Is a Quadro k620 worth it?

[Anonymous]

I am building a few PC's for a new surveying company and want to keep things on a budget.

I am reading from multiple sources that AutoCAD now uses DirectX instead of OpenGL and it could be cheaper to buy a gaming card for the software that will be used. Is this assumption correct?

So far the hardware is:

Core i5-7500

16GB DDR4 

Samsung 850 Pro

Quadro k620

For the same price as the k620 I could get double the performance from Geforce or Radeon.

Also, would a faster SSD make any difference? I am looking at Corsair Force MP500 which has a 3000MB/sec read to replace the 850 for like 20$ more. Would AutoCAD benefit from this at all?

Sorry for my ignorance as I have never used CAD software before and don't know how hardware would affect it.

[rl_jackson]

I do survey and build my own PCs as well. You don't really need the experience of a Quadro. Use that to bump up the processor to an i7 and maybe bump ram too but 16gb is sufficient. I use a 850 pro in my system. I don't have any complaints with it. Honestly SSD just helps with the painful boot and loading process of C3D. It may assist somewhat in work but I don't see much difference that a regular HAD once C3D is loaded

[autoMick]

I also build my own machines and have tested quadro vs nvidia (gamer) cards in them.

As far as Civil3d goes, the cost of a quadro isn't justified. I use them because of other software requirements, not civil3d.

I would put the funds you save to:

• Processor. Go for the fastest single thread processing speed you can afford (look here to compare: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html).
• RAM - 16Gb or better
• SSD -  personally I couldn't live without them anymore, but not essential.
• Cloud backup.

Regards

- Mick

[Todd_Rogers]

Just to let you know, if you want good performance you MUST install an Autodesk Certified Graphics card. The Quadra K620 is on the list. You can check the list here. You might have to reload the page. For some reason it comes up with a 404 error sometimes.

[autoMick]

"Just to let you know, if you want good performance you MUST install an Autodesk Certified Graphics card."

@Todd_Rogers I don't argue that it is advisable (easier for trouble shooting and tech support mainly) but I have yet to see any data that supports the "must" statement. I have done my own testing by swapping out high end gamer cards with Quadro cards, with all the typical stuff I do in Civil3d (surfaces, point clouds, alignments, profiles, 3d models) and I can tell you that I was satisfied that there was no difference.

Where I did see a difference was in rendering (e.g. revit) and photoshop performance. I imagine that some autodesk software would also show actual performance benefit, but for civil3d - I'm skeptical.

I'm happy to be proved wrong - because I'm currently running Quadro cards in my computers and it would be nice to know that the price premium has some benefit with my favourite software.

Cheers

- Mick

[Todd_Rogers]

I have had several Fatal Errors on my machine at home which is running a GeForce 730. It runs Civil 3D fine, but there are some functions that I perform that cause fatal errors, a lot. For example, editing large surfaces with an average drawing size of only 10MB. 

[odoshi]

An older test, but it looks like the gamer cards are kickin' butt:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/workstation-graphics-2013/10-AutoCAD-2013-3D-Performance-Summary,...

Regards,

Mike

[autoMick]

When I did my comparisons I did Quadro K4000 vs GTX680, and Quadro K2200 vs GTX670. Generally the gamer cards were <50% of the price of the workstation equivalents, but performance spec were higher.

Performance statistics are one aspect, but stability, accuracy, power consumption, noise, etc. are others to consider. In the corporate environment IT support and troubleshooting also weigh heavily.

My 'testing' wasn't to replicate the actual performance specs which are well published, but to consider those other factors mentioned above as well as confirm that performance wasn't noticeably different. Opposite to @Todd_Rogers experience, I found that my systems were stable in either configuration - there are so many factors that can affect system stability, so it is hard to isolate just one factor such as a graphics card.

In terms of 'performance', the video card isn't going to be a big factor with Civil3d, hence my earlier post prioritising CPU specs, which will definitely have a big influence.

Cheers

- Mick

[Todd_Rogers]

You got a very valid point there @autoMick!

[dgorsman]

Most engineering programs (like AutoCAD, and therefore early Civil3D/LDD) were reliant on OpenGL for graphics.  At the time that was the only option.  Then along came that big surge in computer gaming and with it the standardization of DirectX.  Now most programs use DirectX for their graphics (hence why some users have had to resort to a hack to force the older DX9 version for new AutoCAD on older hardware).  So called "gaming" or "consumer" cards typically have limited support for OpenGL and are not tested as rigorously as the "workstation" or "professional" cards but they often have better overall performance per cost.

Its a good idea to keep an open mind though.  On a side note, NVidia is selling licenses for their Mental Ray rendering engine at a substantial discount for users with recent models of Quadro and Titan cards.  Even though the engine is primarily CPU (i.e. doesn't use the graphics card) when it detects those cards it will offload some of the work onto them.

[autoMick]

Yes it is definitely a case of knowing what you actually need for your application. For rendering you definitely need a professional card to access speed advantages, sometimes the total memory available and more importantly accuracy of the render (where gamer cards take some sizeable shortcuts to achieve the frame rates they need for games).

Cheers

- Mick