Video card for a workhorse computer

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Skylyne

Skylyne

Reputable
Sep 7, 2014
678
0
5,160
I've been looking in the gaming video card selections lately, and I've been struggling to figure out what card I should really go with. For the retail price, I want to stick with a somewhat strict $200 budget. If there's a better card for about $20 more than my $200 limit, I might consider it; but I'm trying to keep costs down as much as possible. This will be going into a brand new build, so it isn't an upgrade.

Primarily, the use of the video card will be for video production and editing (just started using Vegas Pro Suite, for software). I occasionally make custom DVD/BluRay discs for family/friends, and I am going to start editing various GoPro videos for buddies of mine; nothing much, just something they can watch and share on youtube. I'll mainly be working with HD video, for the most part. I also do some occasional gaming, but I don't need a gaming machine. All I really care about is being able to play newer games without worrying too much about my GPU having poor output power. The newest game I own is GTA IV, might get GTA V, and I'd just want to run these at decent graphic levels that don't kill the experience. I'm used to older games, so I don't really care as much about getting the highest quality gaming experience.

The real kicker here is that I'm looking to start designing with AutoCAD; all for personal use, of course. For example, if I can find a big enough scanner, I would scan the front fairing of my Ninja so I can customise it; this is just an example, though. Since there's a local company who rents their printer, I'd definitely like to be able to take in my own custom CAD files. While I won't be putting too much time into 3-D designing, I would like a video card that will work sufficiently with AutoCAD. Since this is going to be a hybrid style computer, I don't expect the best performance from AutoCAD; however, better performance is always welcomed.

Currently, I'm considering these four cards:

  • GTX 750 Ti
    GTX 760
    Radeon R9 270X
    Radeon R9 280
While I have no problem getting a slower card, I just don't know what will run AutoCAD without too many problems. As well, I don't want to have longer waiting times for video rendering in the name of saving a few bucks. I know a workstation video card would perform better for AutoCAD, but I'm not trying to make AutoCAD the best performer. If there's no card in my budget to do all three (light gaming, video production, and 3-D design), then I'm fine with not using AutoCAD on this machine. I would consider a workstation card, but I don't know how well a card in my price range could handle what I'm looking to do. If you can explain your suggestions, that would be great!

As far as the other hardware I'll be using, the concept build looks like this: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/tFGbyc. And no, I won't be skimping on RAM/CPU to get a better video card, as I am doing other activities that will require what I have in that build. I'm already beyond my comfort zone with price, as it is, but I do need a quality computer.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
D

drinkingcola86

Distinguished
Oct 10, 2008
547
0
19,160
I run a 7950 for my AutoCAD and it is a very great performing card. I would look towards something like the 760 or r9 280. From what i've seen in reviews, which is limited, the r9 280 is better in the 2d side and the 760 is better in the 3d side of autoCAD.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Skylyne

Skylyne

Reputable
Sep 7, 2014
678
0
5,160

There are two reviews that I have found somewhat helpful, though they are not really giving me quality answers like I expected. These two are the GTX 760 Review, and the Workstation Graphics Card Comparisons. While you can cross-reference a few numbers here, I find it strange that the GTX 760 review says it's a DX benchmark, and the Workstation comparisons say they're OGL benchmarks. When you cross-reference the few cards that are in common, they are the same benchmarks; and I find that a little odd. Either something/someone messed up on the charts, or there's something I'm overlooking/missing. For all I know, you get identical handlings with both OGL and DX in AutoCAD? It just seems a little... askew.


Can you give me a bit more explanation than that? I have read on a few other forums/websites that Intel cards handle it better, because it "was made to work with CUDA cores," or something along those lines. I have a hard time believing this, because the list of Certified Hardware for my copy doesn't claim it really supports any of the hardware I've mentioned. Now, it may not be too different in performance, but is stability an issue? Any real problems that arise from not being a supported card?


That isn't always the case. In this case, there is very little difference between the r9 280 and the 760; it's a little bit, but there isn't too much difference. I did notice that the 760 did outperform the 7970 GHz edition (which is basically what the R9 280 is) in the two articles I linked earlier in this comment. Given that, I think the 760 might be the better choice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I take it the 760 is a solid card when it comes to video editing/production, and gaming? I haven't heard too much about the 760, as I don't know many people who game. I've seen the benchmarks, and read sloppy reviews, but they're all pointing to it being a good choice. If that's the case, I guess I can't really go wrong with either the 280 or the 760. I do wish I had some information concerning the 750 Ti, and the 270X, however. It is nice knowing that the more expensive cards can keep up decently with the workstation cards, but I would like to know if it's really worth paying the extra for. For the extra $30-40 I spend, I could almost double my storage space, get some extra necessities, or pay off a third of my motorcycle insurance lol. If I won't see too much of a difference in what I'm doing (in all three aspects), there's no sense in getting a higher end card. I could save up to $100 by getting the 750 Ti if that's really all I need.

Thoughts? And when I say thoughts, I really want some help here. I've been spending my whole night looking into this, and finding very little helpful information that I can use. Most the information is airing on performance/cost ratio, but that is not what I'm looking for in the grand scheme of things.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

drinkingcola86

Distinguished
Oct 10, 2008
547
0
19,160
Well All i can say is that I run a AMD 8320 and a 7950(r9 280). I've done quite a bit of 2d and 3d with it and have yet to notice any slow downs or issues with rendering. Compare that to the work stations at the school i teach at, They run Xeon 2620v3 and a firepro card. 3d rendering is done quicker when my gpu can take over but within autocad, very rarely does it let that happen. I've had to off load to 3ds max or inventor to pull the video card into the mix.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Skylyne

Skylyne

Reputable
Sep 7, 2014
678
0
5,160
Interesting. Makes me question whether or not it's worth upgrading for a "better" AutoCAD experience. If I read everything correctly, It looks like AutoCAD doesn't really run much through your GPU, but instead tries to render everything through the CPU; I'm guessing that's due to the lack of direct support between hardware and software. I could be wrong, but that's what I'm taking from it.

Also, a bit off track from AutoCAD: Would I really need anything better than the 750 Ti for video production and gaming? I don't really know what would be considered overkill for video production. Since I'm not trying to make a computer that specialises in gaming, I don't know where to cut off graphics performance and not sacrifice too much for everything. I'm trying to balance out performance and cost, instead of getting the best card for $200. If I can get away with spending less, while not sacrificing too much in video production, I will.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

drinkingcola86

Distinguished
Oct 10, 2008
547
0
19,160
My comment would be this in the end, you never know about the next version of AutoCAD and other programs. If might come fully able to render with a video card or it might not. I know when I'm looking at getting a new card i try to buy the best i can for the money i have. I'll see if i can get some screen shots for you while doing a render.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Skylyne

Skylyne

Reputable
Sep 7, 2014
678
0
5,160
While I don't know if AutoCAD will potentially support a 760, or an R9 280, with the next version (which would be 2016), I did notice that Autodesk went from supporting some consumer GPUs in the 2014 version to supporting zero consumer cards in the 2015 version; it does support two mobile chips, though I think they are mobile workstation chips. Also, as time goes on, it's typical to see your hardware recommendations keep going up. It will be a while before they start rewriting programs to be less resource demanding, and much more economical, since it just isn't worth rewriting the entire program when people will still buy the hungrier versions. Economically, I'm starting to question whether it's worth trying to build a rig that properly runs AutoCAD at this point.

I'll definitely be interested in a screenshot of AutoCAD working with your 7950, but I don't know if that will give me much of a reference point. I'd probably benefit from running the program on a gaming rig as a test run, over a screenshot. Depending on what the screenshot is of, it probably won't help too much... but I'm definitely open to seeing it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

drinkingcola86

Distinguished
Oct 10, 2008
547
0
19,160


Well I'm up for a drawing if you need me to run it.

Update: So I made a simple 3d image with AutoCAD and created a center light. What I saw from my computer running was intermediate usage of the video card during the render process. popping up to the 950 core speed and 1250 ram speed. my processor was at 100%. What this is telling me is that my video card is getting partially utilized during the process.

What this is also telling me is that AutoDesk could be ready to shift the render process over to the video card in future programs and getting a decent video card for the future would be wise. My suggestion still stands at either the 760 or the r9 280 with the recommendation leaning towards the R9 280.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Skylyne

Skylyne

Reputable
Sep 7, 2014
678
0
5,160
Interesting. I don't know how much I like it using the CPU, but that's only because it's wasting resources. I'm not too worried about pushing a server CPU too much lol. What version of AutoCAD are you running? If it's 2015, then that makes me feel a little bit better, but not too much.

I'm not trying to make this computer run AutoCAD, just trying to figure out if it's worth spending the money to get a better GPU because of AutoCAD compatibility. I won't bother putting up the cash for a higher end card unless it's really worth it. Of the three things I will want to do on this build, the first to go would be AutoCAD. It seems like buying a higher end card would only be beneficial if AutoDesk starts supporting them in the future. Almost looks like I should just buy a better card if/when they start supporting consumer cards, as well as shifting the the rendering load to the GPU. Until then, kind of looks like it would be more economical to go with a cheaper card, just in case they don't. They aren't really trying to appeal to the consumer market, and that kind of work should be putting more of a workload on the GPU than you're getting. It would surprise me if it isn't supposed to.

Thanks for the input. Not really too much help for my situation, but definitely something to think about.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom