View Full Version : Can I use this Geforce graphics card for 3d applications like maya, zbrush, 3ds max?

11 November 2012, 05:39 PM
I bought a new pc and i am using the x79 sabertooth motherboard...everything is set except i am trying to get a graphics card that will work with maya, zbrush, 3ds max..etc..

11 November 2012, 06:28 PM
Yes, this card will work with those programs.

This thread has more info on the subject.

Are you buying it for the Assassins Creed? ;)

11 November 2012, 06:51 PM
Well it comes with the game..but i was more concerned about using it for 3d appz....thanx for the reply i appreciate it very much..

12 December 2012, 01:41 PM
Work yes- Neutered yes. If you're not a gamer then these days are leaning towards pro cards=
driver issues

12 December 2012, 12:17 AM
I want to buy a computer piece by piece ,will be use for maya animation ,rendering ,effects.
I will starting with video card choose . My options are Geforce GTX670 or Quadro 2000 !
Can you tell me wich of this are better for my purpose and why ?

12 December 2012, 04:50 PM
I say pro line= consumers have always caused problems for me since moving into more complicated scenes with lights, animation scrubs and some simulations.

01 January 2013, 09:29 AM
i'm also trying to config a new rig now w/ similar question :
GTX 660 (or 70) or the Quadro2000 ?

Hope my similar question on GTX vs Quadro will be close enough to ur own topic, *apologies if encroaching.*

(( I've found a few current threads on the same GTX vs. affordable Quadro,
seems some of us are in the same "mid-range who can't afford the Quadro 4000 or higher." )

--I'll start my own thread but i'm checking other threads too.

I'll differ a bit on hardware but similarly using new system for low-volume 3d & various Ps paint work--
i won't have large animations/heavy render pipeline :

Will be experimenting on some output for 3d-printing a bit also.

My poly counts & geometry could get large but not "huge"--
& not any big worlds or heavy-production-deadlines.

-Asus mobo Z77 Pro V,
- i5 3570k
- 8gb sys ram
- W7 pro/64bit.

- Using Max, modo, zBrush, possibly C4d.
- Ps for most paint (i liked using C4d's 3d-paint in the past so still use it for some paint).
-No heavy video editing--and- no gaming.

I'm 3d & 2d artist who used to work in games/video for models/asset production--
Yet-- Don't know much *at all* re: hardware or algorithms/math,

So having hard time sifting thru info on the ways
current video cards & GPU cores/mem are now offering so many workflow options for vertex data, polys, mapping & rendering algorithms.

They're way beyond my knowledge--these advanced video cards & GPUs blow away any hardware i used when i was doing my work in the past.

..THANX for any advice.. mucho appreciated.

01 January 2013, 01:41 PM
as far as 3d is concerned the GeForce should be good- those quadro cards are simply too low end to compare.

In PS (personally) I have noticed that it seems to work better with my Quadro but can't say why- is it the fact that it has more Vram (3GB vs 1GB)? is it drivers? is it somethings else? Also my laptop (with quadro and 2GB RAM) doesn't even have that much RAM yet which effects PS but still works more fluidly than my desktop with 12GB.

MAYA- the cards are comparable until I have a ton of lights, run simulations (nCloth) or get large poly counts (3m+).

01 January 2013, 05:45 PM
thanx CK, yeah i've read quite a few posts [searched all thru last years thread on this "GTX vs. Quadro decision" where guys like me, who don't have enough experience w/ hardware,

are seeing things like the Nvidia GTX 660, 70 & 80 prices so similar to Quadro2000--

and it seems that Quadro--from what folks are saying here & other forums/friends -- is better for 2d & paint & perhaps video editing.

and the GTX's better for 3d, but raises 2 issues :

1) Rendering & mapping gets a little grey--between both realms (or maybe not, i don't know anything about cards & GPU vs. CPU i admit),

2) then the complication re: artists using multiple 3d apps so it's hard to say "ok this card is working gr8 w/ the app i'm using
(probly not so bad for big-houses locked-in by boss/supervisor/production-pipeline) but harsh on us smaller fish..

Example that gets more mixture of 3d + 2d: want to use different 3d
i recall using C4d & liking it's combined 3d-paint that allows a 2d (maybe simulated but seemed like somehow mapped-right onto the 3d model--right there in same 3d interface u were modeling-in just a few seconds b4)
so this seems to add to "which card / GPU is optimized for what useage" & i'm *more* confused.

HHmm, i guess it's better than bak in the day, when old-Geezers like me only had a tiiiiiiny ram (on the wholee mobo, heck almost zilch on the video card itself ).

But money is huge issue : i get the feeling that alotta of guys here on CGTalk/Society have mentioned in the last year :
Nvidia might be cutting back/nullifying various features/power, so as to keep those Quadro 5000s (and more hi-end gear) selling as much as they can &
it's like they want us as their hamsters- buying..buying...all around..

----OK, i'll finally go post this as my own thread since i really MUST decide on the hardware this week/weekend if possible.

01 January 2013, 12:27 PM
Lets simplify it down a bit, when you buy a gfx card youre buying 3 things:

1) GPU - How fast it is and what new features it supports
2) RAM - How complicated things can get before it slows down
3) Drivers - How stable and compatible with your software the card is

So just to get one thing out of the way, for 2D software, none of the above makes any significant difference. Any cheap run of the mill gfx card can handle photoshop, illustrator etc, 2D is very easy to do. So no, Quadros arent for 2D work; whoever said that is a buffoon.

Next, check that your applications even use the gfx card. Some apps dont care what you have, they dont use any of its GPU processing power and only use a small fraction of its RAM, because theyre not storing the 3D geometry on the card, they only use the card for showing you the final result. Zbrush was a good example, it was all calculated on the CPU and main system memory. Bodypaint is the same, its all handled on the CPU.

Next check if your apps are written in a way that they dont really care what card is used. For example lightwave, ciname 4d and mayas new viewport display are made to run on virtually any gfx card. Speed-wise and compatibility-wise all they want is a good GPU and a sensible amount of RAM, this means you can use cheaper consumer cards, making the 4-figure quadros a waste of money.

The only time you should spend money on high end quadros and fireGL cards is when the software has been specifically written to run on those cards. Maya and 3ds max are the prime examples... but; They will still run perfectly fine on any most consumer cards. Just because the official support from the company says you should use quadros, you dont have to.

01 January 2013, 12:37 PM
Whatevr Quadro card you choose, you won't see a much better performance in 3ds Max so save your money.

01 January 2013, 10:38 PM
The Quadro cards aren't worth getting unless you can get the most expensive ones, they are immensely overpriced for what they offer. Like comparing a gaming GPU to Quadro 2000 the gaming card will be much better for the same cost, even compare like a GTX 680 to a Quadro 4000, the 680 will have more memory and perform better but be cheaper. I would think something like Quadro 6000 compared to 680 you'll see a difference, that would be in situations like using 3ds Max with many objects or complex animations.

Doing GPU rendering like iRay or VrayRT the gaming cards are much much much faster than the Quadro.

01 January 2013, 02:28 AM
now that Adobe is improving their Mercury Graphics Engine, I think we will begin to see more and more performance increases even in 2D apps like Photoshop. They're already improving filtering tasks like blur, etc... and making significant improvements in other packages like Premier for GPU acceleration.

01 January 2013, 11:52 AM
Man yall nailed it. Thanks for solid insight & feedback. Playing catchup the last month on
hardware learning curve + cost issues = a double headache.

Something that *did* stand out enough to concern me was the way
much of the hi-praise for Quadro's tended to be the uber-expensive boards--
not alot of 2000s or 4000s in those forums/comments, almost like money was easier to spend than u'd expect, given current economic realities.

A bit like "wowing clients" that reminded me of production houses who showoff extravagant seating & interior design of editing suites yet much less emphasis on actual reels, or returning-clients-list.

--imashination -- i feel like hitting a few of those guys in their booming-budget-mentality" by showing them ur quote:
>>", Quadros arent for 2D work; whoever said that is a buffoon."<<

hah--seemed as if some of the forums & sites were praising expensive Quadros so much u'd wonder if
they printed their comments// thread so as to give to their accounts manager--so he could showoff hardware to clients, etc etc.

Glad to see the emphasis here on longer-term functionality.
Ur feedback's helping me focus on finding best GTX 6xx
card I can afford;

If upgrading in 12 to 16 months or so, will i have to mirror the card such that this card in 1st slot requires same in 2nd slot--
whether i go for SLI or not ?

Most info i've read suggests matching specifically or risking bottlenecks or other conflicts..

Reminds me of RAID configs that cause the larger of 2 drives to have wasted space that "drops-down" ( don't know the proper hardware term for it) on it's usable sectors-- to the size of the smaller drive.

If there's similar need to match GPU /video cards, i'll have that as part of my perspective in the build.
--thanx again for gr8 feedback.

01 January 2013, 04:53 PM
Just to be totally clear, the only reason youd pick a quadro for 2D work is if its acting as a live feed directly for commercial broadcast TV. You could use the SDI output for this, but then its an easy $10,000 for a quadro and daughterboard.

01 January 2013, 02:25 AM
here's one of the more thorough reviews i've read in a while that examines multiple nvidia products:

yes, its' geared towards Premier.. but, the facts regarding the importance of Memory Interface, Type, and Cores is what really is key.

A bit of this though gets thrown out the window when talking about 3D apps, OpenCL, OpenGL, and GPU rendering.

01 January 2013, 06:55 AM
- Mathew, thanx for clarifying / example of hi-end Quadro re: broadcast & video throughput.
Yeah i think that's what someone had in mind when they told me to try Quadro's for 2d work, it's good to finally get more of a sense of how Quadros fit into the pipeline even if over my budget.

- Troy, i read alot of the breakdown & explanation @ ur link, even tho it's geared toward video editing & primarily Premiere, it was gr8 to see how **thorough** those guys were in their tests + results.

..could be a good resource in future for that nice, free software-routine they wrote if indeed it would for Ps optimization & related card-optimization tweaks.

I wish they'd have been 3d guys so that all those Nvidia-results & chart-breakdowns would show vector, poly & related data--but was still def worth the time to read.

Going to keep 'em bookmarked in case i want to send'em an email if my 2d work ever crosses-over into their area:
i use Premier *rarely* --yet it's possible i'll use it again for personal folio/ editing scenarios.

CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2013, 06:55 AM
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.