paneli Posted January 1, 2011 Author Share Posted January 1, 2011 (edited) I was talking about the viewport FPS, not render. What you must do in the test file I attached is just open it and hit Play on the timeline, to start the test. It will show you the current FPS in the left-top corner of the viewport. The whole animation is 500 Frames long. Please count time in seconds until it is complete, and math the fps. (on 8800GT@FX3700 it took 91 seconds. on FX1700 it took 48 seconds) Edited January 1, 2011 by Panibor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Remember that CPU speed is also a limiting factor. (RAM can be too.) Comparisons of two video cards like this only make sense if they're on similar systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 My home PC runs that city animation at 4.9 FPS (102 seconds). The CPU is limiting - it's an i5-760 at stock speed and Max was running one core at 100%. The video card is a Radeon 5750. No idea whether this can be SoftFireGL'ed. Interestingly, if I put it in DirectX 10 the performance falls way off. And it looks like it can't actually disable displaying all triangle edges. But DX10 has a lot to complain about, so maybe the next version uses DX11 and it works better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Gentlemen Happy New Year.....! Now I am thoroughly confused...... The city animation took 1.25.9 minutes and the FPS was showing about 4.2 FPS Question...... What does all these thing means? Equipment: I-7 965 12gb ram Marvel Raid 0 SATA 3 Quadro 4000 Al the devices have the latest drivers. The 3DS Max has the performance drivers by NVidia. On the laptop Intel 2.5 Quadro 1600 4gb Ram Regular 7200rpm SATA drive It took 1.51 minutes 3.6 FPS Regards Elliot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 It means that benchmarking is hard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 I think we are taking this thing too seriously....... The 2.5 year old laptop takes a little bit longer to play the animation and a little bit longer to render as compared to the desktop. I keep stretching the life of this old laptop, usually they last 18 months...... this one will go to perhaps 3.5 years..... Forget about rendering speed, the longevity of the laptop is the real record. This like our family pet..... now 4 years old and not as fast as she used to be...... We are just a little bit more patient with her..... She is an amazing pet....... Just like the computer, I remember when they were young and agile.... now I just have to be a Little bit patient and save a lot of money.....! Like 3D it is just matter of placing everything in perspective...... Can you imagine how wonderful the next computer is going to look after replacing these 2 year old desktops..... I wonder how often people like Bill Gates change their computers....... perhaps not that often because they spend all their time convincing us to change the computers...... Hi hi hi hi hi Happy New Year Elliot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superkames Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 A quick overclock , I can't understand why the Panibor's quadro FX1700 only finish that scene in just 48 secs (not long ago , a compare with Quadro FX1800/Intel I7 system/max 2011 ,my HD4850 defeated it) . My best score is about 51 secs/500 frames . TIME: 51 secs/500 frames Video CARD: Gigabyte HD4850@FireproV8700 CPU: AMD 1055T@4ghz SO: Win 7 Ultimate x64 MAX Version: 3ds max 2011 x64 System Driver: Catalyst 10.12 Max Driver: AMD performance plugins Screen Resolution: 1680*1050 RAM: 4GB(2*2gb) DDR2 @ 1144mhz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 There are a lot of variables going into the frame rate here, you should take all these results with a few grains of salt. The most important measure is, doing the animation or navigation you usually do in the sorts of models you usually work with in the display mode you usually prefer, does the display move smoothly enough for you? I bet all of us find all the machines we've run this on to be good for our real uses - they're all pretty powerful boxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) Gentlemen On these wonderful end of the year festivities I have really enjoyed reading your posting and opinions. If you go back to when we started..... for me it was Lightscapes. That is more or less when Jeff started the website. How wonderful it was to see the renderings that in some occasions took all night to evolve into a brilliant and primitive piece of art. I remember reading the forum and comparing notes with the experts we had here...... I remember a beautiful restaurant that Ernest showed to all of us. With a blend of elegant colors. Then we all did the Radiance program...... Then Autodesk abandon Lightscape and we were all mad...... At Discreet there was big battles about the new direction taken by the marketing group. Lightscape - Viz - 3D Max and now 3DS Max. Ten years have gone through, to conquer the monster we attended several classes in Montreal that were sponsored by Discreet and Pierre Felix Breton. One of the students was Mike Zagorski who took a sabbatical from his Architectural studies to visit the US and learn all these intriguing technologies. Then it was Ted Boarmand in Green Bay, Wisconsin who by that time, 1999 was encountering long rendering times. The secret to shorter rendering times was the management of Polygon Numbers. He wrote several books about these subjects. During these last 10-12 years we have seen some very creative and talented people go through our forum. The list is too long to enumerate. The eternal subject was time to render. Then the rendering farms...... rendering networks, and so on..... Ten years later we are struggling over 10 or 15 seconds...... In my mind..... we are just living in a fantastic time, our rendering times are just shorter and shorter. A minute more a minute less..... What a wonderful world....! I guess it is not about renderings, it is not about the viewer, it is about conquering the machine and squeezing more performance from the "BOX". I have enjoyed it..... keep it going, who knows what we will be trying in 6 or 8 months from now. Perhaps it would be more interesting if we see these wonderful rendering coming out of these fast machines.......!!! Happy New Year Elliot Edited January 2, 2011 by Elliot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superkames Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I found an interesting article , they compared some models of profesional card.....It seem the Quadro FX3800 isn't the choice .. Maxtreme driver was missed , i don't know why ? http://www.cgchannel.com/2010/12/review-amds-ati-firepro-professional-gpus-2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paneli Posted January 2, 2011 Author Share Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) Tested again. First time it did not come into mind to test full screen. (also my date was already waiting for me long enough and I didn't want to piss her off) This is the primary workstation. Now it is more accurate, I assume. TIME: 54 secs/500 frames Video CARD: PNY Quadro FX1700 CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 SO: Win XP Professional SP3 86x MAX Version: 3ds max 2009 86x System Driver: Quadro Driver 259.81 Max Driver: MAXtreme 13.00.01 - 21/09/2010 for 3Ds Max 2009 Screen Resolution: 1920x1080 RAM: 4GB (2*2gb) DDR2 @ 667mhz Previous time it ran for 48sec. I am an idiot. This is the secondary work station. TIME: 91 secs/500 frames Video CARD: Gigabyte 8800GT@FX3700 CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 SO: Win Vista SP2 Ultimate 64x MAX Version: 3ds max 2009 64x System Driver: Quadro Driver 182.08 (I was not able to patch a fresher release) Max Driver: MAXtreme 13.00.01 - 21/09/2010 for 3Ds Max 2009 Screen Resolution: 1680x1050 RAM: 4GB (2*2gb) DDR2 @ 800mhz This one was running full screen at the first time, so results are more accurate this time. Edited January 2, 2011 by Panibor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superkames Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) @Panibor: Read this thread , the problem is your OS : XP vs Vista ...., Win 7 is similar to Vista , a few month a go , I had a test with max 2009 with an old file and performance in XP is 3 times faster than Win 7 . http://area.autodesk.com/forum/autodesk-3ds-max/installation---hardware---os/geforce-vs-quadro-benchmarks-40actual-tests41/ //Swap your cards .. Edited January 2, 2011 by Superkames Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paneli Posted January 2, 2011 Author Share Posted January 2, 2011 FX5600? its supposed to be weaker than the Quadro 4000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 The FX 5600 is 3 generations old. It's slower than the 4000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) Hello This morning I took the 4870 (1gb) and put it on my old Dual Opteron 2.5mhz, Dual Boot Win 7 64 or Vista 64. Interesting results..... normal things like opening the explorer they seem to be faster on the Opteron with the 4870. Could this be true. Just normal thing like Excel or Words. Even Photoshop is the same as in the I-7 with Win 7 64. I seems like the 4870 is a little bit faster to respond. Could this be my imagination. I ran Ilya's test on the Opteron and it ran at about 3.9fps avg and it took a 1.50 minutes to play the whole sequence. This dual Opteron is almost 4 years old......! Is it because is a dual processor vs a single processor? I had almost discarded that machine. I have a new machine we can use for things like Photoshop, AutoCAD, 3D Max, Revit..... interesting.....! The differences among all these cards is too marginal. Now I wonder what is the latest re-incarnation of the 4870.... is it the 5870.... I saw it on the store for $600.00. Will this latest version of the 4870 could be faster on ordinary things. Faster than a Quadro 4000.....? Panibor tests and articles are very interesting....! They almost support my findings. Thanks Elliot Edited January 2, 2011 by Elliot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 A 5870 is a very good video card. Don't pay $600 for it - this 2GB version or this 1GB version are better deals. (But don't buy one unless you're short a video card. It's better than a 4870, but not so much better that I'd buy it if I already owned a 4870.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paneli Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 I confused. 600$ radeon performs better than a 900$ quadro? :S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Again, that depends on what you're doing with it. In many situations yes, but in some apps that use the Quadro's features fully, such as Solidworks, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paneli Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 Well I'm about to use 3Ds Max 2009 + Vray 1.5SP5 + Vray RT 1.5SP2 , AutoCAD 2009, Adobe Photoshop CS5, Adobe Illustrator CS5 under Windows 7 64x Does it means the Quadro will suit my purpose better than the Radeon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Okay, so I don't have the testing data on current models and your software to give you specifics, but in general, in Autocad in wireframe and shading modes, and in Max modes that don't make heavy use of edge lines, the Radeon will be as fast or faster, but in hidden line modes, and Max displays involving complicated wireframes and complicated displays of shaded faces plus edges, the Quadro will be faster. Quadros and FireGLs have driver advantages in Max edge line displays and in anything that requires a calculation of what lines are blocked from view by geometry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paneli Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 Okay, so I don't have the testing data on current models and your software to give you specifics, but in general, in Autocad in wireframe and shading modes, and in Max modes that don't make heavy use of edge lines, the Radeon will be as fast or faster, but in hidden line modes, and Max displays involving complicated wireframes and complicated displays of shaded faces plus edges, the Quadro will be faster. Quadros and FireGLs have driver advantages in Max edge line displays and in anything that requires a calculation of what lines are blocked from view by geometry. I just bought the Quadro 4000. This is my worst investment ever. Everything is installed. Lastest Nvidia Driver 267.05, latest 3Ds Max 2011 Performance drivers. Everything installed. No error messeages. The Quadro 4000 perfroms just a little bit better than my FX580. The diffirance is so tiny that if you blink you can't see it. I don't get it - why does it worth that much if its shit? :mad::mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dAdvent Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Hi to everyone. I don't want to sound silly but after reading all this thread and other threads on the same matter, I can't decide what to do. (I'm not very familiar with the terminology: direct x, open GL and stuff) I am about to purchase a video card for my new work station (Sandy bridge i5) and I was leaning towards Quadro 4000, which is very expensive and I wonder if it is worth the money. (As I understand many people in this thread have the same concern). After the last post of Panibor, I'm even more confused. Is it possible that I'm about to throw away my money? Mainly I want to be able to work with any Building model in Revit. Is it possible that a simple Radeon 5000 (or whatever) will do the work even if it's not certified by Autodesk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dAdvent Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 It seems that after reading this site http://www.3datstech.com/2011/03/april-workstations.html everything clears up. I think I will go for the Fire Pro V5800. The only thing I have to investigate is the part that says :" Depending on your needs, you could easily replace this with a high end consumer card such as a Geforce 570 or ATI's latest Radeon 6970 and expect excellent performance. Serious Cinema4D users, SolidWorks users and Maya users should opt for the FirePro, but it's not so important in Max, AutoCAD and Revit . What does "not so importand" mean? There will be things that I'll not be able to see? And are those consumer cards certified by Autodesk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dAdvent Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Whoa, that's not what I'm saying - CUDA and driving viewports in 3D apps are two different issues. A Quadro does have certain features that a Geforce does not that apply to the viewport performance in apps like Max, Revit, Solidworks etc. Though the GPU in a Quadro 6000 is an underclocked Geforce 470, the addition of these features to the firmware makes it run those apps better than a normal Geforce 470 would. CUDA is a programming language that's essentially C++ with some features stripped out that compiles to run on an nVidia GPU instead of a CPU. nVidia has lately been pushing it as God's gift to everything. For us, its primary usefulness is that render engines can be run on the GPU, which nVidia would like us to believe is the proper way to do it. They promote that concept by giving stats like comparisons of nVidia GPUs and Intel CPUs measured in flops, and the GPUs score more flops than the CPUs, ergo they must be faster. The problem with this is that those numbers are achieved by running all the "cores" of a GPU in parallel. (I don't like the use of the term "cores" because it implied parity between shader processors of a GPU and cores of a CPU. A GPU core is much, much less powerful than a CPU core.) For example, a Quadro 6000 or Tesla 2070 has 448 cores. nVidia uses terms like "super computer" to refer to these things. But due to limitations of GPU architecture and the software APIs that can run on it, these cores must run entirely independent threads, which means that the optimized sampling render algorithms we're used to can't be done efficiently unless somebody comes up with a real breakthrough algorithm. What does run is monte carlo algorithms, e.g. brute force unbiased (meaning unoptimized) sampling, e.g. something like Maxwell Render. Which is slow. Now, an unreformed Geforce 470 is an inefficient as hell chip so if you run one of these things on it, which maxes out the GPU for an extended period, it's liable to overheat. When nVidia made the same core into the Quadro and Tesla versions they underclocked it to save power and heat, and made a few alterations to the firmware to make it run less aggressively and cooler. Then, because running software on the GPU requires more GPU RAM than just holding textures for games, they threw some switches in the memory controller and increased the memory on the card. (This is all accomplished in firmware and memory layout - the GPU is the same.) So for the cost of a bit of firmware programming and some RAM they dramatically increased the value to CUDA users and therefore the marketable price. Then they launched iray, which is mental ray's (which nVidia owns now) CUDA renderer, did a terrible demo to make it look faster than regular mental ray, and undoubtedly increased Quadro and Tesla sales - but if you compare, $4000 worth of Quadro running iray accomplishes renders about as quickly as $400 worth of CPU running mental ray when used by a skilled user. Which is not to say that this is completely useless. Arion is more impressive than iray for presentation images, and Vray RT-GPU seems useful for doing previews. But I don't think there's currently any application of CUDA to Autocad or Solidworks, so only get a Quadro if you want it for running viewports. My hope is that programmers start coming up with better uses for GPU computing technology, and that the proprietary CUDA gets replaced in the market by the open OpenCL language, which is much more consumer friendly because it doesn't let nVidia corner the market. I am lost. Does Revit use cuda? Is Quadro 4000 better for Revit than Fire Pro V5800??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Revit doesn't use CUDA. So don't worry about that. Now OpenGL and Direct3D are two different, standardized systems for running the video card and displaying 3D on the monitor. (Direct3D is part of DirectX, and don't confuse OpenGL with OpenCL - GL is for running the display on screen, CL is for computing and is not widely adopted.) Traditionally, more 3d authoring programs used OpenGL (which is cross-platform) and more games used Direct3D (which is Windows only) but that line is getting blurred these days as some Autodesk programs (including Max, AutoCAD and Revit) now let you choose Direct3D. Traditionally, a pro grade card (Quadro or FirePro) is better at OpenGL and a consumer card is better at Direct3D, because of the markets being targeted. As for Revit, it's had the Direct3D option for a few versions now but you should check which version you have and whether it run Direct3D or OpenGL only. If it's an OpenGL only version, no question, you want an ATI (now part of AMD) product because of a bug in the combination of Revit's OpenGL display system and nVidia's OpenGL driver. For Direct3D versions, it doesn't matter very much which product line you choose. If in doubt, a midrange FirePro or higher level Radeon (6900 series for example) is probably the way to go for Revit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now