GPU for 3440 x 1440

[Gutty]

Hey guys, decided to ditch my twin monitors in favour of a single ultra wide. My current gforce card is out of its depth and can't run the native res of 3440x1440. I've known for some time I should be running a quadro, my question is, which one ??

whats good bang for buck in the quadro range that has DisplayPort output ? 

Will I notice much difference between 2, 4 and 8gb ? 

Cheers

Matt

[jeff]

If you want a Quadro that is better than the GTX1080 you're going to pay at least triple the cost to be honest.

If I were you, i'd try the GTX1080 for $500-ish and see how that performs before spending $2000+ on a Quadro.

[Guest]

and then end up spending $2500 because the Quadro is what you needed in the 1st place....

If I am building a Workstation and not a gaming computer, knowing my company is paying for me to work and not fuss with things, I am going with the P4000

I am currently running a K4200.....

 

 

[Gutty]

Not sure if it matters, but I'm not currently doing any cutter paths, just design in mastercam and solid works. 

But definitely want to buy once, buy right this time. 

[jeff]

16 minutes ago, Gutty said:

Not sure if it matters, but I'm not currently doing any cutter paths, just design in mastercam and solid works. 

But definitely want to buy once, buy right this time. 

In that case, if the price isn't an issue for you, go for the Quadro.

[BenK]

I run dual 3440 X1440 monitors with a K5200. Haven't had a single issue with it. It's not a cheap card but it has performed far better than anything else I have ever used. Now if Mastercam would start leveraging the power of the GPU we would really be cooking with gas.

 

I know the GTX cards are nice but they simply don't have the drivers that the Quadro line does. You simply don't get the full potential unless you spend the money.

[huskermcdoogle]

Can someone layout in laymans terms what exactly we get for performance gains when "spending the money"?

[Guest]

You get hardware and drivers that are specifically tuned for CAD/CAM..that's the best layman's terms I think you're likely to find...

CAD & Games display images on your screen in different ways, using different technologies....Quadro cards are designed to maximize this aspect of you video display

Try running the Passmark test...it shows specifically where gaming cards slow down vs Work station cards

http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm

[Guest]

This goes back a couple years but it still valid today when considering CAD station cards..

You HAVE to remember CAD programs do things differently than gaming cards....

If you're doing heavy CAD/CAM, you'll suffer on a gaming card

Quote

The massive lead that Nvidia’s Quadro K5000 enjoys over the company's GeForce GTX 680, which should dominate the K5000 if you go by technical specifications, shows just how much the consumer cards are held back by their drivers.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493-12.html

 

and the conclusion

Quote

Bottom Line

For the most part, gaming graphics cards don't work for professional applications, and increasingly, ISVs are requiring workstation-class hardware. The only real exceptions are DirectX-based titles like AutoCAD 2013 and Inventor 2013, where the additional optimizations to a pro card and its drivers aren't necessary. There are also certain compute-heavy applications for which desktop-oriented cards perform well also, so long as you can live without features like ECC memory. But if one messed up byte could throw your result off, sending Wall Street into a tailspin, a workstation graphics card designed for the job is a smart choice.

When we look at the market as a whole, AMD is much more competitive now than ever before, while Nvidia continues to optimize and polish its existing products. The race hasn’t been this exciting in a long time. It remains to be seen if AMD can get its drivers certified for more applications. After all, the tremendous architecture that works so well for the company in the gaming space has a ton of potential in the workstation segment, too. Makes us wonder if an excellent software bundle might do wonders for its workstation line-up?

This is a better test for CAD cards as if tests their ability at their job

https://www.spec.org/gwpg/gpc.static/vp12info.html

Edited May 15, 2017 by Guest

[Gutty]

Thanks for the input guys... At half the price of a P4000, how would the P2000 go ? 

And what's the difference between K, M and P models ?

[Gutty]

And another issue... most these cards specify 60hz, but my new display is 100hz capable. Am i going to see any real difference for CAD ?

[jeff]

13 hours ago, Gutty said:

And another issue... most these cards specify 60hz, but my new display is 100hz capable. Am i going to see any real difference for CAD ?

Not unless your cad software has video that runs at 100 frames per second.

You'll be fine with the standard 60hz.

[Gutty]

1 hour ago, jeff said:

Not unless your cad software has video that runs at 100 frames per second.

You'll be fine with the standard 60hz.

Yeah i figured as much.. cheers

Thanks for all the info guys. After a few hours googling etc today, i've gone with the P2000 as it gets some good reviews by CAD users, and it's within budget.

[Guest]

I'm sporting the Quadro M5000M on my new rig. I only run NVidia. 

[The Cathedral]

21 hours ago, Gutty said:

Thanks for the input guys... At half the price of a P4000, how would the P2000 go ? 

And what's the difference between K, M and P models ?

I just posted in another thread that I bought a new workstation with the P2000. It's "mid range" for their P architecture, roughly equivalent to the older M4000 models so it's a good card (supposedly. I haven't got by new workstation yet to confirm.)

Check out this article where they benchmark the new P architecture to the old M and K:

http://www.develop3d.com/hardware/quadro-p400-p600-p1000-p2000-p4000-cad-vr-viz-solidworks-vred-iray-pascal

The K, M, P stands for the architecture: Kepler, Maxwell, Pascal.