Once you start viewing large amounts of data in 3D and rotating or animating, that's when you get into intense work. Just creating objects like like is not at all intense for the gaphhics card.
Cansel - Autodesk Division
I agree with Matt - I find the 3D performance when viewing corridors/drive throughs and surfaces can be very disappointing on occasion but normal plan is never a problem
(No connection with Autodesk other than using the products in the real world)
IDSP Premium 2014 (mainly Civil 3D 2014 but also 3ds Max Design)
Win 7 Pro x64, 256Gb SSD, 300Gb 15,000 rpm HDD
16Gb Ram Intel Xeon CPU E5-1607 0 @ 3.00GHz (4 CPUs), ~3.0GHz
NVIDIA Quadro 4000, Dual 27" Monitor, Dell T3600
Thanks for the response guys. I will probably go with i7-3770k; 32gb ram; quadro 2000; windows 7 64 bit. What do y'all think of this article?
That was a very good article. I've bookmarked it.
Although many have said that NV Quadro cards are overkill. I know that I seem to have less problems with viewing and rotating surfaces and corridors when using a Quadro card. One key thing is to get the right drivers. Always try the most current but be prepared to revert if it causes problems.
I remember taking a C3D class where the instructor would say "We're going to try and view the corridor in the Object Viewer. But it's probably going to crash the program". The training computers only had gaming cards.
Thanks for the reply Mr. Jessup. Here is something else I came across. Since it came from the Catalyst magazine, you may have seen it.
I just looked at all of the recommended graphics cards and most all were tested on standard 2013, a few on 3ds max, and none on infrastructure. I can't believe this. How can they recommend something they haven't tested.
Interesting article. I built two computers, one with the GTX670 and another with the GTX680, so it was pleasing they came up very high in performance. In terms of accuracy, it's hard to say - I've never had any issues (that I know of). These cards work very well with 3D rotation of large surfaces, etc. One day I'll grab a quadro card to test in comparison, but haven't had the chance as yet. What I'm surprised at is the relatively little difference between the quadro 2000 and quadro 4000. Given 1 costs twice the other, I would've expected more benefit. Its seems the extra memory (which I think comes into its own for rendering) is the main benefit?
The processors on my computers are both the 6 core i7-3930K on the P9X79 motherboard. I have no doubt as the article suggests the 4 core 3.5Ghz 3770 processor is faster with c3d, as it doesn't really use the multiple cores - so indivual processor speed is more important.
I reckon 32 gb ram is a bit of overkill, but it's pretty cheap - so go for it if you have the cash. Consider an SSD too.
Anyway I think your proposed setup will go great. You can always but a GTX card later and sell the quadro card if it is letting you down.
Self-built i7-3930K, 16Gb RAM, P9X79 m/board
SSD(system), HDD(data), GTX680, Win7Pro64