Which Graphics card would you choose?

[cobra95kev]

I am going to be upgrading my video card because we have been doing some work lately with alot of surfacing toolpaths and my verify has ran out of steam too many times. It just stops and says verify simulation failed. Right now I have a geforce 6600 in this box and I am considering upgrading to either a QUADRO FX3450 or Quadro FX1700 which one of these would be best for this computer?

 

Just as importantly would it have a good chance of fixing my problem. My STL file at this point is getting up around 20 megs. Any more than that it bombs. I have been turning my quality slider down some to help me get a little further but it is getting slow now too.

 

The computer is a powergistic system with Windows XP SP2 processor is Intel Pentium 3.2Ghz with 2.0GB of RAM.

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Kevin C.

[Thee Rickster ™]

If you have to ask, get the faster better one

especially if your not paying for it yourself

[cobra95kev]

I am with you on that one. I just don't know out of these two cards which is the faster better one. I know very little about Graphics cards. I looked at the specs and it all looks like gibberish to me.

 

Thanks,

[Chip-pan]

FX3450

FAST

Chip-Pan

[gcode]

I'd go with the FX-3450

 

The FX-1700 is the newest model, but check out the benchmark scores at the bottom of the chart

[crazy^millman]

The 27.2Gb/Sec would be enough for me.

 

 

Though if I had my way that 5600 would be in my box.

 

It is only $2766.00 here is a 5600 Link

[cobra95kev]

Thanks guys,

I think I will see if they will spring for the 3450. I found it online for as low as 399.00.

 

That 5600 looks

 

Thanks again.

[Tim Martinez]

Ditto on the advice to go with the faster one, especially if you are not the one footing the bill. When given a choice, always go with the best.

[gcode]

Kevin..

look at that chart again.. I think I got it backwards.. bigger numbers is better.

The FX-1700 has less bandwidth, but best benchmark scores due to more memory (256 vrs 512)

[cobra95kev]

Thanks Gcode,

I saw that so I figured the lower scores were better. Shows how much I know.

 

Thanks for the tip.

[sharles]

My IT guy just put a 1700 in my computer. It's definitely better than what I had, but it's still no miracle cure for my huge files, esp. surface scallop programs just eat up way too much memory. I normally make some surface parallel files just for verifying (as my main finish program and run that in verify instead of the scallop file that I will actually send out to the floor) and do a straight 0 or 90 degree step (with .08 step) because they take up so much less verify memory.

[cobra95kev]

Thanks for the tip Scott.

 

that is the toolpaths I am using, Scallop that is. I am finishing a part that is roughly 10" by 12" with a .020 stepover there is hardly any flat areas on this part and we don't have a 5 axis.

 

Hopefully this will get better with X3!

[sharles]

quote:

---

I am finishing a part that is roughly 10" by 12" with a .020 stepover

---

Kevin,

 

I would think your new video card would easily handle that even with the scallop programs. The parts I'm processing right now are 100"x58": headliners. But if the new card won't handle it, then give what I suggested a try.

[cobra95kev]

Ahh music to my ears Scott.

 

[Thee Rickster ™]

The order of priority for performance is:

Memory Interface

Memory Bandwidth

 

the memory size doesent matter in this case:

512 mg DDR2 is not going to beat 256 DDR3

in speed (size only)

 

the FX1500 has the faster memory and MI and MB

 

The 512 meg memory is more geared for animation

gaming etc where the memory size usually matters.

 

 

HTH

[gcode]

quote:

---

The 512 meg memory is more geared for animation gaming etc where the memory size usually matters

---

Wouldn't this apply to verification??

[Thee Rickster ™]

Not really, because you are not gaining alot

with DDR2 compared to DDR3

 

(Gaming and animation graphics are a completely

different animals to MC verify.)

 

I tested my 512mg gforce AGP 6600(DDR3) to my

256mg PCI fx1500(DDR3)

it didn't verify any faster. But refreshing

when zooming or rotating was a bit quicker.

 

Shading a huge model and rotating refresh rates

were hardly noticeable.

My conclusion was the 6600 was a fairly good card

 

I did however find after switching to the fx1500

MC had way less problems, crashing mostly.

I hardly ever crash with the fx1500

 

But then again it also seems that every system

reacts differently for MC.

 

These are just my findings

[MotorCityMinion]

A killer card in an older PC may also be overkill.

 

That 3700 looks like a good choice for speed. Not knowing the prices makes the choice tough though. The Quadro's are not cheap by any means. If financial resources are limited, the retail cards for gamers might be a better option. 8800 GT perhaps?

[Robert Critelli]

I have been researching this for a while. I have a Ge Force 6200 at home with a pent 4 and 1 gig of ram and I have no problems, it is actually very fast, at work I have the Quadro fx 570 with 2 gig of ram and when I verify on turbo the view is choppy or hesitant when I scroll in or out? I also am able to process faster at home than work . I dont understand why the Quadro was 900.00 more than the 6200. Crazy eh?