Loading...
> >

Best graphic cards for 3d modelling/rendering

wintoonswintoons Posts: 391
in The Commons

Hi there,

I would like to ask the Daz3d community, what is a good graphic that you all recommend for 3d modelling/rendering?

The one I have is Nvidia GTX 560ti (1GB) which is not bad for working with Daz3d but is slow when rendering a single image with iray. 

Also another question, is a Quattro card really worth it?

Thanks :)

Comments

  • JCThomasJCThomas Posts: 254

    Modeling and rendering are quite different, and the gpu requirements are necessarily the same. 

    If your main application is DAZ Studio, a Quadro card is definitely not worth it. If you can spare the cash, the soon to be released GTX 1080 Ti (coming out next week) for $700 US is the best option for iray rendering. 6 GB 1060s or the 8GB 1070 would be marked improvements over your 560 ti also.

  • wintoonswintoons Posts: 391
    JCThomas said:

    Modeling and rendering are quite different, and the gpu requirements are necessarily the same. 

    If your main application is DAZ Studio, a Quadro card is definitely not worth it. If you can spare the cash, the soon to be released GTX 1080 Ti (coming out next week) for $700 US is the best option for iray rendering. 6 GB 1060s or the 8GB 1070 would be marked improvements over your 560 ti also.

    So, I guess a Quattro would really suite for Maya or 3Dmax? Also what about the Titan X?  

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,859
    edited March 2017

    ...for modelling a GPU card is not necessary,

    If you are looking for a good price to upgrade for rendering I'd wait a little as the GTX 1080 Ti (list price 699$) was just released so prices for the standard 8 GB, 2560 core GTX 1080 should fall. Not sure if this will affect prices for the 1070 which also has 8 GB but 640 fewer cores than the 1080.

    Quadro cards are made primarily for professional 3D studios and scientific purposes.  They are more robust in design as they have to function at peak output for longer periods than a consumer card, as well as have a number of compute related features unlocked and the top end ones offer higher VRAM.  The P6000 (around 5,300$) has 24 GB of GDDR5X while the P5000 (about 2,500$) has 16 GB of GDDR5X.  The soon to be released P4000 will have 8 GB but only GDDR5 memory not 5X (price estimated between 900$ - 1,100$).  Quadro cards generally consume less power than their GTX counterparts for their performance but also have a slightly lower core count.  For example the P4000 has only 1,792 cores compared to the 1080 with 2,560 (the P5000 also has 2,560 cores).

    A better way to look at the difference, you can get three 11 GB GTX 1080 Ti cards each with the same number of cores that a Titan X has (3,584 ea for a total of 10,752 which not only will benefit render speed  but make the vieport very responsive, even with a large scene loaded in Iray view mode) and have 400$ change in your pocket compared to the price of one P5000. 

    I could build a complete workstation (sans displays) with a Broadwell eight core 3.0 GHz CPU, i7, 128 GB DDR4 3200 quad channel memory, dual 1080 Ti cards PSU, drives, and case for a little less than the cost of a single Quadro P6000.

    Post edited by kyoto kid on
  • TheKDTheKD Posts: 2,711

    I went from 960 to a 1070, so far I have yet to max out the VRAM on the 1070. I generally render really large, a render takes a few hours, as opposed to like 18 hours before. I would recommend it if you can afford it. Or if you can afford a 1080 grab that lol. I prefer factory OC gtx myself, so I can play some games as well as render.

  • JCThomasJCThomas Posts: 254
    wintoons said:
    JCThomas said:

    Modeling and rendering are quite different, and the gpu requirements are necessarily the same. 

    If your main application is DAZ Studio, a Quadro card is definitely not worth it. If you can spare the cash, the soon to be released GTX 1080 Ti (coming out next week) for $700 US is the best option for iray rendering. 6 GB 1060s or the 8GB 1070 would be marked improvements over your 560 ti also.

    So, I guess a Quattro would really suite for Maya or 3Dmax? Also what about the Titan X?  

    Certain applications have optimized drivers for quadro cards, but I don't recall if those Autodesk apps fall into that cateogry. The Titan X Pascal was the best card for iray until this week. The 1080 ti, despite its stupid 11GB Ram, is far better value for rendering. Indeed, it will be faster, because of higher clock speed and same number of cores. There will be probably be a fully enabled GP 100 chip from Nvidia to be the "new" titan xp sometime following the 1080 ti, which would have more cores, but the 1080 ti will likely remain the best bang for the buck gpu render card for a while.

  • wintoonswintoons Posts: 391
    kyoto kid said:

    ...for modelling a GPU card is not necessary,

    If you are looking for a good price to upgrade for rendering I'd wait a little as the GTX 1080 Ti (list price 699$) was just released so prices for the standard 8 GB, 2560 core GTX 1080 should fall. Not sure if this will affect prices for the 1070 which also has 8 GB but 640 fewer cores than the 1080.

    Quadro cards are made primarily for professional 3D studios and scientific purposes.  They are more robust in design as they have to function at peak output for longer periods than a consumer card, as well as have a number of compute related features unlocked and the top end ones offer higher VRAM.  The P6000 (around 5,300$) has 24 GB of GDDR5X while the P5000 (about 2,500$) has 16 GB of GDDR5X.  The soon to be released P4000 will have 8 GB but only GDDR5 memory not 5X (price estimated between 900$ - 1,100$).  Quadro cards generally consume less power than their GTX counterparts for their performance but also have a slightly lower core count.  For example the P4000 has only 1,792 cores compared to the 1080 with 2,560 (the P5000 also has 2,560 cores).

    A better way to look at the difference, you can get three 11 GB GTX 1080 Ti cards each with the same number of cores that a Titan X has (3,584 ea for a total of 10,752 which not only will benefit render speed  but make the vieport very responsive, even with a large scene loaded in Iray view mode) and have 400$ change in your pocket compared to the price of one P5000. 

    I could build a complete workstation (sans displays) with a Broadwell eight core 3.0 GHz CPU, i7, 128 GB DDR4 3200 quad channel memory, dual 1080 Ti cards PSU, drives, and case for a little less than the cost of a single Quadro P6000.

    Thanks for the info :) This will help to me decide. I pretty much only want one GPU. Would A titan X itself do the job? For rendering that is?  

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,859
    edited March 2017

    ....it would however you'd save 500$ going for a 1080 Ti and only lose 1 GB of VRAM.  In side to side comparison the 1080 Ti outperforms it's bigger sister particularly in clock speed, texture rate, pixel rate, texture mapping units, and shader units.  I'm still stymied why Nvidia did this as I certainly wouldn't pay 1,200$ for a Titan X, when I can get pretty much the same if not better performance for 700$ with a 1080 Ti. . 

    The 1080 Ti also has better floating point performance (10.6 GFlops vs 6,44 GFlops for the Titan-X)

    As I tend to do very 'heavy" scenes at fine art quality that could even challenge a Titan X, I am looking to go the dual 8 core Sandy Bridge Xeon "boatload" of quad channel memory route instead. 

    Post edited by kyoto kid on
  • wintoonswintoons Posts: 391
    kyoto kid said:

    ....it would however you'd save 500$ going for a 1080 Ti and only lose 1 GB of VRAM.  In side to side comparison the 1080 Ti outperforms it's bigger sister particularly in clock speed, texture rate, pixel rate, texture mapping units, and shader units.  I'm still stymied why Nvidia did this as I certainly wouldn't pay 1,200$ for a Titan X, when I can get pretty much the same if not better performance for 700$ with a 1080 Ti. . 

    The 1080 Ti also has better floating point performance (10.6 GFlops vs 6,44 GFlops for the Titan-X)

    As I tend to do very 'heavy" scenes at fine art quality that could even challenge a Titan X, I am looking to go the dual 8 core Sandy Bridge Xeon "boatload" of quad channel memory route instead. 

    Thanks :)

  • alexhcowleyalexhcowley Posts: 2,403
    kyoto kid said:

    ....it would however you'd save 500$ going for a 1080 Ti and only lose 1 GB of VRAM.  In side to side comparison the 1080 Ti outperforms it's bigger sister particularly in clock speed, texture rate, pixel rate, texture mapping units, and shader units.  I'm still stymied why Nvidia did this as I certainly wouldn't pay 1,200$ for a Titan X, when I can get pretty much the same if not better performance for 700$ with a 1080 Ti. . 

    The 1080 Ti also has better floating point performance (10.6 GFlops vs 6,44 GFlops for the Titan-X)

    As I tend to do very 'heavy" scenes at fine art quality that could even challenge a Titan X, I am looking to go the dual 8 core Sandy Bridge Xeon "boatload" of quad channel memory route instead. 

    It has been suggested that Nvidia may be about to relaunch the Pascal Titan with significantly more memory.  That would explain things.

    Cheers,

    Alex.

  • wintoonswintoons Posts: 391
    alexhcowley said:
    kyoto kid said:

    ....it would however you'd save 500$ going for a 1080 Ti and only lose 1 GB of VRAM.  In side to side comparison the 1080 Ti outperforms it's bigger sister particularly in clock speed, texture rate, pixel rate, texture mapping units, and shader units.  I'm still stymied why Nvidia did this as I certainly wouldn't pay 1,200$ for a Titan X, when I can get pretty much the same if not better performance for 700$ with a 1080 Ti. . 

    The 1080 Ti also has better floating point performance (10.6 GFlops vs 6,44 GFlops for the Titan-X)

    As I tend to do very 'heavy" scenes at fine art quality that could even challenge a Titan X, I am looking to go the dual 8 core Sandy Bridge Xeon "boatload" of quad channel memory route instead. 

    It has been suggested that Nvidia may be about to relaunch the Pascal Titan with significantly more memory.  That would explain things.

    Cheers,

    Alex.

    12GB?!? That's mad!

  • Daywalker DesignsDaywalker Designs Posts: 3,586

    For hobby use, a 1080 TI is probably the best choice.

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,859
    alexhcowley said:
    kyoto kid said:

    ....it would however you'd save 500$ going for a 1080 Ti and only lose 1 GB of VRAM.  In side to side comparison the 1080 Ti outperforms it's bigger sister particularly in clock speed, texture rate, pixel rate, texture mapping units, and shader units.  I'm still stymied why Nvidia did this as I certainly wouldn't pay 1,200$ for a Titan X, when I can get pretty much the same if not better performance for 700$ with a 1080 Ti. . 

    The 1080 Ti also has better floating point performance (10.6 GFlops vs 6,44 GFlops for the Titan-X)

    As I tend to do very 'heavy" scenes at fine art quality that could even challenge a Titan X, I am looking to go the dual 8 core Sandy Bridge Xeon "boatload" of quad channel memory route instead. 

    It has been suggested that Nvidia may be about to relaunch the Pascal Titan with significantly more memory.  That would explain things.

    Cheers,

    Alex.

    ...yes, but will the price remain the same or go up again? 16 GB would be nice, but if it costs twice or more what a 1080Ti does, it is out of reach for most of us. 1,200$ is already pretty steep.

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    kyoto kid said:

    ....it would however you'd save 500$ going for a 1080 Ti and only lose 1 GB of VRAM.  In side to side comparison the 1080 Ti outperforms it's bigger sister particularly in clock speed, texture rate, pixel rate, texture mapping units, and shader units.  I'm still stymied why Nvidia did this as I certainly wouldn't pay 1,200$ for a Titan X, when I can get pretty much the same if not better performance for 700$ with a 1080 Ti. . 

    The 1080 Ti also has better floating point performance (10.6 GFlops vs 6,44 GFlops for the Titan-X)

    As I tend to do very 'heavy" scenes at fine art quality that could even challenge a Titan X, I am looking to go the dual 8 core Sandy Bridge Xeon "boatload" of quad channel memory route instead. 

    NVidia have said that many of those wanting a card for compute purposes, and considering the Titan, have said that unless the extra 1GB is vital, the 1080ti will be better for them.

    @OP

    I would separate modelling and rendering; and TBH, if it renders well, it will be fine for modelling. Personally, two cards, or at least 2 GPUs; one for rendering, and one for driving your displays. I use a 970 to drive 3 x 2560x1440 monitors; and a 980ti for rendering. Get one card, try the CPU's graphics capability for driving your monitor; otherwise consider a really cheap card fro the monitors; the benefits to rendering by having a dedicated card are significant - particularly on multiple monitor setups; you don't mention monitors, so not sure of your situation.

    I'm considering a 1080ti and if I do get one, the 980ti will still be used for rendering. The 970 is fine driving the monitors, and for the occasional gaming I do (which irritates the hell out of a couple of gamer friends). Could you struggle with a low-ability graphics card when modelling? Yes, it is something you'll need to balance and consider. But the 970 is fine; I use Blender.

Sign In or Register to comment.