silent_sight

I think it's going to depend on what you're doing... You've really only mentioned the rendering and how you've not been able to get a decent render overnight. I personally don't do much (if any) rendering; however, I do know that it is predominately cpu based - dependent on the speed and number of cpu cores as well as the amount of ram. But in recent years, gpu rendering has been coming along pretty strong, which also performs best with multiple cores and ram (as in cuda cores and vram on the card/cards). So, if you are doing gpu rendering, then you'll most likely want to go with the 1080 ti since it has twice the cuda cores and almost half again as much vram as the p4000. I actually ended up deciding to go with the quadro p4000 card. One of the main reasons for this had to do with the graphics card testing that was done in Immitem's post at the autodesk forum thread started by O_and_N (which he/she linked to). All of the gtx cards would hang when it came to interaction within the scene (either consistently, or intermittently), and that would be excruciatingly aggravating for me. Also, the legacy viewport speed was consistently slow with the gtx cards and the workstation cards just performed better there. Even though the gtx cards did have higher fps in viewport 2.0 for maya, the workstation card's fps was still well over 30 (or even 60 for that matter - anything over 24 is pretty much gravy anyway). Between the p4000 and p5000, the rather minimal relative performance boost between them in maya didn't really warrant the $1,500ish difference in price. Now, having said all that, you are also using some adobe programs and will probably want interactivity within 3ds max. I don't know if what you will be doing there would need quadro drivers or not... I would guess the quadro card would perform well in 3ds max for interactivity, but I'm really not well versed enough in 3ds max's interactivity to know for sure. It's possible the 1080 ti's interactivity could be acceptable if the primary focus of the machine is for rendering even if it lags here and there when manipulating your scene. Either card will most likely perform MUCH better than the quadro 4000 I hope this helps, but I also hope there are some other people who could give you some different/supplemental info that ends up being more helpful than mine...

I found this pretty interesting: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-pascal,4572-9.html It's the gtx 1080 (not the 1080 ti) being compared to Maxwell quadro cards and some firepro cards. Granted, they're testing the direct X performance, which we could already see performing well with gtx cards from Immitem's tests. I'm also not really sure how they're testing it because I can't seem to see it specified, but my guess is some heavy poly models in a turn table... it would have been awesome if they tested open cl with the same cards... oh well.

just checking if anyone has any new information yet... I've been doing a bit more research to try and determine the relative performance of the p4000. Since there doesn't seem to be much (if any) benchmarking between the different quadro series (Kepler, Maxwell, Pascal) I don't really have anything concrete... but here's what I did find out. -The p4000 is 1.7 times more powerful/faster than the m4000 in relative performance which you can see here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11103/nvidia-announces-quadro-p4000-p2000-p1000-p600-p400-finishing-the-quadro-pascal-refresh - something I read somewhere stated the m4000 being equivalent/similar in performance to the k6000... I can't remember exactly what it was, but I think it was a speculative review where the person writing it was looking at stats of the upcoming m4000 release (at the time, of course). I could not find any graphs or anything actually verifying this - not even anything comparing relative performance between the k6000 and m4000. I really wish I could find the website where I saw that again... but I'm not even sure how deep into google searching and cross searching I was... bleh - I also found this http://hothardware.com/reviews/workstation-war-amds-firepro-w9100-vs-nvidias-quadro-k6000 which shows the k6000 performing slightly better than the w9100 so... provided the second item above is actually true, the p4000 would be a little more than 1.7 times better than the w9100 (which Immitem showed to have superior legacy viewport performance than the gtx 1070 and titan XM, as well as no lag in manipulation while the gtx cards all had some). Of course, the other thing to note is that the 1.7 times relative performance of the p4000 to the m4000 does not necessarily mean that maya's viewport performance will be 1.7 times faster... It still doesn't really help with the question of the gtx 1080 ti... I'm really just assuming it would perform better than the 1070 and titan XM from Immitem's test results

immitem - thanks for taking the time to do your testing; hope you didn't pull your hair out with all that lagging with the gtx cards! It's really interesting how much better the pro card worked than the gtx cards - seems like the only real exception was that the gtx cards had slightly higher fps in VP2.0, yet they lagged a lot. I think I would rather have slightly slower fps with little-to-no lag. It looks like your test is with a pretty huge scene and I'm curious if there's much of a difference with a smaller scene (like an average sized character, for example). I'm mainly just curious... I wonder if a lot of people who do not have any issues with gtx cards simple haven't pushed it to the point where the quadro really shine? If that's the case, it would be helpful info for people when choosing a graphics card based on their maya usage (if you're not likely to work with such huge files, then maybe a gtx card really will be enough for you). Does anyone know how the AMD w9100 compares to the quadro p4000? From very briefly looking into it, it seems the w9100 is really old, so I'm guessing the p4000 would be a lot better, right?

O_and_N - wow, thanks for all the info and the link to the thread in the autodesk forum! I'm sure there are more people than us looking for comparisons between those 2 cards. That was a lot of stuff to chew through... It looks like the gtx cards performed really well in viewport 2.0, and even some old quadro cards did pretty well there too. It was pretty obvious that the legacy viewport kinda needs a quadro; but even then, VP2.0 was way faster anyway. I get the impression that if I was to do a lot of gpu rendering (with redshift/octane), then a few 1080 ti cards would be best since it would provide way more cuda cores for the rendering. It also seems like it wouldn't matter much which card I go with if using VP2.0 (unless I'm just not really reading everyone's feedback correctly on the thread you linked to); legacy viewport is where gtx cards are notably weaker than quadro cards. Due to some of life's changes I may be moving soon, so I was holding off on purchasing/shipping anything until that is determined (don't want to ship something to a location I may move away from, heh). I was thinking of going ahead with the 1080 ti, but I kinda feel back on the fence again, blast!!! It really seems like getting both and testing each to return the weaker one will be the way to go... I will definitely share the info if I happen to get both before you do - please do the same for me!

thank you so much for taking the time to reply with so much information! Do you think the 980 ti is beating out your 1070 due to the "ti" distinction? From what I gather, NVidia slapping the ti on a card means it gets a pretty significant power boost over it's non-ti counterpart - although I haven't done enough research to see if they're all upgraded in the same method... the Tom's Hardware articles were pretty interesting to read through. It was a little unclear exactly what they were testing in the maya section (were they playing through an animation interactively and timing it? There was a video on the page, but it was just some guy doing a review of a laptop and not a description of the test). The quadro cards seemed to outperform the gtx cards in maya - for the most part... I don't know much about the difference between quadro and gtx cards at that time though - it would be interesting to see the results if they were to do the tests again with current cards. I have been curious if the "brute force speed" would even out or even surpass the lower tier quadro cards even with the difference in drivers - especially since it sounds like the gap between quadro/gtx specs is less significant these days. I wish you had a quadro to compare to as well, haha! As to your question about how the 1070 in sli would compare, I have read in multiple places (forums and articles online) that maya does not make use of sli at all... So, I assume it would perform exactly the same as the 1070 alone. At least for now, sli may just be a gaming thing (I've even read that some games don't support sli - I guess it has to be factored in to the programing of the software)... Thanks again for the input!

Qwweb - I'm actually not going to be using the card for rendering... I'm just concerned about the speed in which the card will allow interaction within maya - specifically in regards to modeling, rigging, and animating. I've seen several youtube videos of people creating gpu render machines by utilizing many gtx cards (not in sli), so I would probably head that route if I need rendering capacity. Princess Cadence - I could be wrong, but I highly doubt a graphics card with Maxwell architecture would outperform a card with Pascal architecture (at least between the titan X and 1080 ti) especially since the 1080 ti has been shown to be more powerful than the titan X with pascal architecture. Also, since I'm making a workstation, I'll not be doing any overclocking to ensure stability and longevity of the machine. As for your second post - I apologize, perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my post... I meant that I had not seen any information that showed where the titan X ranked among quadro cards for use within Maya. There are some charts showing how the quadro cards perform against each other, but I have no idea where the titan X fits in among those (at the bottom? somewhere in the middle? no idea...). I have watched that video before, but went ahead and watched it again to be sure. Linus basically tests the M6000 against the titan X for gaming. Afterward, he does test them on some type of rendering software and also a video editing program. I'm not rendering, so I don't care about the rendering performance of the cards; I need to know about maya interactivity, and he doesn't take a look at that - aside from that, it's not even the cards I'm looking into, so it wouldn't be exceptionally helpful unless I find something showing the performance of the p4000 against the m6000 in maya. Just to help clarify further - in case some people aren't aware - rendering and maya interactivity are two completely separate things that have different requirements. Interactivity within maya is all about how quickly you can spin a camera around objects/characters, manipulate geometry, manipulate a rig and set keyframes, etc - all while working interactively with maya in one of the viewports. Rendering is the process of determining the color required for each pixel of the final image after geometry, lighting, and texturing are taken into account. Rendering requires no interactivity - you start a render and pretty much walk away while your computer crunches numbers...

Thank you for the responses. I don't want to come across as ungrateful, but I'm hoping for something a little more in depth with some sort of data behind it... themctipers - yes, all of that is true, but I'm wondering if the drivers would make enough of a difference for performance in maya JDE - reliability is a concern, but I've not come across anything in my research showing that gtx cards are not reliable... Could you perhaps expand and clarify? Are you talking about the longevity of the card, gpu rendering, or maya viewport performance? Zodiark1593 - while I won't be using auto cad, faster performance within maya will allow me to work faster/efficiently. Between the quadro p4000 and the gtx 1080 ti, the quadro actually has less vram (and actually half the cuda cores); however, I'd like to know if the different drivers offset this disparity. matrix07012 - based on this page http://www.nvidia.com/object/compare-quadro-gpus.html the p4000 doesn't have ECC (although it's not exactly clear if they're talking about the vram or not...) It seems like there's just too many variables to merely look at the card specs and determine which is going to be better in actual real world use. The difference between the quadro and gtx drivers, the way gtxs redraw the whole image for each screen while quadros redraw smaller parts, whether or not the larger number of cuda cores and vram actually allows the 1080 ti to work faster in maya than the p4000, etc, etc, etc - these are the things that really need some sort of benchmarking to help show which one would be better to go with - it may be surprising to see one truly outperform the other, but hard data is really the only way to be sure. The quadro p4000 is about $160 more than the gtx 1080 ti; if it performs better in maya, then it's very much worth it to me, but if it's actually weaker for my needs, then it's a complete waste of that money. Is there a place on this forum for linus tech tip video suggestions, or do they read through the forums too? Of course... since most of what they do is in reference to gaming, they may not deem this to be a cost effective test for them to do... you never know without asking though, right?

So, I'm looking into which graphics card would end up performing better for my workstation to run Maya for 3d animation work... this computer is not used for gaming. I model, rig, and animate (mostly rigging). I'm mainly trying to determine what will allow my maya viewport to run the smoothest, but sifting through all the data online is very difficult since most (if not all) tests are run with gaming fps in mind. I've seen some data comparing the quadros to each other, but not against any gtx cards. Maya officially supports quadros (predominately), but I know gtx cards can work too. I saw that the titan X is also supported, but I can't seem to find any info about where it ranks among the quadros, and I don't know if the 1080 ti will be better for maya in the same way that it's more powerful for gaming. I found this on youtube At first it looks pretty amazing but it seems a little deceptive because the quadro card is running NVidia architecture that is a version or two older than the 1080 (specifically keplar, vs maxwell). I've also watched every linus tech tips video where quadro cards are mentioned, but they mainly just seem to be telling gamers not to bother buying them or just explaining what the difference is. There aren't really any fair comparisons for speed using maya anywhere - at least, non that I could find. I am specifically looking at the new quadro p4000 and the new gtx 1080 ti. I may consider the p5000, but I think it's a little bit too expensive for the minimal performance gain over the p4000 (based on this NVidia info page http://www.nvidia.com/object/autodesk-maya.html). These cards are all on the pascal architecture, so I'm hoping there is someone out there who may be able to crack open maya and check the fps (tumbling the camera around a model, checking wireframe, shaded, textured, playing animation in the maya window, maybe running some dynamics and/or particles, etc) to compare the two cards (p4000 and 1080 ti). I would greatly appreciate actual data to people simply saying to get one or the other - I've read posts on several forums of people simply stating what to get without much of anything to support it, to the point that it's actually not really helpful... I know linus tech tips mostly makes videos with gaming in mind, but I'm kind of hoping they may choose to do a video with data like I'm requesting... not sure the best place to ask them for that, but I'm also content to view feedback here even if it's not a youtube video. I'm really only concerned about performance in the maya viewport - not gpu rendering... It sounds like I can always install a few gtx cards for the sake of gpu rendering (if I ever even need to do that...) Thanks for taking the time to read this and respond!