4K Monitors?

[Dan@home]

Just purchased 2. The (2) quadro 4000 did not adjust well to the higher res, witch was far less than the monitor could put out at that time 2,000 by something (don't remember), they didn't play well together. Soo I went the the nearest geck store and bought the cheepest graphfic card (gamer) that would support 4K with 2 monitors, (for a test) of course was Invida. Much to my supprise, was way (X10), better than the quadro when it came to the new verify. The Quadro cards would show "shards like glass spikes" in the tool and part, even hampering visual details. Anybody else experience this?

[Guest]

Having trouble finding ividia. Never heard of them.

 

I'd love to get a 4k monotor. Not sure I can justify it though.

[Dan@home]

The issue is the icons and fonts are pretty small. I'll get used to them though. Screen space is huge, it is almost like having 6 of my old square monitors.

 

I have been using the quadro for so long, and never the cheaper gamer card.  But since the new verify and machine sim, the quadro has been ugly. I can say that now because the one Nvida GEFORCE GTX 960 (lower end of the 900 series) has just kicked the snot out of my (2) quadros. 5 axis verify and machine sim. have never looked this good.

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

I've been wondering about that.  I've been using the GeForce cards for a while and haven't found enough to justify the more expensive Quadro cards. What about speed, have you noticed a difference?

[F10Brandon]

have you noticed a difference in your toolpath and nc code generation times? the bandwidth graphics cards can handle is much higher than your motherboard can handle and some programs will use it for calculation and not just for graphics.

[Dan@home]

I've been wondering about that.  I've been using the GeForce cards for a while and haven't found enough to justify the more expensive Quadro cards. What about speed, have you noticed a difference?

The only reason I bought the quadro card was that they are recomended for what we do (wanted the best). Just verified a huge 5X file with not an issue. With all the clarity you/I would ever need and better than the quadro. I don't quite understand the gobbolity goupe about the difference between the two, from what I gathered is the quadro is fast at quality with surfaces/solids ext. I'm not doing a disney pixar film, just a verification of toolpaths. It seems the new verify is more towards the gamer side of video graphics than the rendering of solids/surfaces. Witch this cheap card, compared to the quadro, is doing really well. I may be wrong but just going with what I see.

 

This is kind of of the topic of the title of this thread.

[Dan@home]

have you noticed a difference in your toolpath and nc code generation times? the bandwidth graphics cards can handle is much higher than your motherboard can handle and some programs will use it for calculation and not just for graphics.

No, I don't think they have much to do with each other. It generated 475,000 lines of code pretty fast like a I7 processor should.

[oneyankfan1]

The issue is the icons and fonts are pretty small. I'll get used to them though. Screen space is huge, it is almost like having 6 of my old square monitors.

 

I have been using the quadro for so long, and never the cheaper gamer card.  But since the new verify and machine sim, the quadro has been ugly. I can say that now because the one Nvida GEFORCE GTX 960 (lower end of the 900 series) has just kicked the snot out of my (2) quadros. 5 axis verify and machine sim. have never looked this good.

I have to agree, I have the Quadro 4000 at work and the GeForce GTX 970 at home and my GTX is a beast I couldnt be happier, my graphics are better than at work.

[Thee Awbade™]

Hmm this thread is making me feel better.

 

Literally just recieved the GTX 980 I ordered for my new Gaming Rig, nice to know it'll work well for some programming if I ever need to do it. 

[jeff]

Hmm this thread is making me feel better.

 

Literally just recieved the GTX 980 I ordered for my new Gaming Rig, nice to know it'll work well for some programming if I ever need to do it. 

I still use a GTX580 in my work computer and 760 at home. The 980 is absolutely a beast!. So in order to justify a Quadro, you'd most likely have to go with one of the uber expensive ones before you see any difference. Just steer clear of the X50 series cards, those are entry level and just for internets.

[Thee Awbade™]

I still use a GTX580 in my work computer and 760 at home. The 980 is absolutely a beast!. So in order to justify a Quadro, you'd most likely have to go with one of the uber expensive ones before you see any difference. Just steer clear of the X50 series cards, those are entry level and just for internets.

 

Oh no worries. My new home Computer is a beast! Been slowly buying parts for about 5 months now, just the CPU cooler and Power supply left to go, got my GTX980 card sitting here, my i7-4790k, 16Gb Ram, 250GB SSD, 2TB HD. Just waiting................

 

But it's for gaming, not for work 

 

I might use it to program here and then if I get a huge project at work that I gotta run a little overtime on but we'll see

[Dan@home]

Hmm this thread is making me feel better.

 

Literally just recieved the GTX 980 I ordered for my new Gaming Rig, nice to know it'll work well for some programming if I ever need to do it. 

Wanted one of these, but no store local had one. A couple places had the 970, the only issue I had with that card is; they only had one display port. Witch if I knew it preformed so well, I would have purchased 2. But after being somewhat burned, OK burned by the Quadro cards price wise (and graphic wise). I decided to test the waters before diving in. The 960 has 3 display ports, $199.00 that is inexpensive. So far I haven't maxed it out with the tiny 2 gig memory it comes with.

[Jayson Kramer]

I would really like to test this card setup out. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125727

[jeff]

I would really like to test this card setup out. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125727

That would probably run a 5K monitor at full resolution. I know that Linus (YouTube tech geek)  did a test on dual 980's (may be single 980) on a 5k monitor and the framerate wasn't up to snuff.

[m98custom1212]

I would really like to test this card setup out. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125727

1. Too much money.

2. Scaling 3X is horrible 

3. CAD/CAM will not benefit from 3.  

 

I have been telling coworkers/posting that quardo/firepro are waste of money much better bang for your buck is Middle of Road Ati or nvidia  "gamer" card and put the saved money into SSD's two of them in raid 0.  

[Jayson Kramer]

 

buck is Middle of Road Ati

This will bite you in the but. Still see them cause issues . when I was a full time teach support for MC out here ran into this all the time. The Quadros are still great cards for what we do. I have used and seen people with higher end Nivdia gaming cards and done well.

[Thee Awbade™]

I'm not sure the architecture on the ATI cards are all that optimized for the MC crunching

[Guest]

1. Too much money.

2. Scaling 3X is horrible 

3. CAD/CAM will not benefit from 3.  

 

I have been telling coworkers/posting that quardo/firepro are waste of money much better bang for your buck is Middle of Road Ati or nvidia  "gamer" card and put the saved money into SSD's two of them in raid 0.  

That's some BAD advise right there. :

 

:shudder:

 

ATI.... Dude... you're high. Put down the doobage and step away from the keyboard. You're going to hurt something.

[Guest]

I'm not sure the architecture on the ATI cards are all that optimized for the MC crunching

It has been more an issue of OpenGL implementation on ATI's part. It's not what they do well. Gaming... that's another story. If I were a gamer, my rig most likely would have an ATI card but since I do WORK on my rig... tools not toys like someone is suggesting. :

[jeff]

That would probably run a 5K monitor at full resolution. I know that Linus (YouTube tech geek)  did a test on dual 980's (may be single 980) on a 5k monitor and the framerate wasn't up to snuff.

Edit: he just released another video of him using that Dell 5K monitor using DUAL Titan 12GB cards, results were less than I expected from those behemoth cards.

Crysis 3 ran at around 50fps iirc. 

So it would seem that realistically, we're still not ready for 5K at full resolution.

[jeff]

As far as 4K monitors go, correct me if I'm wrong,but there are models out there that ONLY give you 4K native when using a certain input.

The others are just upscaled I believe.  Some won't give you 4K when using HDMI for example.

[BenK]

HDMI itself doesn't support 4K you have to use display port.

[Dan@home]

My monitors are 3840 x 2160 at there highest. I don't think I would want any smaller than that without increasing the monitor size larger than 28". What I read was, that to get the max hertz (60) you must to use the display ports.

 

If I were to maximize MC, I could probably put all the toolbar Icons MC offers (without undocking the toolpath manager) and still have plenty of room to display the part. Could probably even leave plane and level manager up on one 28" monitor. Huge!   

[BenK]

You are correct. It supports 4K at 30Hz. Here is a good video that explains all the differences.

 

 

https://youtu.be/f38sotYHqtA

 

[soymilk]

hdmi 2.0 can support 4k @ 60fps

hdmi 1.4 can support 4k @ 30fps 

 

Theres only a handful of nvidia cards that has hdmi 2.0.  

 

 

back to topic, i opted for the LG 34" 21:9 super widescreen monitor.  3440x1440.  I'm liking it so far.  I was gonna get the seiki 39" tv and use it for a monitor.