Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

3ds Max - Quadro 4000 vs GTX660/660ti

Last response: in Systems
Share
January 30, 2013 6:09:26 PM

Sorry for posting yet again on my proposed build for a workstation PC.

It's intended to run Autodesk's Building Design Suite Premium (Autocad, Revit, 3ds Max 2013 onwards).
Productive pipeline = 3ds Mental Ray (equal #1 priority with Revit)
I plan to experiment with iRay in max (using GPU - therefore need for Cuda cores = nvidia).
I also would like to play around with MassFX

I have settled on a system apart from the GPU:
The system is a compromise (vast bulk of my budget will go on the Design Suite - approx £7000) so budget available for the machine is around £1600.

i7 3930k
Asus P9x79
32GB Ram

I'm stuck on selection of GPU - as my budget is strained it is not an easy decision.

Either compromise on viewport performance and go with the GTX660 2GB (£230)
or find an extra £500 and go for the Quadro 4000 2GB(£720)

I haven't got a firm handle on exactly what will sacrifice in going with each card.

In simple terms I understand:
Quadro = better viewport performance, which possibly means more tweaking of geometry, textures, mapping etc. without need to keep rendering.
GTX = better iRay performance (pure render times) but possible overheating concerns.

Just how bad will viewport performance be with the 660 ?
How much slower will the Quadro 4000 be with iRay ?
I assume neither will impact on Mental Ray render times (CPU based only)?

Does the choice of Quadro 4000 restrict used of MassFX ? (is that only available via GPU - and GTX ?)

If I go for the 660 now - can I supplement the system with a Quadro 4000 at a later date and use both cards ? (I know processing can only use 1 or the other - not both concurrently, but is switching between cards an easy thing to implement ?)

I'm really stretching my budget in software + hardware - so although total cost is likely in at around £8600, the extra £500 for the Quadro is significant enough.

Thanks.
January 30, 2013 8:16:21 PM

the 600 series have sheer numbers of cuda cores vs the older fermi quadro cards. for things like photoshop, the 600 series would be faster. but when you require accuracy or if you are rendering 3d objects or graphics, the quadro cards will be much more suitable. not to mention fermi has a lot more double percision compute power than the newer kelper cards

there are no overheating issues. most geforce cards have a good cooler
January 30, 2013 8:23:07 PM

doubt it. if a w8000 didnt beat a quadro 5000 (from what i know), how would it beat the replacement card the k5000
Related resources
January 30, 2013 8:26:45 PM

Quote:
AMD's firepro series perform way better than Nvidia's workstation cards in 3ds max 2013.


Last time I checked ATI cards can't use iray - so not even an option.
January 30, 2013 8:29:59 PM

TheBigTroll said:
the 600 series have sheer numbers of cuda cores vs the older fermi quadro cards. for things like photoshop, the 600 series would be faster. but when you require accuracy or if you are rendering 3d objects or graphics, the quadro cards will be much more suitable. not to mention fermi has a lot more double percision compute power than the newer kelper cards

there are no overheating issues. most geforce cards have a good cooler


The suggestions from the research I've done is that with iray, the 6xx cards can out-perform the quadro 4000 (don't know about the k5000 - but that it out of my price range so is irrelevant)

For mental ray rendering (other than iray), neither are used anyway.

Still interested in specific experiences of either card with 3dsMax, especially around the points mentioned.
January 30, 2013 8:31:41 PM

the k5000 is a gtx 680 4gb, but with quadro drivers.
January 30, 2013 8:41:08 PM

Quote:
I'm running 2 gtx 660s in 3ds max 2013 and no trouble. My copy of 3ds max is student license if that makes a difference.


How do you find viewport performance ?

Have you tried iray - and how are render times generally with it ?
January 30, 2013 8:44:52 PM

if you are to get a geforce card, get a 670 as it performs roughly the same as a 680 or 2 660s
January 30, 2013 8:56:04 PM

iI would suggest a GTX 480 as a cheap and powerful alternative for doing 3D rendering.
January 30, 2013 9:03:01 PM

Tom Burnqest said:
iI would suggest a GTX 480 as a cheap and powerful alternative for doing 3D rendering.


powerful as in you mean it draws like 300w at full load and runs at 90c for the most part.
September 7, 2013 10:56:16 AM

don't even think buying the quadro 4000. We had a few xeon workstations with the Quadro 4000 and I had at home a 3930k with GTX 660. One weekend I had to work for a delivery and brought the 3ds max file to my home combo ... and i couldn't believe it. Viewport performance was excellent, a 2 million polygon scene fully textured was totally realtime while with the 4000 i had to use adaptive degradation in order to work the animation was playing in 5fps. To cut the long story sort we sold 10 4000 and got EVGA 4GB 680 at all machines at work ! Insane ... nowdays the quadro 4000 is selling at ebay at £150 and that says something. We sold ours at £450 each. For I-ray there is no comparison with GTX and Quadro. Make sure you get one with good memory that the real deal. 4GB is good.
!