Hello @Helvetosaur,
We were doing some testing with Holomark to find out what kind of workstation to buy for Rhino.
The new Mac Pro we borrowed for testing was rather disappointing, so we opted for a maxed out iMac with a GTX 780M, since others had good Holomark results with that one. In the end, our new iMac didn’t perform too well, especially the GPU/Nurbs cycles. So this is just to support your point…
Mike
Jeff, what is the drawback not having double sided shading?
I can see the backside of surfaces as usual, the only thing I notice is a sightly changed color.
The double sided shading must have some sense…
-C-H-A-R-L-E-S-
From what I have read Double sided shading is unique to CAD because in gaming you rarely if ever need to see inside a polygon model. Most game models are closed meshes of which you only see the outside. Michael VS
I replaced the spheres by square planes.
Then there is no difference whether GeForceTestEngine is on or off.
Hmm, why is this?
-C-H-A-R-L-E-S-
Possible Crutch workaround: Perhaps a GeForce option could be to constantly flip the normals of any visible surface to face the viewport camera. That way the GPU is ALWAYS rendering the outer face of the mesh? -My 2cents worth…
Just to add that my very old FX2800 (quadro) does it in 1.03 sec !
5x5x4 spheres R10, FullHD single viewport
where can you get holomark?..
Yeah, I just need to fix the final kinks and publish it… My bad 
There is another newer listing on this forum called “Video card again - Quadro disaster” with some great improvements shown for Quadro cards using the “3D App - Default Global Settings” option. Michael VS
Any news on the GTX disaster?
Thanks,
-C-H-A-R-L-E-S-
I need to buy a new computer (now!), as mine seems to have died.
I’m thinking about one (gaming laptop) with a gtx880m (8GB). Has anyone got any experience with this card, and how it plays with Rhino, and/or other CAD for that matter?
Thanks!
OK - I might just go with a k2100 to be ‘safe’. It really seems to be WAY less bang for the buck.
If anyone has had a good experience with a gtx880m, I’d be happy to hear it. It would likely sway my decision.
The GTX cards are intended for DirectX “Gaming” applications, not OpenGL “Workstation” applications like Rhino.
There is strong evidence that Nvidia has intentionally slowed down the GeForce cards when they detect CAD specific OpenGL graphics calls.
Either way, It’s your choice and decision.
I’ll found two logs to toss in the fire.
1.) I’ve found that there is a great speed penalty for thick edges/isos/curves greater than 1px.
2.) I’ve found that with high resolution monitors/screens, you can sometimes lower anti-aliasing because of the resolution.
BTW, as posted in another thread changing the power savings to “Maximize Performance” does help some.
[t’s sad if not criminal how nVidia extorts the CAD/Design world. One might be able to make the case that it is anti-trust to intentionally hinder a product in order to sell another product made from the physical hardware. The cards shouldn’t care what’s rendered on them. There are plenty of tables that state that there is nothing intrinsically different about Quadro silicon. GK104 ect… I used to run Gforce drivers on my old Quadro branded laptop chip. To have a Rhino accelerated driver would be to have an otherwise Rhino deaccelerated chip. Do companies need to hide disguise their OpenGl calls as gaming-like calls?]
Well said Brenda! You’re obviously more knowledgeable in this realm than I am! But I fully agree with your sentiment. This is a significant part of what I ‘preach’ about Rhino: It’s lack of hardware requirement, and lack of being in cahoots with hardware manufs intending to exploit.
Well, today, the exploiters got their wish as I paid for (what on paper appears to be wimpy) the quadro k2100. I’ve yet to test/see it, but I do feel a slight bit of comfort knowing/believing that it’s all gonna work out because I’ve PAID for it. Sick.
Not to mention that I’m slightly mad that I won’t likely be able to immerse myself in a full winter indoors playing awesome games…
Thank you Ernest.
~
I strongly disagree with endorsing the distinction between GTX and Quadro branding as they chips are often the silicon.
Instead of optimized drivers, I want rendering neutrality, like neutrality, but for rendered stuff.
Else, pay the extortion fees.
For example, my K2100m, in my laptop is a GK106, which variants exist in: GeForce GTX 645, GeForce GTX 650 Ti, GeForce GTX 660 (has more cores), GeForce GTX 760M, GeForce GTX 765M, and yes Quadro K4000
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units
Just playing devil’s advocate here…
It seems likely that gamers require far less technical support than OpenGL based workstation graphics users. The support costs can be spread out over the much larger number of gamers.
By segregating the cards, OpenGL users pay for their higher support requirements without having the gamers subsidize them.
I’d like to ask how much “Technical Support” we really get as gamers or workstation Quadro users?
We all seem to be fumbling around this forum looking for answers to issues with Geforce and Quadro cards and the that would not be the case if the technical support from Nvidia we are supposedly subsidizing was present with some definitive answers. I think it is more likely we are paying for excessive licensing royalties to everyone involved in the quadro food chain. Not much to do except pay up and work harder to pay for that shiny new GPU . Michael VS