Asus nvidia GTX 690 Graphics card advice

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

REPLY TO THREAD
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  01 January 2013
Asus nvidia GTX 690 Graphics card advice

Does anybody use the Asus Nvidia GTX 690 Graphics card with Maya? If so does it improve the performance of Maya? I have this card but am not sure if it is worth using as I am not a game player but a CGI animator and would like to know whether or not this will benefit me.

Thanks
 
  01 January 2013
well , if you use 3ds max that it based on directx you almost dont see the difference BUT if you use OPENGL application well its another level because in the OPENGL 3d world geforce its garbage in performance compared to the quadro soo if you want really good performance and you have the money and use opengl application like maya buy quadro
 
  01 January 2013
Hard to say if you don't post your current graphics card specs...
From the performance side the 690 should be good.


The quadro/geforce discussion is another thing, but I for myself decided to never ever buy a quadro again. I use Maya the whole day long with CAD data and other stuff. Currently on a Geforce GTX 660 Ti with no problems at all. Despite of some UI glitches I mentioned in another thread. But I think are not related to the graphics card, though.
 
  01 January 2013
well he ask if he sould buy geforce 690 when even quadro 2000 will kill in preformace the geforce 690 . and if he upgrade to geforce 690 he will not notice a big change but to quadro yes. and thats the reason that i said that

it all depand on the size of the scene that he work.
 
  01 January 2013
Quadro 2000 is crap, they're way overpriced for what you get, low amount of memory and a much slower speed.

I would think, that probably Maya can't take advantage of a GTX 690 because it is a dual-GPU card, 3ds Max definitely can't, at least for the viewport, it would only be able to use one GPU.
__________________
The Z-Axis
 
  01 January 2013
Thank you for this breaking Cg News topic.
 
  01 January 2013
Originally Posted by darthviper107: Quadro 2000 is crap, they're way overpriced for what you get, low amount of memory and a much slower speed.

I would think, that probably Maya can't take advantage of a GTX 690 because it is a dual-GPU card, 3ds Max definitely can't, at least for the viewport, it would only be able to use one GPU.


yes you right the only problem that the quadro 2000 have its memory but slower in maya ????

do you have quadro?? oo you look the benchmarks?? quadro 2000 in opengl is far far a way in preformance in maya check before you write wrong facts .

and yes its overprices you right but he said that we wont play games and quadro 690 its cost more than quadro 200 (you can check that) and yes you right its have low memory (just 1GB) .

the only thing that 690 faster then the quadro its directx application and games and cuda based application.

dont believe me . check it yourself.

AND WHY ITS IN THE NEWS TOPIC????
 
  01 January 2013
you'll get a lot of "general" opinions on this topic.. but in reality, their is a huge dependency on the application and Maya being one that benefits greatly from Quadro hardware and driver optimizations.
__________________
-- LinkedIn Profile --
-- Blog --
-- Portfolio --
 
  01 January 2013
Thumbs up related question..

hey guys I'm scanning over nvidia/card threads in last 7 or 8 months to get a sense of what card to get in my new rig :

Trying to decide between Geforce GTX 660 (w/2mg) or the low-end Quadro 2000 (can't afford hi-priced Quadro above that).

(going to start my own thread but you guys know alot more about this than me, so in case ur still checkin this/getting updates from this thread// i thought i'd put this question here also)

i used to work in 3d modeling & lighting [mostly assets for games but some medical illustrations & 2d art stuff, etc],
these days my processing // GPU needs are different:
i'm getting back into 3d but not in large-volume production,
just for my own art & experimenting w/ models for 3d-printing----so my poly counts/geometry
could get large but probly not "huge"-- nor any big worlds or
heavy-production-deadlines.

I used to use old version of 3dsMax, so i'll likley be getting into Max, modo, zBrush, possibly C4d (i liked using their 3d-paint tools in the past a bit),
and Ps for general paint-- but no serious video editing.
and no gaming--

So i'm going to have 2
PCI-E slots on new ASUS mobo & perhaps add 2nd card yr or 2 in future.
((I'm not going to have SLI-
had it on old system but doubt i ever took advantage of it--seems it's best 4 gaming & multiple-realtime-viewports from what i understand).


-On my budget, i've got an i5 w/ 8Gg sys ram on Win7 pro/64bit.


-[i just noticed CGTalk lists me as new member--i'm noob @hardware, yet i've been member of CGsociety for few years, just don't post much, i guess it tallies-up posts so as to rank as new, mid or senior member? oh well. i'm just a geek.]
....THANX for any advice // feedback.. mucho appreciated.

__________________
r0b M. =][=
robelicit.deviantart.com/gallery/

Last edited by r0b3030 : 01 January 2013 at 07:18 AM. Reason: ?
 
  05 May 2013
Need simple clean advice

Hey guys,

I need simple clean advice, everyone tells me different things. Basically, I want to get a second hand card.

GTX 690 $1,100 5GB
GTX Titan $1,250 6GB
(in my currency which is Singapore dollar SGD)

I use Maya2013 with Vray 2.3 and I want to use Vray RT for quick shader tweaking. I also need a good graphic card to handle the polycount in the viewport.

One of our other machines has a Quadro K5000. People tell me its all about the Ram and CUDA cores so essentially, Quadro is a waste of money. I should just get a GTX690 or even GTX680.

No intention to SLI anything btw even in the near future.

So which should I buy. Some reports keep comparing the Titan to the GTX 670 and say their on par but its cause of shitty drivers for the Titan for now.

I'd like to just pick one and go for it. Please chime in. Thanks.
 
  05 May 2013
just get a geforce x60-x80 model. gen 4, 5 or 6.. they are all crippled cards and they are slower than quadro's in all aspects(Ogl, Ocl and cuda etc.) except for games. but are decent enough. Quadros are way to expensive in my opinion, but they are faster at what they do! way faster!.

x90 series are dual GPU cards.. and they are not utilized by any of the 3D packages that exist today.

Beware that the generation 6 eg 680 cards are more crippled than gen 5 eg 580 cards when it comes to OpenCL.

Last but not least, if you just need fast viewport response and high compatibility, the 2nd gen(285) cards are wonderful cards and you can get them cheep, they are faster then any of the newer cards in OpenGL, especially in maya. (regular viewport/ not vp2.0 etc)
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by Kinematics: Hey guys,

I need simple clean advice, everyone tells me different things. Basically, I want to get a second hand card.

GTX 690 $1,100 5GB
GTX Titan $1,250 6GB
(in my currency which is Singapore dollar SGD)

I use Maya2013 with Vray 2.3 and I want to use Vray RT for quick shader tweaking. I also need a good graphic card to handle the polycount in the viewport.

One of our other machines has a Quadro K5000. People tell me its all about the Ram and CUDA cores so essentially, Quadro is a waste of money. I should just get a GTX690 or even GTX680.

No intention to SLI anything btw even in the near future.

So which should I buy. Some reports keep comparing the Titan to the GTX 670 and say their on par but its cause of shitty drivers for the Titan for now.

I'd like to just pick one and go for it. Please chime in. Thanks.

The 690, compared to the 680, is a waste of money to begin with, lets start with that.
The titan is not a PoS card, although one could argue it's not quite worth that amount of money, but it's a luxury product. That said, the titan doesn't suffer from some of the crippling issue the 6xx did with DP, but again, that seldom matters much for what you do.

Between a 690 and a titan, a titan, without a shadow of a doubt. Personally at this point, with the 7xx allegedly coming this quarter, I think you should really, REALLY consider waiting a few weeks, your titan might literally drop a third of the price overnight this month or the next.
__________________
Come, Join the Cult http://www.cultofrig.com - Rigging from First Principles
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by NoxLupi: just get a geforce x60-x80 model. gen 4, 5 or 6.. they are all crippled cards and they are slower than quadro's in all aspects(Ogl, Ocl and cuda etc.) except for games. but are decent enough. Quadros are way to expensive in my opinion, but they are faster at what they do! way faster!.

Sorry, but could please, please stop spreading these old myths?

Quadros are NOT way faster.
They really, really aren't. A titan will blaze by any quadro priced time to time and half in practically any regard, and the Kepler generation of quadros is late to the game, overpriced, and has generally been received as underwhelming.
__________________
Come, Join the Cult http://www.cultofrig.com - Rigging from First Principles
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by ThE_JacO: Sorry, but could please, please stop spreading these old myths?

Quadros are NOT way faster.
They really, really aren't. A titan will blaze by any quadro priced time to time and half in practically any regard, and the Kepler generation of quadros is late to the game, overpriced, and has generally been received as underwhelming.


I have worked with both cards.. and still do from time to time.. Yes, when people compare 580/680 with a lower end or old quadro they are underwhelmed. I ones did a comparison between a quadro 5000(work) and my GTX 285(home) and my current 570(home). The difference was like this: GTX 285 2.1 mill polys at about 15-16 simple shading
GTX 580 0.4 mill polys at 2-4 fps. Quadro 5000 40 mill polys at around 80 fps. I scaled the scene to match the capability of the cards, instead of just depend on fps alone. i don't remember the exact numbers but that was the general behavior. The Quadros are faster or rather the Gforce cards are slower, when handling double sided lighting and return pixels in openGL.

Edit: This was tested in the Maya viewport only! and not vp2.0.. Oh and no, I do not support the price of Quadros!

Here is a rather contrasty test, where they are comparing two cards side by side. a geforce 670 (a card on the heady side), and a Quadro 600 (A card in the very low end of Quadros) and the Quadro still eats the geforce in that particular task. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl4yNCgD3iA

Last edited by Pandusen : 05 May 2013 at 07:30 PM.
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by NoxLupi: I have worked with both cards.. and still do from time to time..

So have I, for years, including literally side to side with a monitor switcher hopping between the two workstations (IE: one with a 580 and one with a 4k).

Quote: Yes, when people compare 580/680 with a lower end or old quadro they are underwhelmed. I ones did a comparison between a quadro 5000(work) and my GTX 285(home) and my current 570(home). The difference was like this: GTX 285 2.1 mill polys at about 15-16 simple shading
GTX 580 0.4 mill polys at 2-4 fps. Quadro 5000 40 mill polys at around 80 fps. I scaled the scene to match the capability of the cards, instead of just depend on fps alone. i don't remember the exact numbers but that was the general behavior. The Quadros are faster or rather the Gforce cards are slower, when handling double sided lighting and return pixels in openGL.

See, that's one of the worst ways to test a videocard you could possibly think of, not to mention rather dated.
That's just not how the videocards or their drivers work, but anyway...

Quote: Here is a rather contrasty test, where they are comparing two cards side by side. a geforce 670 (a card on the heady side), and a Quadro 600 (A card in the very low end of Quadros) and the Quadro still eats the geforce in that particular task. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl4yNCgD3iA

You are aware of the fact the 6xx is DP crippled, and therefore can be made to artificially perform horribly in some tests, right? The 580 will absolutely BLAZE by a 690 in example if you toss them on a DP Fast Fourier Transform that's using DP.

The Titan doesn't have the crippling, which lets us hope the 7xx, based on the same silicon, won't either.

That's also why many people consider the 2xx and the 5xx the best gaming card gens for 3D.

Regardless, let me re-state, no, quadros aren't faster, they are exactly the same cards as the GTX, recently on lower clocks, with their on board id changed by a resistor (see resistor hack thread I posted where a 680 is turned into a k5000) to let drivers throttle features, and occasionally (depending on line up) some cores lasered out or in.

The Titan will smoke a k5000 in day to day use with Maya in my experience and that of others.

The generic statement "quadros are faster" is so fundamentally flawed when made as blanket statement it's annoying beyond belief to see it constantly repeated by people barging in and out when it's been disproven a ridiculous amount of times at this point.
__________________
Come, Join the Cult http://www.cultofrig.com - Rigging from First Principles
 
reply share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.