Better CPU or better graphics card? ADVICE NEEDED!

[lukasdesign]

forget the dual graphic card setup, no 3d app uses more than one card.

the cpu's are both great.
slight differece will be in render times.
save the money for a one good graphic card.
I would buy the Dell Precision 6300 with quadro fx 1600 or fx 3600 if you can afford.
That's a mobile workstation with non reflecting screen and Maya Max etc qualified OpenGL graphic card

[gonehunting]

The M1730 doesn't come with the option of a single graphics card so those are my only 2 options. I suppose I could spend a little more for the M6300 but the processor would have to drop again to compromise money wise.

Is it correct to say that the graphics card mainly affects modelling/animating whereas the processor mainly affects rendering? If so, isn't it better to allocate more money to the graphics card than the processor since laggy modelling/animating is more irritating than laggy rendering (you can just leave it rendering overnight?).

[Srek]

Editor speed depends on both CPU and GPU. It's not an either/or situation.

Cheers
Björn

[lukasdesign]

I don't think that the m6300 with the Quadro 1600 is more expensive than your actual offer,
however: with a gaming card you have to expect driver issues, especially in Maya.
if you are lucky they will not bother you too much, if not working can become really annoying. browse the forum here, the 8*** series is a mess with Maya.
The second graphic card at this point is a waste of money, if you don't plan to play games. Maybe you should change vendor? HP also offers mobile workstation with Quadro cards.

If I would invest a huge amount of money, I would make sure that the things will work with my software of choice. I rather sacrifice a bit of processor power.
I also wouldn't buy a glossy screen as the reflections are annoying to me. Unfortunatly almost all Multimedia Notebooks (also XPS) are equiped with those panels.

hope this helps!

[gonehunting]

the 8*** series is a mess with Maya.


From what I could find, most complaints about the 8800GTX with 3d apps were from last year. Have the current drivers fixed these problems or is it still better to stay away from this graphics card?

Thanks!

[davijin]

most of the stuff is fixed. all you basically have to do is turn 2 settings off in the gpu settings and its good to go. thats all I had to do with my 8800gt. like everybody else said SLI wont help with anything other than some games, it really sucks they dont offer a single card solution. I dont have a problem with the "non qualified" cards for cgi but the workstation cards like quadro and firegl are a bit more stable as far as glitches in some cases.

[biliousfrog]

As has already been mentioned SLI won't help you so you're basically paying extra for a graphics card that you're not going to use...If you'd rather pay extra for something that you'll not be able to use, fine but I think that everyone here so far would rather go for something more suited to the task at hand.

Also, nobody picked up on the 64bit OS comment. Laptop's don't come with a 64bit OS for a very simple reason - RAM. It is likely that you'll be restricted to 4GB RAM. The only major benefit of a 64bit OS is the use of RAM beyond 4GB so there's not really any point is upgrading the OS beyond 32bit.

[gonehunting]

As has already been mentioned SLI won't help you so you're basically paying extra for a graphics card that you're not going to use...If you'd rather pay extra for something that you'll not be able to use, fine but I think that everyone here so far would rather go for something more suited to the task at hand.


I know the 2nd card is useless but I get a big discount off dell through work which makes dell's dual 8800GTX even cheaper than brands offering a single 8800GTX card.

Also, nobody picked up on the 64bit OS comment. Laptop's don't come with a 64bit OS for a very simple reason - RAM. It is likely that you'll be restricted to 4GB RAM. The only major benefit of a 64bit OS is the use of RAM beyond 4GB so there's not really any point is upgrading the OS beyond 32bit.

I was under the impression that with a 32 bit OS I'd only be making use of about 3 of the 4 GB of RAM that I'm paying for. Shouldn't I upgrade to 64 bit so I can use all 4GB?

[davijin]

youre correct on that. 32bit has theoretical max of 4gb but the OS will usually show 3.5 or 3 gb ram. where a 64bit os can use all 4gb. also its more efficient in using ram and program stabilitly is better. There are incompatibilities with some older hardware and more obscure hardware and also some software. if you decide to go with 64bit make sure you got stuff like printer drivers, scanners etc. and also if the software you are using works well on it. for the most part this isnt a problem but its good to check and make sure the stuff you have will work.

[RobotClayton]

If you get a deal with dell I'd get a m6300.

The base config. starts at about $1800 and comes with a quadro FX 1600m.

It's worth a look.

[gonehunting]

Looks like I'll be getting the HP 8710w now because I can get an even better deal on that. It only has a maximum hard disk size of 200GB (7200 rpm) though...is that going to be an issue especially with rendering? Would a 7200rpm external hard drive solve this problem or would it be comparitively slower running files off it/saving files to it/rendering directly to it?

Thanks!

[lots]

I havn't found that hard drive speed makes much of a diff in rendering, especially in a single render node kind of environment. Now, if you were talking about a big file server for a large render farm... that would be different.

About the RAM comment: 32Bit windows will use all 4GB, however the most that will be set aside for the user is around 3GB (depending on 3GB switch or not). 32bit Windows by default will automatically consume 2GB of 4, for the OS and other hardware functionality (video card DMA access and such) The amount of this 2GB that is used depends on how much your hardware takes up, and how much space the kernel needs. The other 2GB is dedicated to user space.

The 3GB switch causes windows to only allocate 1GB for hardware and kernel, and 3GB for user space. In some situations this can cause problems, but if software is designed well, you shouldn't run into many.

Why does hardware need "ram space?" Well technically its not filling any of that RAM. What is really going on is that RAM and hardware share the same address range (like addresses on a street). So if you have a video card, it will have a specific range. Thus, your system cannot assign the address range your video card takes up to RAM, and that chunk of RAM will not be used. A 64bit system has this same limitation, however instead of 2^32 addresses, it has 2^64. That is quite a bit more, thus you can have more ram and more devices..

[Trafalgar]

I would go for better graphic card. Both CPU specs are just slightly different.

[RenderTITAN]

Because it is a laptop, I would go with the better graphics cards, mostly because I remember when laptops didn't do much when it came to 3D compared to desktops. Now laptops are a viable option. (I would never replace a desktop with laptop as a main computer, but for a variety of reasons other than just performance, like ergonomics but that is another story.) Of course, for general use, the faster CPU would be better. So if you main concern is 3D, then go VC, otherwise, go CPU heavy.
M

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.