GTX780M Benchamrk SPECview Results

HELLO everyone.

I would love to share some SPECview scores from my GTX 780M + i7 4710MQ 2,5Ghz hardware configuration. Because I think I have some troubles with my graphic card.

It seams that this card can NOT perform very good. I need to know why or some possible reason for this issue. Its impossible to have a 3D rotate with some shadows turn on.

Are this Geforce series not good to OpenGL on RHINO 5??

please, help me so I can have time to change the graphic card with the vendor, in the 15 days guarantee consumer test.

Should I change for a QUADRO K3100M (the very high quadro series possible to my motherboard config). Or should I stay with this card?


Intel i7 4710MQ 2,5 - 3,5Ghz

GTX 780M 4Gb GDDR5

16Gb RAM G.Skills 1600Mhz CL9

256GB SSD Samsung 840 PRO


Can you get your work done with this computer? Yes
Is it reliable? Yes
Does it do what you need it to do? Yes

Then it’s fine.

Your computer sits idle most of the time when you’re modeling.
If you had a system that tested out twice as fast as the fastest test result, would you expect to get twice as much work done? Certainly not.

If the most demanding thing you did in Rhino used 8mb RAM, and you had 16mb, would that be better? No.

Think of it like commuting to work. As long as you car is reliable, efficient, and can go the speed limit, is a different car with lots more power and higher top speed going to get you to work any faster? No it wont. Buying the Quadro will not help you get your work done any faster. It will take a lot of money to by that fast car. Maybe thats good for bragging rights and “cool factor”, but it won’t get your work done any faster.

Do not conflate this test with how effectively you can use this or any other computer to get your job done. This is about bragging rights and is an interesting drill to compare hardware in a relatively objective way.
Nothing more.

1 Like

Thanks John.

all the bests

Well, maybe a little more…

Given the rate at which expectations and performance increase, if you buy a computer that is “just adequate” for what you are doing today, there’s a good chance that in a year or so, it no longer will be. Therefore, buying more performance than you need right now is also one way of somewhat “future proofing” your investment. On workstations, memory can usually easily be added, but a newer faster processor often requires a new mainboard, and if you also want to change the graphics card, at that point you may as well start from scratch. And on laptops, aside from memory - which you may or may not have open slots for - the rest is pretty hard to change.

Anyway, my 2¢…


I need of course more ram than I use at max Rhino load, since I very often use Rhino together with other software, like Photoshop, Cinema4D, Illustrator, word, excel, outlook, musicplayers, webbrowsers etc, so you need a good overhead. But if you ask: “If you NEVER exceed 8GB (not MB ;)) of total ram use, will 32GB be better than 16GB?” Then the answer is no, if both ram types are of the same speed, and the same amount of units of course.

Working on a system that is twice as fast makes a difference, if we are talking 10-20% speed difference, then it doesn’t really matter. Unless you are rendering animations or do other really demanding CPU stuff.

And if you work with large scanned mesh data then you need a quadro or an AMD card, as most new GeForce cards are really limited on massive mesh data.

Hope that helps.

Spoken like a true hybrid driver.



If i can show to you my file, so we can compare and you tell me if i would be better workflow with a QUADRO K3100M (the maximum QUADRO that my laptop 15,5" handle) it would be nice.

I have talking with my vendor, and I say that I can change my GTX 780M for a QUADRO K3100M for an adicional cost of 150euros. (+/- 135 US dollars).

I have read about how CPU and RAM could be a better choice to change… But my problem is that 16Mb file, is not complete yet. In fact it is about 30% completed. When I finish this file I would expect about 150MB or 200Mb Rhino file. So I think it is a heavy file. My issues were are simply just because about the WORKFLOW… I ask to my laptop vendor for him to do a SPECview benchmark on a laptop like mine, with the same CPU + RAM + SSD but with a QUADRO K3100M, and the scores are far distant.

My problem is… do I choose to change it? do I will get a better workflow in OpenGL 3D applications? Do i can work with all shaders and shadows turn on without getting any lag on viewport or 3D rotate?

Everybody know that QUADRO cards are almost about DRIVERS, specially if that drivers is certificate by the software in use. The GREAT QUESTION here is, if the software in use don’t have specific DRIVERS, still i get 100% QUADRO PERFORM?

for example: AutoCAD 2014, 2015 seems to stop in time about having QUADRO Drivers. The only driver for a QUADRO K3100M are in AutoCAD 2013… After that, there are absolute, inexistible… Rhino 5, for example don’t have specific driver since QUADRO FX… if so, do i still perform well with a QUADRO on 3D softwares that used OPENGL? Archicad 17 is the same problem… Quadro drivers are stoked in time… I do not want to change graphic card if i do not have correct drivers. I supposed i will not perform very good with a QUADRO, because it is all about drivers.

This are the main question. And i would love to read somebody u have working with a Geforce GTX and QUADRO in 3D applications so i can have a nice feedback about changing graphics graphics… Dispite i know that Quadro K3100M is almost “a baby” compare to other quadro series. Perhaps i have to waint 1 or 2 years, hopeful NVidia engineering’s construct new drivers for that specific quadro model.

Thanks to all

The same GTX 780M, but with another “energy configurations”… Results in more or less 50% faster… Have a look and compare…

FIRST “default” benchmark

SECOND “maximum performance GTX 780M”

The differences are huge… :slight_smile: