kstillwell
I would have to concur with you on your comments. I had an old ELSA card in
my computer and several folks here thought that it was a low end card and
was hampering my graphics speed. I got my company to buy an NVIDIA Quadro4
750XGL because it was supposed to be at least a mid-range card and much much
better that the ELSA.
Well I can tell you that it was a waste of money. I didn't do any benchmark
tests, but it is obvious (to me) that the ELSA card was much better during
3D orbit commands than the NVIDIA. I have tried many of the settings
suggested here and have not noticed a difference between them. The biggest
slowdown I see is when I have shademode set to hidden and then use 3D orbit.
I also have tried the newest and some older drivers with the NVIDIA to see
if that would help, to no avail.
Unfortunately the IT department had some turnover in personnel and no one
can find the ELSA card, which I would love to have back, if only to do some
real benchmark testing with.
Having said that, I still very much appreciate the advice given here. I am
just relating what I experienced.
Kent Elrod
"kstillwell" wrote in message
news:40c8464a$1_2@newsprd01...
> You have found out the same thing I have. I have flip flopped a fx 5600
$89
> and a quadro 750 xgl $450 (at my time of purchase) and concluded there is
> really no performance increase based on the price. In fact the quadro
> crashed many more times than the cheap fx 5600. You must have to go to the
> real expensive cards to see any improvement. By the way those benchmark
> tests which test milli seconds aren't really noticeable in average cad
> drafting.
> So, the lesson I learned is spend the money on ram and cpu speed and a
> average video card IMHO
>
> "Grahame Ede" wrote in message
> news:40c82d0f_2@newsprd01...
> > Hi Matt,
> >
> > My replies are in the body of your reply.
> >
> > "Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
> > news:en5ec09vnd0t9dfi3pu1u7pto58chik0me@4ax.com...
> > > On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:33:05 +1000, "Grahame Ede"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I was frustrated with the slowness of my on board video 'card' to
hide
> > and
> > > >render large solid models (~10Mb) so I invested in a mid range video
> > card.
> > >
> > > Okay, first off, a video card's 3D capabilities do NOT affect render
> > times;
> > > rendering is almost completely CPU bound (unless you are using
DirectX9
> > shaders
> > > and have a video card and app that uses them). I believe performing a
> > hidden
> > > line removal in AutoCAD is similarly CPU bound. To get faster renders
> you
> > need a
> > > faster computer (sorry).
> >
> > I did not know that more memory on the video card would not help, thanks
> for
> > telling me that.
> >
> > My computer has an MSI 845GE P4 mainboard with 1Gb of RAM. Two 80Gb hard
> > drives, C: for Programs F: for Virtual Ram (4Gb) and Data files. I am
> > concerned that I am not getting the performance I should. I don't
expect
> > miracles, but waiting over an houre for a drawing to hide is a bit much.
> >
> > > A high end card allows you to zoom/3d orbit a wireframe / shaded model
> in
> > real
> > > time, making the content creation phase of your workflow much more
> > efficient,
> > > but does bupkis for rendering.
> >
> > OK
> > >
> > > >It is an NVIDIA Quadro FX500 128Mb DDR memory full 128bit floating
> point
> > > >precision pipeline, 8 pixels per clockrendering engine. Hardware
> > > >accelerated antialiased points and lines, Hardware OpenGL overlay
> > planes.
> > > >This lot sounds as it should improve things a bit, but I am seeing no
> > > >improvement whatever in AutoCAD performance.
> > >
> > > >Is there something I can do, check, install, uninstall, adjust to
make
> > this
> > > >expensive dog earn its keep?
> > >
> > > Well, the FX500 is actually a lower-end card (the slowest of the
Quadro
> > line).
> > > To gain any real improvements in 3D wireframe operations, you would
have
> > needed
> > > to step up to a Quadro FX1100 or higher. Of course, these cost more
> money
> > :(
> > >
> > > If you check this page out:
> > > http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_11761.html
> > >
> > > You'll see that the QuadroFX500 calculates about 45 million
> triangles/1.1
> > > billion texels per second. The Quadro FX1110, in contrast, pushes out
> 100
> > > million triangles/3.2 billion texels a second, or around 2.5x the
> > performance.
> > >
> > > Note that the raw performance of the 1100, 3000, 300g and 4000 are
> really
> > close,
> > > but much farther away than the FX500, making the 1100 the "sweet spot"
> > best buy
> > > in terms of price/performance
> >
> > Had I known what I was buying, I would have spent the extra few dollars.
> >
> > > Besides that, I've found major improvements to the Cadalyst AutoCAD
> > benchmarks
> > > when I did 2 things: 1. Use the hardware WOPENGL driver in AutoCAD's
> > Display
> > > configuration (Options - System, 3D Display Properties), and check
> > Geometry
> > > Acceleration; and 2. Disable Vertical Sync in the video driver's
Display
> > > Properties. My benchmark scores easily doubled.
> >
> > You have gone to so much trouble for me, I am very grateful. I looked
> into
> > the above settings and the only thing I had different was the vertical
> sync,
> > which I turned off.
> >
> > I would be grateful for any other advice you could give in checking my
> > system is working properly.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Grahame
> > >
> > > Matt
> > > mstachoni@comcast.net
> > > mstachoni@bhhtait.com
> >
> >
>
>
![Autodesk Design & Make Report](https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/1350519iCB55845EBFC43016/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999" "Autodesk Design & Make Report")