PDA

View Full Version : Acceleration through nVidia Quadro cards



brownfox
08-04-2006, 09:23 AM
G'day :newtek: ,

I hope to be on the right forum with this thread, but I wondered if there is any acceleration or enhancement within LightWave when using a Quadro FX 4400 graphics card?
And of what kind is the acceration - if there is any (OpenGL display, render support, etc. ...)

The question is regarding :lwicon: versions 8.5 and v9.0 of our beloved LightWave.



Best regards,

brownfox

nikturnal
08-04-2006, 06:48 PM
I recently got the FX 4500 on my G5 Quad expecting to see a huge difference. Unfortunately I didn't see much of a difference at all. I went from an ATI 9600 on my old G5 to the new system and truely was disappointed. I did notice a difference in other 3d apps like M*do. But not enough to justify $1600. I think graphics cards for the mac side are limited in some way by the operating system. Lack of OpenGL 2.0 support???

brownfox
08-05-2006, 01:13 AM
Thanks nikturnal.

Our system - please excuse me, I simply forgot to mention it - is a Intel Duo Core, WinXP system.

The card will be in this workstation majorly to support After Effects and Premiere Pro 2.0, but it would be very interesting to know if there is any acceleration of some kind for LightWave under WinXP when working with a Quadro FX 4400?!

Thanks again for your reply, nikturnal.

brownfox

Paulifra
08-05-2006, 03:05 AM
My experience with higher priced videocards, is not what everybody should expect quick rendertimes three times as as fast.

The main power off this cards , is beeing able to work with very high resolution , or ( and ) on systems with two digital monitors making one view together.

Especially when the material has enormous amounts off polygons.

Of course this kind off cards are much more quicker then other brands, bur some people think close your eyes, touch the render knob, open your eyes again and yes it's there .

High resolution materials with very high amount off polygons, then rotate the project in your screen and you will be astound.

A very few systems are able to do that.

( dual xenon 3.0 ghz 4 gb ram with pny fx4000, dual xenon 2.4 ghz 2 gb ram anf fx3000g )

brownfox
08-05-2006, 04:39 AM
:agree: I definetly agree.

I just wondered of there is any benefit to LightWave from the the card.
AE has the option to OpenGL render. Due to this and various GPU FX and acceleration we outfitted our systems with this card.

Thanks for taking the time to write, Paulifra.
I really appreciate it.

brownfox



:lwicon:

habaņero
08-05-2006, 04:53 AM
No Gpu rendering for lightwave as of yet.

Nvidia has a renderer that is free and needs a quadro to unlock advanced features.

Supposedly drivers are more stable, although I don't find it good enough reason to defend the price jump from a good gamer card myself. The I think two double (two cores) nvidia cards you could buy for the same money as a single fx4500, I'd expect them to pull away from the quadro in all areas (especially heat and power use heh).

A middle segment card like the 7600GT or even a no fan 7600GS is sufficient for a lot of LW work, people in fact use it on cards two or three generations back still ...

Cageman
08-05-2006, 05:24 AM
I've got a GeForce FX5700, 256MB (gaming-card). Works like a charm for what I do. I'm not the kind of guy that usually have millions of polygons in modeler or layout. Having said that, LW9.0 Layout and soon also Modeler, have had a huge OGL speed-increase. My card can easily handle 2-4 million polygons in LW9 Layout, while the same scene in LW8.3 is dead slow. With these speed-enhancements in mind, I wonder if Quadro-cards may have a small benefit compared to gamingcards. Another thing that I've heard is that proffesional cards (Quadro, FireGL etc) have a more precise calculation, which is a must in certain areas of 3D-work (CAD and such things).

For LW-work I would probably go for a high-end gamingcard...

brownfox
08-05-2006, 07:19 AM
Thanks for the feedback guys. It's not like we are buying the card for LightWave , but an additional advantage from it aside from editing and compositing would be sweet, wouldn't it? And who among us would NOT love a way to render more in less time? (YES, all you guys on the large grids include.d *g)

Thanks, dudes.

brownfox

Paulifra
08-08-2006, 03:31 AM
Maybe one interesting subject, not said in my former mail.

With all my former top qualty video cards ( in the past ) i never expierenced a drametic influence on speed or possibilities, but that's only true for lightwave.

I have the impression lightwave is not very sensitive to videocards at all if you look at a mid format gaming card or 3d card and on the other hand top quality video cards.

If you have look at 3dstudio with this top level video cards it is a completely different story, much more important what kind off video card you use.

Dispite the fact i have two top level cards ( pny fx4400 and pny 3000g ) i don't think they are worth so much money for 85% off 3d application users.

Where this kind of cards belong is in situations where 3d project presentations directly out off the pc are used, using the two digital outs combined for very high reslution.

Making presentations on big projection screens, where mutations on the pc side can be translated directly on presentation screen for the people who are looking at it. ( meetings about projects, or new product presentations )

One aspect is always true, a 3d card is alway better for 3d then a quick gamer card. I am not going to tell a story ( why this is true ) here, because you can found plenty information of it on the internet.

In the past may people liked gaming and as a second 3d, so they primary where interested in a 3d gaming card also be able to do 3d work.

Noweadays you can think reverse, a very good top 3d card can also serve you 3d gaming and it is a better choice for real 3d work.