Quadro (best available) vs Other Graphics Cards

[WORKSTATIONresearch]

Why do so many recommend GTX graphics cards over Quadro?  Why do you feel Autodesk is wrong when they recommend Quadro?  My choice is nVidia as a brand, since I hope they will be around in the future for any support issues.  I’ve had bad experiences with card manufacturers disappearing or being acquired, such as 3Dlabs (acquired by Creative, then disbanded) and Diamond Multimedia (acquired by ATI, support suspended).

I’m in configuration mode for a new workstation, and must carefully select components so the hardware can handle large assemblies (up to 10,000 parts of varying complexity).

I need the latest thinking on this.  What I’ve seen so far (I’ve sorted discussions by date.) are dismissals of the value of using Quadro over other high end graphics cards, but no real specifics on what the problems are when using Quadro cards vs GTX, for example.  There have been statements that performance of Quadro is no better, or even worse than alternatives.  Please explain how Autodesk’s graphics card recommendations fail to include the alternatives, which would support the claims of users.  Is it because it is too expensive to research alternatives, or because that is all they use when certifying it to be used with the software?  I probably should find any comments by Autodesk that specifically state why NOT to use anything but Quadro.  nVidia does have some attractive claims concerning their CUDA technology that seem to indicate it would enhance performance when running Inventor.

I will be running:

Autodesk Product Design Suite 2012

Graphics Card: TBD

Intel Core i7-990X

SSD: OCZ Technology Revo Drive 3 Series 240GB PCI Express

SATA Drive-1 Tbyte: TBD

Motherboard: TBD

Case: TBD

Memory: TBD

OS: MS Windows 7, 64-bit

Pwr Sply: TBD

[bjlogsdon]

The link proved to be very informative.  Apparently the gaming cards perform better than Quadros for Inventor, but the Quadros seem to out-class them for most of the other graphical softwares. 

With respect to the comment made from WORKSTATIONresearch, I totally agree that just getting an new and improved computer would be more advantageous that trying to upgrade and old one with new components.  However, it really is true though that trying to get management to understand the differences in expenses is hard.  I've only been given enough budget to improve components.  Is it really that risky to just upgrade the graphics card and increase the memory?  More importantly, with the other components (like the CPU) that I've listed, would an upgraded memory and graphics card make a difference in speeding up the performance of inventor?

[WORKSTATIONresearch]

In regard to your questions about upgrades, I could be more helpful except for the disarray of Autodesk’s message boards.  For example there doesn’t seem to be chronological order to the posts, or a way I can find to sort it that way.  Your post of 11-15-2013 is followed by one of 7-25-2011. (???)  There also is NO perceivable subordination of the posts.

Now to your question: “…Is it really that risky to just upgrade the graphics card and increase the memory?  …”

Yes.  Component upgrades are VERY risky when dealing with management dummies.  They’ll think that because they’ve paid for the upgrades you’ve suggested (under duress) that the throughput should be dramatically better, without explanation.  If, for example, they haven’t provided the funds to upgrade the OS from XP to Windows 8 (or 8.1) you will be held to system memory under 4 GB.  Current hardware and Autodesk Inventor recommendations consider 4X that amount of memory as a requirement to run Inventor on large files.  But memory cost has dropped dramatically since the introduction of XP.

Your project is going to drive your hardware and software requirements.  If you have large assembly files you will be painted into a corner where it will be impossible to complete design tasks in a reasonable amount of time.  Many times I’ve been faced with issues that pleading with management for the relatively minor costs of upgrades have been declined.  In that instance you become the sacrificial lamb when throughput doesn’t match expectations in management’s CYA scenarios or others outside the scope of technicalities into those dealing with preference issues.  Management decisions from that point forward are going to be unreasonable and only meant to point at you for any failures.  This is not management, per se.  It is a brand of corporate politics that has become all too common that you need to guards yourself against, if possible.  Unfortunately in today’s economy it becomes easier said than done.

My Autodesk dealer provided me with a DVD of an online demo of a large assembly file that was the subject of a webinar.  If you have access to something like this through your Autodesk dealer you should request this to present to your management to give them an idea of what issues you might be faced with, should they decline to provide you with upgrades (hardware, software & OS) that will fit the tasks you’ve been presented with.  The one I received from the dealer stated hardware, software and OS requirements for that particular large multi-assembly project and could save you from management’s failures to take your suggestions if you choose to defend yourself later from unethical self-serving criticism.

[WORKSTATIONresearch]

In regard to your questions about upgrades, I could be more helpful except for the disarray of Autodesk’s message boards.  For example there doesn’t seem to be chronological order to the posts, or a way I can find to sort it that way.  Your post of 11-15-2013 is followed by one of 7-25-2011. (???)  There also is NO perceivable subordination of the posts.

Now to your question: “…Is it really that risky to just upgrade the graphics card and increase the memory?  …”

Yes.  Component upgrades are VERY risky when dealing with management dummies.  They’ll think that because they’ve paid for the upgrades you’ve suggested (under duress) that the throughput should be dramatically better, without explanation.  If, for example, they haven’t provided the funds to upgrade the OS from XP to Windows 8 (or 8.1) you will be held to system memory under 4 GB.  Current hardware and Autodesk Inventor recommendations consider 4X that amount of memory as a requirement to run Inventor on large files.  But memory cost has dropped dramatically since the introduction of XP.

Your project is going to drive your hardware and software requirements.  If you have large assembly files you will be painted into a corner where it will be impossible to complete design tasks in a reasonable amount of time.  Many times I’ve been faced with issues that pleading with management for the relatively minor costs of upgrades have been declined.  In that instance you become the sacrificial lamb when throughput doesn’t match expectations in management’s CYA scenarios or others outside the scope of technicalities into those dealing with preference issues.  Management decisions from that point forward are going to be unreasonable and only meant to point at you for any failures.  This is not management, per se.  It is a brand of corporate politics that has become all too common that you need to guards yourself against, if possible.  Unfortunately in today’s economy it becomes easier said than done.

My Autodesk dealer provided me with a DVD of an online demo of a large assembly file that was the subject of a webinar.  If you have access to something like this through your Autodesk dealer you should request this to present to your management to give them an idea of what issues you might be faced with, should they decline to provide you with upgrades (hardware, software & OS) that will fit the tasks you’ve been presented with.  The one I received from the dealer stated hardware, software and OS requirements for that particular large multi-assembly project and could save you from management’s failures to take your suggestions if you choose to defend yourself later from unethical self-serving criticism.

[bjlogsdon]

Thanks, you really hit the nail right on the head. I had already done some
research on the effects of the OS on Inventor's performance and discovered
that my 32-bit OS and processor would have have made any upgrade in memory
or graphics card totally moot. Due to the unanimous feedback that I've
received, that getting any upgraded computer is far more cost efficient
than trying to retro-fit new components, I agree that the best course of
action that should be followed is finding a way to explain to the powers
that be that risks of the later far outweigh the possible gains. Thanks
again for the insight and I'll see about getting access to a Demo as you
described for help in conveying these points.