Hardware (Read Only)
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Best Graphics Card for ACAD software

28 REPLIES 28
Reply
Message 1 of 29
juanmrodriguezrebollo
8538 Views, 28 Replies

Best Graphics Card for ACAD software

Hi there, could some one tell me what brand and/or model of a graphics card is the BEST for Autodesk software? More compatible and has almost all supported features and is recommended by Autodesk! I'm asking this because I'm going to build a new machine for one of my costumer and he wants to have the best of Autodesk software. He does not care about the pricing of the product just want the best of the best so if some one could tell me I will really appreciate it. I'm looking for Nvidia and AMD products because of gaming and software support. I know gaming cards for Autodesk software does not means they have all supported features! Would really like if a Autodesk representative answers this to me.


Thanks
-------
Juan M. Rodríguez Rebollo
28 REPLIES 28
Message 2 of 29
Anonymous
in reply to: juanmrodriguezrebollo

Best just to go here...

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/hc?siteID=123112&id=6711853&linkID=9240618

However, with Autodesk's move to DirectX, many of the mid-to-upper end
gaming cards are just as good in Autocad as the 2-3X more expensive
"workstation" counterparts (which all use the same GPU anyway). And, since
OpenGL is not even supported by Autocad in Vista, that pretty much
eliminates any advantage the workstation cards who's drivers, although
"support" DirectX, were never optimized for DirectX the way the "gamer" card
drivers have been in all these years. But no one from Autodesk will
actually admit that.

Back with 2007, they went totally OpenGL (and forced the "workstation card"
requirement) and swore up and down that they would NEVER go with DirectX.

Then the next year, with 2008, they added support for DirectX and dropped
OpenGL support in Vista.
Message 3 of 29
Anonymous
in reply to: juanmrodriguezrebollo

This is peer to peer support. Autodesk has a compatibility
page.....However autodesk software no longer needs OpenGL support and
actually performs better in Directx, so the best gamer's videocard will
work quite well. Autocad does not support dual videocards like Nvidia's
SLI or AMD/ATI's CROSSFIRE but doesn't have a problem with dual cards,
it just doesn't care.

juanmrodriguezrebollo wrote:
> Hi there, could some one tell me what brand and/or model of a graphics
> card is the BEST for Autodesk software? More compatible and has
> almost all supported features and is recommended by Autodesk! I'm asking
> this because I'm going to build a new machine for one of my costumer and
> he wants to have the best of Autodesk software. He does not care about
> the pricing of the product just want the best of the best so if some one
> could tell me I will really appreciate it. I'm looking for Nvidia and
> AMD products because of gaming and software support. I know gaming cards
> for Autodesk software does not means they have all supported features!
> Would really like if a Autodesk representative answers this to
> me.
Thanks ------- Juan M. Rodríguez Rebollo
Message 4 of 29

Using the link you provided, the applet tells me the recommended card for acad2010 from Nvidia are only Quadro FX cards (open GL).
Is it incorrect then?
Message 5 of 29
Anonymous
in reply to: juanmrodriguezrebollo

It's just that Autodesk won't get off that kick just yet.

They invested too much in OpenGL back in '05/'06 (to put in the 2007
release) to admit that they chose the wrong path.

Will the Quadro cards work?

Sure.

I have an FX3700 in my work computer (because Dell won't sell their
Precision line without one).

Is it a waste of money? In my opinion, at nearly $800, yes. But I wasn't
asked about it when they bought it. A GeForce 9800 GT at 150 bucks is
probably just as good.

And I don't care what they say about "certified hardware". I've had no
trouble with my little measley GeForce 6600GT I use at home. Or notice that
big of a difference between the two cards, graphics-wise.
Message 6 of 29

How does that hardware handle in 3Dorbit with shaded visual style?
Message 7 of 29
Anonymous
in reply to: juanmrodriguezrebollo

Remember that if you are running directx, the quality and speed have
nothing to do with the supposed advantages of the Quadro cards. And you
get a lot more directx bang for the buck if you stay away from quadro
and firegl.

jmcintyre wrote:
> How does that hardware handle in 3Dorbit with shaded visual style?
Message 8 of 29

It could be that some bound contract between nVidia's with either Autodesk or workstation manufacturers ain't over yet. You know the kind of contract to get their pricey "professional' product line to the "certified" hardware (Autodesk case), and "no other option sorry" (Dell, HP, etc...). Things went their way until the sh|t stirrer, namely Microsoft, joined the game and screwed things up with it's DX enforcing battle, which actually maybe a good thing.

Honestly I don't mind paying four time the price and expect the perfomance only be twice. But the fact is the performance is no where near what I expected. And the support is even worse. The so-called performance drivers don't work on most vertical applications, only vanilla AutoCAD. Who need "performance drivers" to draw lines and circle anyways?

So, to the OP, take the others' advices and don't waste the money.
Message 9 of 29
Anonymous
in reply to: juanmrodriguezrebollo

wrote in message...
>How does that hardware handle in 3Dorbit with shaded visual style?

The 6600GT does just fine for medium sized models depending on the
complexity. A huge model will go a little slow, but it does so on the
Quadro too.

The conceptual visual style seems to put the biggest strain on anything.
Message 10 of 29
Anonymous
in reply to: juanmrodriguezrebollo

I have not not seen any benefit with 2010 from a Quadro FX 1700 vs a Radeon
4870 or a Geforce GTS 250 using XP & Vista 64. The Quadro was about $500 the
others under $200. I feel like I was ripped off just looking at the Quadro
side by side with the others. 😉

--
John Mayo, PE

Core i7 920 6GB DDR3
Radeon 4870HD 1 GB
Vista64
Message 11 of 29

Hi all, this is exactly what I too need to find out as currently speccing 2 new pc's for AutoCad 2010 and would appreciate your input / experience on this.

Sorry in advance for all the questions but I prefer to look dumb but get the right stuff than wasting money on a lower performing system when used for what I want.

I understand rendering performance isn't reliant upon the gpu so what can a better gpu give you?
Would 2 gaming cards in sli / xfire offer any performance in displaying a 3d model?
Is a "better" gpu just classed as bigger memory at higher speed?
For large 3d files is there any real benefit or need for using say 2x FX3700's or 2x HD4870's?

Currently looking at these to use in single or SLI / Xfire, what would you buy?:
Quadro FX3700 (512Mb DDR3), new £220 each (price is correct - surplus stock).
GTX285 (1024Mb DDR3), Cuda/PhysX new £240 each
GTX275 (896Mb DDR3), Cuda/PhysX new £170 each
ATI HD4890 (1Gb DDR5), new £140 each
ATI HD4870 (1Gb DDR5), new £110 each
not looked at any 4850X2, etc gpu's as meant to be very noisy.

I want to do some CFD aswell so not sure if the NV gpu's would offer better performance for that application over non Cuda/PhysX ATI?

I've looked at 3 gpu's in sli but not sure if I could benefit plus the extra noise, heat and huge power consumption is exactly what I don't want so if I can get away with just one GPU then I will.
Message 12 of 29
Anonymous
in reply to: juanmrodriguezrebollo

Forget Quadro: won't get support from MS any more and technical
advantages are gone without the MS support, so you are paying a high
premium price for the same performance as a much lower priced gamer's
chip. The "surplus stock" on the Quadro is due to the fact that nobody
with knowledge of the whole story is buying them. There are some super
expensive Quadro's but I don't know if they are any faster than the
highest end gamer's card.

Forget SLI and XFire: not supported by Autodesk at this time. (Some of
the GPU as processor functions may be useful later, but by then you may
have replaced your computer, so why pay now?)

As the current speed champ in GPU's is Nvidia, I would get an sli
capable motherboard, but only get the best GPU from Nvidia that I could
afford.

ThreeDeeUser wrote:
> Hi all, this is exactly what I too need to find out as currently speccing 2 new pc's for AutoCad 2010 and would appreciate your input / experience on this.
>
> Sorry in advance for all the questions but I prefer to look dumb but get the right stuff than wasting money on a lower performing system when used for what I want.
>
> I understand rendering performance isn't reliant upon the gpu so what can a better gpu give you?
> Would 2 gaming cards in sli / xfire offer any performance in displaying a 3d model?
> Is a "better" gpu just classed as bigger memory at higher speed?
> For large 3d files is there any real benefit or need for using say 2x FX3700's or 2x HD4870's?
>
> Currently looking at these to use in single or SLI / Xfire, what would you buy?:
> Quadro FX3700 (512Mb DDR3), new £220 each (price is correct - surplus stock).
> GTX285 (1024Mb DDR3), Cuda/PhysX new £240 each
> GTX275 (896Mb DDR3), Cuda/PhysX new £170 each
> ATI HD4890 (1Gb DDR5), new £140 each
> ATI HD4870 (1Gb DDR5), new £110 each
> not looked at any 4850X2, etc gpu's as meant to be very noisy.
>
> I want to do some CFD aswell so not sure if the NV gpu's would offer better performance for that application over non Cuda/PhysX ATI?
>
> I've looked at 3 gpu's in sli but not sure if I could benefit plus the extra noise, heat and huge power consumption is exactly what I don't want so if I can get away with just one GPU then I will.
Message 13 of 29
Anonymous
in reply to: juanmrodriguezrebollo

I agree - forget SLI/Crossfire. Worthless in Acad. There may be some
benefit in overall system performance, but Acad's driver won't know what to
do with more than one card.

If someone made an i7 processor based ATX motherboard with a *single* pci-e
x16 slot, I'd snap it up in second.
Message 14 of 29
Anonymous
in reply to: juanmrodriguezrebollo

Why not get a 2 slot motherboard in case software later can use an extra
card? You could always add it later. Remember that PCI-E isn't the same
as older AGP and PCI slot types. You can put an X1, X2 or X8 card in an
X16 slot and it will work. In fact you can, if clearances allow, put an
x16 card into a lower bandwidth slot and it will work, it will just be
limited to the slot's bandwidth. The first segment of the slot gets the
card working, and each additional contact area adds to the bandwidth.
Some companies are using slots with the rear of the slot open-ended so
that a card can protrude out the back. It looks weird, but it actually
works. I would guess that they do that instead of using an X16 slot in
the first place probably because they are not willing to pay licensing
fees for the SLI or Xfire firmware, assuming that there is a cost for
that. But if you need to connect 4 monitors, it would allow you to have
the extra monitors, but the 2 extras would perform at much lower speeds.
Great way to keep email etc open on screen while working.


Joel wrote:
> I agree - forget SLI/Crossfire. Worthless in Acad. There may be some
> benefit in overall system performance, but Acad's driver won't know what to
> do with more than one card.
>
> If someone made an i7 processor based ATX motherboard with a *single* pci-e
> x16 slot, I'd snap it up in second.
Message 15 of 29

Thats great information and advice, thank you.

So with a single GPU will you really see any benefit in performance using say a £400 GTX295 over a £200 GTX275?

I ask as i'm still not sure in what areas / applications a better GPU will make a difference in, would it be say being able to rotate a larger (more detailed) 3D model quicker?

I mainly draw motorsport components in 2d but will need to visualise car body panels to optimise a detailed design mainly for aerodynamics & styling.
I hope this will eventually become quicker & easier than doing clay models in full size, i'm reluctant to jump into 3D but feel its a necessity.
Message 16 of 29
Anonymous
in reply to: juanmrodriguezrebollo

I higher end GPU should theoretically give you better realtime graphics such
as 3d-orbit stuff. But how much better? I don't know.

No one's done a real comparison of all these incrementally better cards to
know what the real difference will be in something like AutoCAD. No one's
even done a comparison of the GeForce to the Quatros for that matter. What
we talk about here is more along the lines of experience.

Games? Sure. There are a ton of sites that compare all these slightly
different cards with their .5 second differences in framerates. But that
doesn't neccessarily translate the same way in AutoCAD. The graphics
pipeline is used differently.
Message 17 of 29
Anonymous
in reply to: juanmrodriguezrebollo

"Joel" wrote in message...
>No one's even done a comparison of the GeForce to the Quatros for that
>matter.

Make that "Quadros"

My spell check isn't working in OE.
Message 18 of 29
Anonymous
in reply to: juanmrodriguezrebollo

Has anyone tested even informally the difference between video cards for
large image files (200 MB JPEGs)? We bought a Geforce GTS 250 thinking that
it would be a massive step up from my old ATI FireGL 5100. Overall it is
faster, but not the 10x I was hoping for. (It went into a new machine with
faster everything plus 64 bit and more memory.) I know the Geforce GTS 250
is pretty much bottom of the line for the 200 series, but I would have
expected a new 1 GB DirectX video card to blow an old 128 M OpenGL card
right out of the water. The only place where the two computers are similar
is that they both pull from the same network drive.

Old Machine:
3.0 GHz P4
3 GB RAM
ATI FireGL V5100 with 128 MB
XP Pro 32 bit

New Machine:
3.0 GHz Core 2 Quad Q9650
4 GB RAM
Geforce GTS 250 with 1 GB
Vista Business 64 bit

Brad

"Joel" wrote in message
news:6213371@discussion.autodesk.com...
"Joel" wrote in message...
>No one's even done a comparison of the GeForce to the Quatros for that
>matter.

Make that "Quadros"

My spell check isn't working in OE.
Message 19 of 29

If you are talking about opening, editing, and saving a 200MB image, the video card is not the main factor here, but your CPU and RAM. Looking at your computer specs side by side, they won't be 10x different, 2x maybe. Adding 4GB more of RAM to the new box is recommended.
Message 20 of 29
Anonymous
in reply to: juanmrodriguezrebollo

It is slow just loading the file, zooming and panning in AutoCAD. The video
RAM is almost 10x. We can add more regular RAM if that will really help,
but it is the only area where we need the speed increase so I don't want to
add it if it won't make a substantial difference. The C2Q machine has two
2GB chips with two open slots, so we can go to 8 GB..

Brad
C3D 2010, LT 2010
Vista Business 64, XP Pro

wrote in message news:6213772@discussion.autodesk.com...
If you are talking about opening, editing, and saving a 200MB image, the
video card is not the main factor here, but your CPU and RAM. Looking at
your computer specs side by side, they won't be 10x different, 2x maybe.
Adding 4GB more of RAM to the new box is recommended.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report