Rhino for Windows
teteu86 at August 19th, 2013 15:58 — #1
Hi guys, good evening.
Do you know any hardware issues between GTX 660 and Rhino 3D?
I have a friend who is looking for a new desktop and asked my opinion, and asked my opinion, and I came up with a desktop with this GPU inside, but not sure about its performance in rendering tasks or known issues.
john_brock at August 19th, 2013 18:26 — #2
The GTX cards generally perform pretty well in Rhino for Zooming, Panning, and Rotating the display, but GPUs play no role in Rendering performance. That's all CPU and memory.
Here's a link to details on display cards and Rhino. It's linked on the System Requirements page:
holo at August 20th, 2013 03:16 — #3
What John says is right for most renderers, but some render engines utilize Cuda or OpenCL, like Arion, Fry etc.
nates at August 21st, 2013 12:56 — #4
Neon is not really a 'renderer', but I think it does use the GPU to help raytrace (and really gets a boost from Caustic cards)
teteu86 at August 21st, 2013 13:12 — #5
I also saw for the same range of price:
- Xeon E3-1240 v3
- 8 gb
- NVIDIA Quadro K2000
Somehow I can't accept the fact this configuration would be better than a i7 with GTX 660.
Maybe the reason is the lack of knowledge about the rendering&modelling special requirements.
holo at August 21st, 2013 14:16 — #6
I7 should be faster than the Xeon, but the Xeon machine can be better for rendering animations as it might be better cooled to handle hours of 100% load, and the i7 will clock down when it is getting hot, but only if it is not cooled well enough, so that is up to the rest of the build. (so if you render animations or complex, large images on laptops you need to let it get enough cooling, by raising it, or using it in a cool room)
The K2000 should outperform the 660 on shaded and wireframe mode as the GeForces are hardware limited. But Rhino is not super optimized for line drawing anyway, so the GeForce might have enough power to run Rhino at full speed even though it is limited...