware vendor. At the end of the day the graphics card is a tool for the engineer/artist in much the same way a joiner has a hammer. If the joiner has to use a different hammer for some reason then you would still expect the same results of said joiner. The same applies to the graphics hardware, too. That said (LOL!) a resulting image from one card can be slightly different to another from a different hardware manufacturer... depending on how the hardware is used and the calculations that are happening internally (and how they are then used and interpreted to generate a finalised image). So in that respect, it would make sense to ensure consistency through similar spec hardware where possible. This is not really a problem in 99.9% of situations.

 

[SharkyUK]

seb

Hi mate - I've had a quick look at the software your brother is using and now I've seen what it does (and likely how it does it) you'd be wasting money buying a Quadro (or AMD/ATI equivalent). You'd be better off using a good-spec gaming-class GPU as the superior bandwidth and GPU-processing power far outweighs any advantages you'll see from the Quadro.

 

[seb]

Ordered a quadro today! i7 16gb ram.. Will be a beast?
SHaRKeyuk

 

[seb]

SharkyUK

 

[SharkyUK]

D'oh! B***ocks! Sorry I couldn't reply earlier but I've only recently had time to check out the software!

Which Quadro did you go for in the end, mate? And what variant i7?

 

[Silent_Scone]

Titan's are essentially crippled Quadro GK110 6000s at a fraction of the cost, might suit the bill as they're just reasonably cheap cast offs

I have two going at 455 quid . They also rip through games too as an added bonus

EDIT:

 

[seb]

D'oh! B***ocks! Sorry I couldn't reply earlier but I've only recently had time to check out the software!

Which Quadro did you go for in the end, mate? And what variant i7?

should be pretty beasty hopefully. SharkyUK

 

[SharkyUK]

^ Yeah, that should handle the design software quite nicely mate. It's just a shame I couldn't get back to you quicker about the graphics card but the Quadro will do the job (and will be a decent all-rounder). If ever you get the opportunity to get something like a Titan (as per Silent_Scone mentions) then I would swap for something like that. But yeah, don't worry too much as the Quadro will happily do what is asked of it.

Good call on the SSD - makes sense these days. The only thing to be aware of is the limited size. 250GB may or may not get used up pretty rapidly... but it's easier to add additional storage down the line.

 

[seb]

No worries just nice to get some advice from cliosport

 

[Munson]

Seb, do you still have TheSloth?

 

[seb]

Hasn't been turned on since 2009 when i got my mac. Sloth is sat under the spare bed. It will rise again somepoint! Command and co quer generals ftw

 

[Darren S]

Hasn't been turned on since 2009 when i got my mac. Sloth is sat under the spare bed. It will rise again somepoint! Command and co quer generals ftw

Knows....

D.

 

[Munson]

Windows might need one or two updates.

 

[seb]

Windows might need one or two updates.

LOL too true. Think i was rolling with XP