as a regular user of 3d max and adobe creative suite (photoshop, after effect, premiere, illustrator), since i only ever had nvidia cards, i would like of know how much difference nvida gfx (not the quadros and testas) and CUDA, etc. actually makein terms of rendering speed and response time, etc?
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
nvidia, CUDA and 3d max and adobe
- Thread starter vian_siu
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 1,312
Some features in the latest mental ray 3.8 are now vastly accelerated by Nvidia gpu's only.
Most Adobe apps are slightly accelerated by all gpus. however they really don't make a huge use of them as of yet.
Most Adobe apps are slightly accelerated by all gpus. however they really don't make a huge use of them as of yet.
I ant had nvidia for a long time (was going to grab 2 of there cards in till I saw reviews) so I cant compare the two company's.. but I run a 5850 and its fine in what ever I use (games, photoshop, after affects etc.. may grab another one tho so i get better performance in metro 2033 crysis and crysis 2 when it's out or pick up a imac 27" i ant sure yet.
So i so pose if you dont need CUDA then go ati.
So i so pose if you dont need CUDA then go ati.
Deleted member 76686
Deleted member 76686
Adobe I think is including more in CS5 due out next month.
http://www.photographyuncapped.com/...iere-after-effects/equipment-gadgets/2009/11/
http://www.photographyuncapped.com/...iere-after-effects/equipment-gadgets/2009/11/
From CG Talk -
"ATI has had Stream (their equivalent to CUDA) for a few years now, and no one is racing to utilize it. CUDA is far more mature and developed and remember, with NVidia cards you are essentially getting an Aegia PhysX card, as it was bought by NVidia and has been incorporated for a few years now. You have the PhysX plugin for Max as an alternative to Reactor, as well as a few other plugins utilizing it...PFlow Box 2, Thinking Particles, and I believe Rayfire does as well.
3D Coat (similar to ZBrush and Mudbox) uses CUDA to accelerate brush speed in Voxel Clay sculpting. I don't know of a single 3D application that taps into ATI's streaming API"
"ATI has had Stream (their equivalent to CUDA) for a few years now, and no one is racing to utilize it. CUDA is far more mature and developed and remember, with NVidia cards you are essentially getting an Aegia PhysX card, as it was bought by NVidia and has been incorporated for a few years now. You have the PhysX plugin for Max as an alternative to Reactor, as well as a few other plugins utilizing it...PFlow Box 2, Thinking Particles, and I believe Rayfire does as well.
3D Coat (similar to ZBrush and Mudbox) uses CUDA to accelerate brush speed in Voxel Clay sculpting. I don't know of a single 3D application that taps into ATI's streaming API"
You would be better asking on the Autodesk forums, but my experience on 3D forums is that 9/10 people will recommend Nvidia. Driver and software support is still a long way ahead of ATI there. Plus as chaos already mentioned you have PhysX plugin etc..
BTW, you shouldn't dismiss the Quadro cards, Nvidia have a driver specifically built from the ground up for Max, and even the very lowest end Quadro cards can beat the top ATI cards, sometimes by a factor of 2x depending on what you test.
Have a look here:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/quadrofx-firepro_17.html#sect0
BTW, you shouldn't dismiss the Quadro cards, Nvidia have a driver specifically built from the ground up for Max, and even the very lowest end Quadro cards can beat the top ATI cards, sometimes by a factor of 2x depending on what you test.
Have a look here:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/quadrofx-firepro_17.html#sect0
i wish i got the cash for quadro, although i would to have one. i originally just want to upgrade my 9800gtx to fermi, but thats until i saw the review...in general i just want/need a good mainstream card for both 3d rendering and gaming that doesnt cost a mountain.
Deleted member 76686
Deleted member 76686
Fermi in all honestly was developed with GPGPU in mind first and foremost, thus they've put more into it which includes drivers, software etc. This isn't to say that ATI won't improve it just hasn't been something they've focused as much on until recently.
do quadro need a server mobo or just some sort of professional mobo to work? for me is general use comes first, then the rendering thats why i am looking for mainstream cards, but as you stated cheap quadros are as low as £100 i wouldnt rule them out. maybe my best bet is wait for gtx 470 to drop price and something to cool it down a bit or some sort of new fermi mid-range cards
Last edited:
Nope they work in any regular desktop mobo. Looking at that XBit comparison, the Quadro 580 (~£120) beats the ATI FirePro 8700 (£700+) in most of the benchmarks, so the difference is absolutely massive but it would be a terrible card for gaming.
Since gaming and general use is your priority i think it'd be a good idea to hold off and see what the GTS450 is like.
Last edited:
i have found that with basic mental ray rendering in 3DS max, GPU's do not make a different,
neither does switching from DDR2 to DDR3 (thats using 4 gigs of it)
only thing you could do for faster rending in 3ds max is to get a more powerful cpu or more RAM if possible but CPU's are more important.
neither does switching from DDR2 to DDR3 (thats using 4 gigs of it)
only thing you could do for faster rending in 3ds max is to get a more powerful cpu or more RAM if possible but CPU's are more important.
Mental ray 4 is supposed to use Cuda and there are free plugins for 3D max and others.
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/nv_texture_tools.html