GPU's... Just how much difference DO they make?

[Chris MacDonald]

Hey guys, I've just been pondering this having never had the opportunity to compare GPU's. Currently my system is essentially a glorified gaming machine, not a dedicated workstation (i.e. not a xeon processor, not running a quadro, etc) - but it is pretty powerful all the same.

 

I'm wondering how much of a difference I'm likely to see were I to upgrade the graphics card from my current one (NVidia GeForce GTX 285, 2GB) to a more powerful Quadro? I rarely use GPU for rendering purposes (though it would be nice to have the option for quick renders & to show directors what is going on, etc) - so presumably the only performance increase i'm likely to see is FPS in the viewport?

 

I realise I'm waffling on a bit, but i'm wondering if I can justify the upgrade to 'the powers that be', if you know what I mean?

[Scott Schroeder]

If you rarely use the GPU to render, either iRay or VrayRT, then you won't see any improvement over your render times. Depending on the size of your average models, you may not even see much viewport improvement. If your viewport is fine now, then the new card won't add much. If it is struggling now, then you would see an improvement.

 

However, I think you could lean on the idea that if you had a stronger GPU you could to the real time shading and get images out much faster for review rather than waiting for it to fully render. It will also improve your workflow when you are lighting if you can see your updates accurately and in real time.

 

Just really do the used car salesman pitch on the pipeline and workflow improvements and I think you should be able to sell them on it.

[matthewspencer]

Honestly I say forget the workstation GPUs and go for a higher-end gaming GPU, if anything at all. The cost/benefit ratio for a workstation GPU is just so unjustified unless you've really got the cash to sling around.

 

When I'm editing high-poly scenes at work on my Quadro 6000, and then I open the same scene at home on my GTX 670, and it performs no differently, I start to feel rather silly about the 6000.

 

Definitely echo Scott's suggestion that you should only get a new GPU if you're actively noticing poor viewport performance.

[Dimitris Tolios]

Going to a faster, newer Quadro, you will get performance boosts in some areas mainly because you have an older card: a Quadro 4000 or better Fermi* being 2 generations ahead from your 2xx GTX will ofc have major advantages - even as a gaming card - or in your case a GPU renderer.

 

Quadro open their wings in viewport acceleration, with wireframe/hidden line/edged etc display modes. For most shaded views with no edges displayed GTX cards work fine -especially with newer versions and Nitrous viewports - so it depends on the kind of work you are doing. It also depends on how many viewports you have open at the same time - a maximized view is usually faster than having 3-4 of them open.

 

If you want it for real time renderings, I would opt for a fast 5xx/6xx GTX, with the potential of adding a second or even a third (after you make sure VRay RT or iRay or w/e you work with actually fits in your workflow - or the workflow can easily bend around it). Make sure you have a decent PSU before you start adding more cards ofc.

 

 

 

*there is only one pretty expensive Kepler Quadro now, the K5000

[paneli]

The difference between Quadro 4000 and (for example) Quadro FX580 in viewports is minor.

But this is relevant for 3Ds Max 2011. In 3Ds Max 2013 the performance double drops on both GPUs.

 

I still wander how a gaming gpu performs compared to a Quadro on 3ds max 2013.

[davetyner]

It has been my very real world experience that there is almost 0 performance difference between my Quadro 5000 at work and my GeForce 580 at home. That said, I only render with my GPU maybe 10% of the time and almost never for production. If you want to get serious about GPU rendering, spend your hard earned coin on one of the Tesla cards ($1200 - $5000) and buy a moderately good ($300+-) vc for your gaming. It should be noted that the Geforce 690 has over 3000 cuda cores and sounds like an excellent hardware for GPU rendering. Of course, you could consult the master, Jeff Patton. He has posted a great article on this topic on his website. http://jeffpatton.net/2010/11/gtxquadrotesla-my-opinion-on-todays-gpu-selections-for-rendering/

 

It has always upset me that Quadro hardware is the same exact hardware as GeForce but cost 5x as much. I also asked an Nvidia rep at AU 2011 about the benefit of using a Quadro vs. GeForce. He said that Quadro's handle heat dispersion much better...Is that worth spending $3500 more on the same hardware? Not for me!

 

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=6&t=1002086 - cgtalk thread on the this subject

[Dimitris Tolios]

In general it is hard to quantify the differences between GPUs. In part because the modern gaming cards offer explosive raw performance, so that even with castrated drivers things feel "acceptable".

 

Our tolerances are much higher when we are knowingly working in a large file, in comparison to watching a movie or playing a game where 30 or even 60 fps are considered the norm.

 

Here is a direct comparison between a peppy Quadro 600 vs. a GTX 670 SC 4GB under Maya 2012 with SPECapc for Maya 2012.

 

 

I am still working on a standardized scene to use in 3DS 2012.

[paneli]

I'm not familiar with Maya's engine. How close it is compared to Nitrous?