View Full Version : Graphics Card Advice

07 July 2012, 09:32 AM
Im currently running 3ds Max x64 on windows 7 ultimate 64bit, Core 2 duo 2.66Ghz with 4gb Ram, DDR2800, XFX NVidia Geforce 8800gts 320bit 640mb.

Im currently on a large scene with about 8.4million faces, and can only view wireframe, if i try with shaded faces or anything more the viewport takes lots of minutes to update.

Im intending purchasing PNY VCQ600-PB Quadro 600 1GB 128-bit DDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 Low Profile Workstation Video Card

Has anyone used this card? will it improve my viewport performance much more over my geforce?


07 July 2012, 11:21 AM
for max? forget the quadro, get a modern geforce

07 July 2012, 12:40 PM
Ive read that Quadro entry levels will out perform a high end geforce on 3d apps

What card will give me better performance over my current setup between 300-350 US
and will be worth the upgrade? i only use max so performance should be specifically for max

07 July 2012, 02:30 PM
Ive read that Quadro entry levels will out perform a high end geforce on 3d apps...

In some 3D apps, but not Max. If you want a Quadro that performs better than a Geforce, shell out 2000$ and get a 5000. For 350$, look for a Geforce 570gtx with 2.5gb of ram. But you'll still be held back by your aging cpu and lack of system ram... ;)

07 July 2012, 05:18 PM
Okay, so GTX570 seems like a good way forward, i will look into it.

Would you recommend a AMD Phenom II X4 970 Black Edition Processor - 3.6GHz AM3, 2MB L2, 6MB L3, for my new setup, and how much ram would you recommend?

07 July 2012, 07:24 PM
Not familiar with AMD processors (maybe Olson will chip in)
What's you budget?
What type of work do you do in Max (rendering, animation, simulations, characters, archviz)?

07 July 2012, 07:39 PM
Not familiar with AMD processors (maybe Olson will chip in)
What's you budget?
What type of work do you do in Max (rendering, animation, simulations, characters, archviz)?

There are newer processors available from AMD like the FX-8150 (8 cores at 3.6 GHz and 4.2 GHz "turbo" with unlocked multiplier). In terms of bang for the buck they offer a tremendous value. Though Intel has higher performance offerings depending on the budget. If you're looking to build a machine for less than $1,000 I'd recommend looking at the FX-8150 processor.

07 July 2012, 01:20 PM
Phenom x6 1100T is the perfect choice. 8 core 8150's are meainglessly slower than the previous generation. When mmx technoogy was first introduced, there were Pentium 200's and Pentium 200MMX's. There was no difference between the two on softwares that don't use that technology, but there were TV decoder softwares that used MMX. The difference between the two machines were 25 fps decoding vs 1 fps decoding.

Just like that, AMD 8 cores is stated to have some new instructions. If those are implemented in any software, then it may be better than phenom x6 1100T. But I don't think Max will support such kind of special technologies. It's even not using multiple cores very efficiently.

So don't expect miracles. 3D Studio Max has serious shortcomings navigating large scenes.

I just bought two i7 3930 systems one with GTX670 4gb and one 680 2gb. (4gb 680's were not present when I bought) 32 gb ram 512 gb OCZ vertex SSD, on an Asus p9 x79 motherboard.

Previously I was using quadcore 9550 with 8 gb ram with a very low ATI 3xxx VGA card.
Let me share :

:cool: The rendering performance tripled naturally.

:argh: But viewport performance (or responsiveness is a better word) may be a bit frustrating.

Since Max doesn't efficiently use all cpu cores on viewport operations, I can't speak about any performance increment due to this cpu. (It may be even slower.)
Checkout this comparison for single core operation of all cpus :,2765.html

Selecting objects take long on large scenes. Just as I maximize a restored Max window I wait about 4-5 seconds.

This is all about the cpu. I can tell you that with the identical amounts of ram and same vga cards, AMD phenom may and would very probably behave even faster. But 6 cores +6 threads on 3930K renders faster than phenom.

Looking at this picture, Ram seems to be the most important portion of hardware selection. 32 ram handles even the most complex scenes without errors. When there is 8 Gb of ram, rendering may stop for no apparent reason esp. with Mental ray. (The reason beneath is probably ram.) Think of at least 16 Gb.

I was expecting more from the SSD drive. Benchmarks show good results, hours of file copy operations finish in minutes - that is nice, but during normal Windows use, again due to the need for cpu to finish what it has to do, it is not miraculously faster than the previous PC with ordinary SATA disk. Of course after setting up several programs SSD shows its difference.

It may be better to use SSD as cache, and add some raid arrays. Raid multiplies transfer speed by the amount of disks in array.

This SSD transfers 550mb/sec in practice, SATA disk transfers about 100 mb sec. 4 of this will make 400 mb which is close to many SSD brands. Furthermore 550mb/sec is for some specific packet size. The performance of SSD's is not worth the $600 in my opinion.

Don't even think of wasting your money on Quadro. 580 is a better choice for everything. GTX cards are even faster where only shortcoming is intentionally reduced amount of ram which kills the compute capability.

Buy GTX 6xx at your own risk. you may end up with a graphics card that doesn't offer any compute capabilities (though I don't personally think that'll be the case, Nvidia may as well block the use of gaming cards on iray or similar compute capable apps.) 6xx are more power efficient.

Feel free to ask anything on my current configuration, post test scenes if you like, to see performance differences.

Best regards.

CGTalk Moderation
07 July 2012, 01:20 PM
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.