CAD Managers

Reply
*Scott
Message 1 of 5 (141 Views)

ATI Rage 128 Pro video cards

141 Views, 4 Replies
12-12-2000 07:31 AM
Hello,
Anyone out there using ATI Rage 128 Pro video cards in their CAD stations?
My IT guy wants to use this card or ATI Radeon cards on CAD stations running
LDD R2 instead of a 3D Oxygen GXV1 Pro 64 Mb card. Can anyone confirm that
the ATI cards are better than a CAD specific video card? My drafting/design
is civil-type work and usually involves raster images (10-30Mb each), Large
drawing files (5-30MB each), extensive use of xrefs and Paperspace with a
little 3D visualization of terrain surfaces. IT Guy's argument is we don't
need the capabilities of such a high end ($600) video card. The same guy
also said 256Mb RAM is sufficient. Any suggestions? Am I wrong?

Thanks,
Scott
*drafter, jd
Message 2 of 5 (141 Views)

Re: ATI Rage 128 Pro video cards

12-12-2000 08:08 AM in reply to: *Scott
I had an ATI rage 128 and had many problems, I swithched to an oxygen vx-1
32meg and they all went away. maybe try the 32 meg over the 64? might save $
and keep functionality. in the case of cad too much video is never enough!
as with ram... i just upgraded to 512 mg ram from 256mg and it does make a
difference! nanoseconds are alot faster than milliseconds, once you hit the
hd for swapping you will slow down.

IMHO,

jd drafter
*Scott
Message 3 of 5 (141 Views)

Re:

12-12-2000 10:30 PM in reply to: *Scott
I fought hard for the extra RAM and "won" but wasn't prepared for a video
card discussion (my fault) and lost. My IT guy insists ATI cards are better
for CAD because even though we design in 3D, the video is still 2D and
better video cards won't offer any improvements.

"jd drafter" wrote in message
news:8B755A09765BEDC12BF272E4DCF1D7D5@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
> I had an ATI rage 128 and had many problems, I swithched to an oxygen vx-1
> 32meg and they all went away. maybe try the 32 meg over the 64? might save
$
> and keep functionality. in the case of cad too much video is never enough!
> as with ram... i just upgraded to 512 mg ram from 256mg and it does make a
> difference! nanoseconds are alot faster than milliseconds, once you hit
the
> hd for swapping you will slow down.
>
> IMHO,
>
> jd drafter
>
*Stachoni, Matt
Message 4 of 5 (141 Views)

Re:

12-13-2000 02:23 AM in reply to: *Scott
Scott,

Your IT guy needs to get a grip on reality, and learn a little about what video
cards do and how they do it.

Yes the final result is 2D (duh - until we get 3D monitors :smileyhappy:, your card has to
calculate a ton of stuff to get to the 2D image. Anyone who doesn't understand
this basic fact probably shouldn't be recommending video cards for the poor
users who need performance to do their jobs.

I would not recommend ATI-anything for CAD, based on past problems and a crappy
driver track record; however, the Radeon-based cards have gotten fair reviews,
comparable to GeForce 2 MX cards; i.e., they are middle-of the road gamer cards.

So called "3D" video cards come in two flavors: those that like complex
high-polygon counts and those that don't. The former have onboard T&L (Transform
and Lighting) processing and can get to be VERY expensive. They essentially
offload CPU crippling calculations when modeling, although only fast CPU will
make renderings complete faster. But for someone modeling the next Toy Story
movie, you need serious video hardware.

Examples would be any of the high-end Wildcat series cards, the 3D Labs Oxygen
GXV1 series and higher, or anything based on the nVidia Quadro or GeForce 2
Ultra chipset. The Wildcat, 3DLabs and Quadro cards are built to handle complex
CAD apps, wheras the GeForce line is geared towards 3D gaming, which is usually
of the low-polygon count, high-fillrate variety. I would consider a high-end
GeForce2 card the acceptable minimum for any 3D CAD use. The Elsa Gloria III
cards use the nVidia Quadro processor. Expect to pay about $550 and up for these
cards, or about $400 for a high-end GeForce 2 card.

The latter cards do little 3D calculations on board, or otherwise perform those
calculations slowly. The ATI Rage series falls squarely in that camp, along with
the Matrox G400/450 series. Although, normal 2D Windows perform very well with a
G400 card, so they are good cards for Photoshop users. You can indeed run
QuakeIII on a G400 card acceptably well, provided your machine is of acceptable
speed (P-III 550+). You can pick up these lamers for about $180.

In any event, make sure your card has 32MB of video RAM. 64MB is better, but
probably only slightly so. I know nVidia has excellent driver support for cards
based on their chips, Matrox isn't too bad, but Elsa seems to be in left field.
I've had problems with Elsa's support, too (check out their web site and try to
find a USA based phone number).

Matt
mstachoni@beyerdesign.com

On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:30:27 -0800, "Scott" wrote:

>I fought hard for the extra RAM and "won" but wasn't prepared for a video
>card discussion (my fault) and lost. My IT guy insists ATI cards are better
>for CAD because even though we design in 3D, the video is still 2D and
>better video cards won't offer any improvements.
>
>"jd drafter" wrote in message
>news:8B755A09765BEDC12BF272E4DCF1D7D5@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
>> I had an ATI rage 128 and had many problems, I swithched to an oxygen vx-1
>> 32meg and they all went away. maybe try the 32 meg over the 64? might save
>$
>> and keep functionality. in the case of cad too much video is never enough!
>> as with ram... i just upgraded to 512 mg ram from 256mg and it does make a
>> difference! nanoseconds are alot faster than milliseconds, once you hit
>the
>> hd for swapping you will slow down.
>>
>> IMHO,
>>
>> jd drafter
>>
*Atkinson, Jon
Message 5 of 5 (141 Views)

Re:

12-14-2000 05:43 AM in reply to: *Scott
Scott,

I use a GeForce 2 GTS DDR w/ 32Mb RAM (Creative Labs Annihilator 2) at
home, and I must say it performs quite respectfully. I use a couple of
rendering packages, MAX and Viz, as well as AutoCAD R14 and ADT2i. I
have not had any problems, and the price is right. It sure beats
spending $400 or more, and I'm unsure if there would be a measurable
performance increase. And it sure beats this Diamond Stealth 3D 2000 I
have in my office machine (looking for sympathy here).

And I sure as heck would not recommend a video card that is nearly 2
years old (Note: the ATI Rage 128 Pro was released around April of
1999). I also have an ATI Rage in my second PC at home, it works great
for games, but I would not even consider using it for serious 3D work. I
nearly fried it just doing a simple rendering on it using MAX. I will
admit I had absolutely no problems configuring it.

But when both software and hardware are advancing at this blistering
pace, you can not afford to "Upgrade" to a video card that is obsolete.
Then have to wait another two greuling years before the next upgrade.
Upgrade to the most recent version of whichever video card you decide
on, and can still afford.

Do your research on video cards, learn what all the benchmarks mean.
Then show IT Guy why the ATI Rage 128 Pro won't cut it for your
applications. Or, maybe you can convince him to buy a couple different
cards and perform the tests yourself.

$.02 and then some.

Matt Stachoni wrote:
>
> Scott,
>
> Your IT guy needs to get a grip on reality, and learn a little about what video
> cards do and how they do it.
>
> Yes the final result is 2D (duh - until we get 3D monitors :smileyhappy:, your card has to
> calculate a ton of stuff to get to the 2D image. Anyone who doesn't understand
> this basic fact probably shouldn't be recommending video cards for the poor
> users who need performance to do their jobs.
>
> I would not recommend ATI-anything for CAD, based on past problems and a crappy
> driver track record; however, the Radeon-based cards have gotten fair reviews,
> comparable to GeForce 2 MX cards; i.e., they are middle-of the road gamer cards.
>
> So called "3D" video cards come in two flavors: those that like complex
> high-polygon counts and those that don't. The former have onboard T&L (Transform
> and Lighting) processing and can get to be VERY expensive. They essentially
> offload CPU crippling calculations when modeling, although only fast CPU will
> make renderings complete faster. But for someone modeling the next Toy Story
> movie, you need serious video hardware.
>
> Examples would be any of the high-end Wildcat series cards, the 3D Labs Oxygen
> GXV1 series and higher, or anything based on the nVidia Quadro or GeForce 2
> Ultra chipset. The Wildcat, 3DLabs and Quadro cards are built to handle complex
> CAD apps, wheras the GeForce line is geared towards 3D gaming, which is usually
> of the low-polygon count, high-fillrate variety. I would consider a high-end
> GeForce2 card the acceptable minimum for any 3D CAD use. The Elsa Gloria III
> cards use the nVidia Quadro processor. Expect to pay about $550 and up for these
> cards, or about $400 for a high-end GeForce 2 card.
>
> The latter cards do little 3D calculations on board, or otherwise perform those
> calculations slowly. The ATI Rage series falls squarely in that camp, along with
> the Matrox G400/450 series. Although, normal 2D Windows perform very well with a
> G400 card, so they are good cards for Photoshop users. You can indeed run
> QuakeIII on a G400 card acceptably well, provided your machine is of acceptable
> speed (P-III 550+). You can pick up these lamers for about $180.
>
> In any event, make sure your card has 32MB of video RAM. 64MB is better, but
> probably only slightly so. I know nVidia has excellent driver support for cards
> based on their chips, Matrox isn't too bad, but Elsa seems to be in left field.
> I've had problems with Elsa's support, too (check out their web site and try to
> find a USA based phone number).
>
> Matt
> mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:30:27 -0800, "Scott" wrote:
>
> >I fought hard for the extra RAM and "won" but wasn't prepared for a video
> >card discussion (my fault) and lost. My IT guy insists ATI cards are better
> >for CAD because even though we design in 3D, the video is still 2D and
> >better video cards won't offer any improvements.
> >
> >"jd drafter" wrote in message
> >news:8B755A09765BEDC12BF272E4DCF1D7D5@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
> >> I had an ATI rage 128 and had many problems, I swithched to an oxygen vx-1
> >> 32meg and they all went away. maybe try the 32 meg over the 64? might save
> >$
> >> and keep functionality. in the case of cad too much video is never enough!
> >> as with ram... i just upgraded to 512 mg ram from 256mg and it does make a
> >> difference! nanoseconds are alot faster than milliseconds, once you hit
> >the
> >> hd for swapping you will slow down.
> >>
> >> IMHO,
> >>
> >> jd drafter
> >>

You are not logged in.

Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register

Announcements
Manufacturing CAD & IT Manager Resource
Additional information for installing, licensing & deploying Inventor, the Product Design Suites and Factory Design Suites.

Need installation help?

Start with some of our most frequented solutions to get help installing your software.

Ask the Community


Up & Ready Blog

Boldly Install, Configure and Deploy Autodesk Software.

AutodeskHelp Blog

Your one-stop shop for the latest solutions, breaking news, and behind the scenes access to the world of Autodesk support.

Connect with Us

Twitter

Pinterest

Blog

Youtube