Jump to content
AutoDesSys Forums
Sign in to follow this  

Old debate, new deal? Nivida's graphic cards

Recommended Posts

hi guys

Old debate, new deal?
I change my machine to work with Z8.6
Even today I'm working under 3.6.7 because of my workflow 2d / 3d and vice versa
Unless someone proves me wrong here and now.
The disappearance of the draft and the current layout does not offer me better with version 8.6
But there comes a day when you have to evolve ... at least on the modeling, the interface and some odds and ends!
(French humor attention!)

(Although recent studies of the year 1000 men reveal that they were not necessarily as devoid as we imagine, say: what would we be without electricity?)

So far I have always used Geforce gamer (GTX)
Today I ask myself the existential question: should we prefer quads or stay on the GTX?

Autodessys does not provide us with a well detailed recommendation on its ad hoc webpage
(and no certification like at Dassault for example ... and it may be a good thing)
(It seems that in these publishers certifications are followed by fact: the quadro exceeding the GTX on Catia at equivalent price)

So it is clearly the users of formZ who have experience in the field that I address.

That is to say that I also use Maxwell (and I may evolve to Vray if one day RenderZone disappeared)
In this case I want to anticipate the CPU usage for rendering (maxwell 4)
See this link for more info

As we are here on the forum Formz, it is rather on the part Open GL display that I ask the question (for Maxwell it will be necessary that I consult their forum)
But on the other hand we have fine multipurpose blades here, and it is of course on these that I count to enlighten me ...

Thank you for any useful suggestions, simple recommendations or corpus thesis of a thousand pages if it exists ...


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)



As far as I understand all the GPU rendering is based on CUDA technology by Nvidia.

You may want to check out some results posted in the Vray-benchmark thread.

No Quadros there yet - the reason seems to be they are much more expensive but dont increase performance the same amount as price. (Or cuda cores per dollar...)

From what I ´ve read the 1080Ti / 1080 / 1070ti/1060 cards are best, so if you are on OSX put one of those in your macpro to test.

Edited by R2D2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The old question about using high end graphics cards that support CUDA,  is supported on these cards (1080Ti / 1080 Titan X / 1070ti/1060 and better coming) well and generally cheaper with these GTX cards than the high end spec Quadro cards ( more expensive ) used by Catia and Solidworks etc - but there are some very high end Quardro cards now (Quadro P5000), much more powerful than the gaming GTX cards. Both will work but I suggest most new GTX cards offer a cost effective GPU rendering and video output solution.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello R2D2 *
hi Rob

Thank you for your answers
Actually for Maxwell and as for Vray (for what I know) it is Compute Unified Device Architecture which is used
I looked carefully at the benchmarks in the Vray discussion in the appropriate section of this forum but also on the Chaosgroup website.
Obviously GTX cards such 1080i really work very well for very good price performance ratio ...

In the case of the quadro P 5000 its benchmark compared to a GTX1080ti is lower (G3D Mark Quadro P5000 = 10256 GTX 1080i = 14023)
That would tend to contradict what you say.
But I can assume that on an application using an optimized driver it changes the deal ...
And I guess that's why you tell us this quadro is better?

On the other hand, the CPU issue is now different.
for example an AMD ThreadRipper 1950 X (CPU Mark 22076) at 680 € against a Core i7 8700K (CPU Mark 16009) at 319 € costs only 361 € more ...
But is it useful?

For the calculation on CPU we would have preferred the AMD today it is perhaps more rational to remain the i7 8700K and to bet on the computation GPU on GTX for Maxwell or Vray
The same reasoning must be applicable to the Xeon ranges ...
What do you think about this ?


* I see that you bet from the beginning on the artificial intelligence, preferring it to the concept not scientifically proven of "force"
The visionary choice of reason but perhaps not a good thing for humanity ... ;)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood that even if you used an updated CUDA-Nvidia card with the MacOS, you still cant take advantage of Maxwells GPU rendering, because its not supported by the OS. I dont think thats changed, but maybe it has with Maxwell 4.2 ?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

''On the other hand, the CPU issue is now different.

for example an AMD ThreadRipper 1950 X (CPU Mark 22076) at 680 € against a Core i7 8700K (CPU Mark 16009) at 319 € costs only 361 € more ...
But is it useful?''


Not really an equal comparison. ....Either is an overkill for formZ modelling. ....the i5 range and AMD (Ryzen 5-7) range are more than adequate for formZ.  


However; if you are doing heavy Vray rendering and you want to utilise the machine whilst rendering? You cannot beat (price) ThreadRipper 1950 X . Simply because Vray can utilise all the cores available. So for rendering, forget the relative CPU speed advantage of the i7 8700k  .... the more cores the better is king!


i7 8700k                      =   6 cores .......Max 64gb RAM

ThreadRipper 1950 X = 16 cores .......Max 128gb RAM


I run an i5 x6 core with 1080ti x48gb RAM (which can handle anything I can throw at it) ....If I were to upgrade; I'd be looking at a new motherboard & Threadripper....  with threadripper you can handle a much greater amount of RAM and RAM speeds....allows you to render with little impact whilst carrying out other simultaneous tasks.... The machine would not require to be dedicated only too rendering, you could carry on modelling, using photoshop, illustrator et al with negligible slow down to your rendering speeds.


My system wishlist.

.....Threadripper 1950x .....minimum of 32gb RAM ..@ 3200mhz, 

.....Motherboard ...x399 ....(min' of 2x m2 slots). ..cheapest avail' is fine ..the performance is no different....just add on's on more expensive models up the price.(number of m2 slots, wi-fi, flashing rgb ;)  ....) 

.....GTX 1080ti is more than adequate (or a nice priced titanx if you can find one?).....if your machine is running heavy, 24/7, then you should look at Quadro.

.... Run system off m2 memory slot (samsung 970 evo 250GB)

.....Storage ..SSD for work and frequently used libraries

.....Storage ...Large SATA's for archives.



Of course there are intel's x & Extreme ranges.... but the equiv' prices are more than double AMD's....


A valuable resource to help determine your system and available parts & prices in your country is




Tried to keep this non technical ....although based on pc ....with a little thought the logic can be applied to mac systems.



Edited by Martin Malinski

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this