GTX-480 vs quadro 4000 2

[lclaracq]

Hi I'm building a solidworks workstation for large assembly and drawing with lots of view/detail/cut. Right now our main issue are instability, sluggish mate adding/editing and most assembly feature, very sluggish drawing as a whole.

I'm planning for a i5-660 overclocked as much as possible + either a gtx-480 or radeon 5870 or quadro 4000

I do not use realview nor photoview

In term of a hardware spec the quadro is much less powerfull than the GTX-480 and 5870 and it is 400$ more expensive.
So in my context do you think the quadro 4000 will perform 400$ better. (I don't really care about being supported by solidworks or better support from nvidia)

Thanks in advance

 

[AnnaWood]

If you spend an extra $400 on your system, spend it on a better processor. SW benefits from the best CPU, not a big video card. Your CPU choice is very weak for serious SW use.

Get an lower end certified ATI or Nvidia card instead of the mid to high end card. Spend you money on the CPU.

Get at least 6 gigs of RAM and Windows 7 x64.

FWIW,

Anna Wood
Core i7 EE965, FirePro V8700, 12 Gb RAM, OCZ Vertex 120 Gb SSD, Dell 3008WFP 30" Monitor
SW2010 SP2.1, Windows 7 x64

http://www.solidmuse.com

http://www.phxswug.com

 

[lclaracq]

Thanks a lot for the fast response.

Solidworks seems to only load one thread on my current system so I thought that a dual core would probably perform better than a quad at lower frequency. Am I wrong ?

So even if they are in theories less powerful you still recommend a certified card ? Because the next step down I have available is a quadro fx1800 which is getting old in my opinion. a GTX-480 or HD5870 would allow me to spend more on the CPU without sacrificing too much video capability

And yes I'll go with 8gb and windows 7 x64.
The reason I did not go for socket 1356 /x58 motherboard is I am replacing a laptop with a SFF box and there is no mini-itx x58 motherboard

Again thanks for sharing your time

 

[JMirisola]

If you go with an unapproved video card, it's not only realview, or photoview, that you may not be using. There's no guarantee that SolidWorks will even load up, much less work properly.

Jeff Mirisola, CSWP
Design Manager/Senior Designer
M9 Defense
My Blog

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

How large are your large assemblies? (Qty of parts and file size)

If you are concerned about an "old" FX1800, have you considered the Quadro 2000 or Quadro 600?

http://www.nvidia.com/page/quadrofx_family.html

 

[lclaracq]

@JMirisola

Based on what ? I'm using a HD5850 + core i7-860 @ 3.6ghz at home and it's running as well as the 6000$ monster they bought here. Also on

http://www.solidmuse.com

benchmark sheet there is quite a few gaming card on top of the chart

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pz7wTpIkC7LA28ybEyxyTPw

Actually the 4 first are gaming card

@CorBlimeyLimey
We have a couple hundred of sheet metal part often with complex mating + too much assembly feature (cut extrude/sketch/repetition) and 8-9 level of assembly

I can't find the quadro 4000 or 600 at a candian reseller (I use NCIX, Direct Canada and Newegg)

 

[EEnd]

I think you will find from looking at Anna's benchmark data that performance is not really correlated to the graphics card. It is driven mostly by CPU speed.

What is not captured by the benchmarks is system stability. Your listed instability first among your first main issues. The older FX1800 or even FX580 cards are not going to cost you any significant loss in performance, but they can provide you with a significant gain in stability.

Eric

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

It's the CPU, not the graphics card which makes a system fast.
While those first four are using gaming cards, 3 of the CPUs are well overclocked. Anna's benchmark tests the CPU not the graphics.

Using a non-approved card is a very hit or miss venture. A card that works flawlessly on one system, might be totally unstable on another.

 

[SnowCrash]

+1 on 'use an approved video card and OS.' It is about stability.
"reformatting even as we speak"

--
Hardie "Crashj" Johnson
SW 2010 SP 2.1
HP Pavillion Elite HPE

 

[lclaracq]

Thanks for the input, I do not have time to take the guess about the GPU so it will be quadro 4000 or fx1800 but I am really skeptical about how it can impact stability that much.

Plus saying that a small 3 year old 54watt card (fx1800) will not cost significant loss in performance vs a new monster 250Watt card (gtx-480)(for the same cost) is hard to swallow. Too bad I don't have time and budget to try them both

About the cpu in vista I always have only one core fully loaded by solidworks. So I felt that a higher clocked dual would be better but should I go with a i7-760 or i7-860 (quad)

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Although 3 years old, these charts show that general performance difference is not that great between low, medium and high end cards ... for the particular benchmark used.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...rts/SPECapc-Solidworks-2007-Graphics,124.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...PECapc-Solidworks-2007-Overall-Score,123.html

The Firmi range will of course be in a different bracket, but the low to high end within that bracket will probably have a similar difference.

 

[lclaracq]

Too bad they did not throw a gaming card in there

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

The fact they don't should speak volumes.

 

[AnnaWood]

lclaracq,

For drawings, which you do a lot of, SolidWorks will use each core to render a view. There are also other areas of SW that are multi-threaded.

For your large drawings alone a quad core will be a good performance boost over a dual core cpu.

Cheers,

Anna



Anna Wood
Core i7 EE965, FirePro V8700, 12 Gb RAM, OCZ Vertex 120 Gb SSD, Dell 3008WFP 30" Monitor
SW2011 PR1, Windows 7 x64

http://www.solidmuse.com

http://www.phxswug.com

 

[lclaracq]

@CorBlimeyLimey

Call me paranoid but it makes me feel like somebody does not want us to know that gaming will do a similar job for half the price. I think I'm going to test my own Radeon HD5850 against the Quadro 4000 in my build and see if there is a noticeable difference in everyday usage. We are a small company and 5x500$ saved is enough to get me a small raise .

@AnnaWood
Makes sense. Drawing is fairly painful right now so I guess i7-760 over-clocked it is gonna be

 

[JMirisola]

lclaracq,
I wouldn't call you paranoid. Foolish, perhaps, but not paranoid. You're not the first person to wonder about using a gaming card in lieu of a CAD card, and you won't be the last. However, it's been proven again and again that gaming cards do not behave like CAD cards.
Search here on eng-tips, or on the SolidWorks forums, or any other CAD forum, and you'll find your answers. There are those rare instances when someone has a gaming card that works fine...for them.
More often than not you'll find that most people experience a variety of problems. Choppy graphics, odd coloring, black screens, frozen screens, ect. There are those who can't even get SolidWorks to load. The biggest thing is that while the gaming card works to your satisfaction on your system, your cubicle mate's doesn't behave similarly. Even when you have the exact same systems.
I've been a SolidWorks user for 12 years, and even spent some time as an AE. Believe me when I say you'll end up regretting choosing a gaming card sooner rather than later.

</rant>

Jeff Mirisola, CSWP
Design Manager/Senior Designer
M9 Defense
My Blog

 

[KirbyWan]

While I think running a gaming card is o.k. if you are willing to accept some instability. If you cannot accept instability then I agree with the recommendation to go with a supported card. One of the keys is if you are using an unsupported card they may not help you if you have a problem. They can say you are using an unsupported card and that is the cause of whatever probelm you are having.

Also there are newer lower priced Quadro cards out there:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/fermi-quadro-autocad-autodesk-solidworks,11425.html

The Quadro 2000 for $599 and Quadro 600 for $199 although I haven't checked if these specific cards are supported I would guess they are or will be soon.

-Kirby

Kirby Wilkerson

Remember, first define the problem, then solve it.

 

[KirbyWan]

Doh, just noticed CBL's note saying the same thing. My bad.

-Kirby

Kirby Wilkerson

Remember, first define the problem, then solve it.

 

[beachcomber]

gaming will do a similar job

....but not necessarily the same or better job.

5x500$ saved is enough to get me a small raise

.... and if you continually have problems or can't get the job done, how much will you have saved then?

I've seen how so-called good gaming cards perform in CAD and eventually we persuaded our boss to get real CAD workstations. The result was that we could actually DO the job. You will not save money by cutting corners.
I am not using Solid Works, but the assembly I am working in in Solid Edge has over 100K parts (not all displayed for obvious reasons) and we have FX1800's. It copes pretty well and doesn't cost the earth.

bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.

Where would we be without sat-nav?

 

[pietje]

Gamecard? On my home-pc I modded my gamecard and luckily with success. Sadly it isnt possible anymore with the new models. However before that I also was muddling with gamecards and SW at work (1 seat only at that point in time). It took us a lot of time and some money before I had to conclude that it wasn't worth the bother any longer and went for a quadro instead. Since there are enough other anomalies going on in SW that can cause irritations, we are content that graphical issues is one thing less to worry about.

When you keep the gamecard-option open anyhow, be sure you test it thoroughly and do not conclude after a couple of hours working that things look al right. Anomalies can come up anywhere when doing tasks that you only occasionally perform. It might be just a glitch, but it might also be something much more annoying. And what about future versions of SW? It isn't unthinkable that in a new version your gamecard will start showing problems...