Hello, this is my first post on this forum and I have tried to come to a verdict by reading other posts but no answer completely satisfied me. I am an architecture student looking for a GPU to a mobile workstation for use with mainly Rhino but also with Maya AutoCAD, ArchiCAD and Revit. There is a lot of ambiguity among the different recommendations of GPU’s and I intend to improve my understanding of the video cards impact on the modelling process with this thread.
I am aware of the optimized drivers of the quadro which deliver higher precision and reliability. However, I do not fully comprehend what this means. I whant to minimize the risk of Rhino crashing but 100% accuracy in precision for client delivery is not neccessary, since I am not sending my models to a professional constructor. I want my program to run as steadily as possible with as high FPS in RENDERED & SHADED mode as possible. I am going to work with differently sized projects (mostly 30MB but also 100MB), hence I would prefer not to bottleneck the capabilites to work with larger projects.
My question is neccessarely: will the quadro p2000 with 4GB vram deliver higher FPS when working with large objects in Rhino (and the other programs i mentioned) compared to the GTX or will the GTX with its 8GB vram deliver higher FPS, without being more inclined to crash in the middle of a project? I highly appreciate any support on this matter and if someone could shed some light upon the specifics of the quadros driver optimization and ”stability”, it would be awesome!
Hello Niko, can this article help you?
I’m working with:
i7 7700
16 GB RAM
512 GB SSD
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (8GB)
Rhino never crashed but I noticed some problems with Osnaps in large files (with external 3D blocks) in shaded view. Sometimes the OSnaps don’t popup.
Same files in wireframe view: no problems with OSnaps
Perhaps a matter of memory.
I read the article below and was planning to change my graphic card to Quadro 2000. Just to see what happens.
My rule of thumb about Quadros would be to go with one only if I’ve already maxed out my practical budget on everything else and can get the highest-end model available. They’re bang for the buck is awful, but at least the super-expensive ones do give you more “bang.” The lesser models basically exist for people running poorly-optimized software that you need a Quadro to run because that’s all it was tested on.
Hello Niko,
Unless you have $9000 for Quadro GV100, stay with GeForce gaming cards. That’s it in a nutshell I’m afraid. My experience with Fujitsu workstation equipped with Quadro K1200 is horrid.
Yes I just read the document and there I found some Holomark benchmark tests on the Quadro P-series gpu’s. Quadro k-cards are obselete in comparison to modern Pascal Quadro cards and Gtx 10-series. Here are some benchmarks comparing the cards of interest:
@DavidEranen
That sounds lovely! However, I am concerned about FPS primarely and in the Holomark benchmark tests i posted above there seems to be a pretty huge difference between GTX and Quadro. For vido cards of the same cost. I am most interested in the fps for SHADED and RENDERED mode.
I’m surprised by those results… I need a GeForce for GPU rendering and do a lot of image work; so I went with a gigabyte Aero 15x v8.
Revit is very CPU hungry, i’d Look for a coffee lake i7-8750H if you can.
And m.2 pcie drive is essential.
And min 16gb ram…
Also, do a clean windows install if it’s within your capabilities; makes a massive difference to day-to-day snappiness.
I finally went with the Quadro P2000 inside a Dell Precision 5530 and it works wonders! I desired a laptop from a reliable brand. I wanted high build quality and a good screen (IPS with high nits), hence, the only consumer graphics laptop options were MSI and Razer which either had poor build quality, poor screen or lacking good customer support (Razer). Dell felt safe and I went with a i9 Coffee lake and p2000 and am very happy! Thank you all for your help and sorry for the late reply!
