3D Modeling & Design – Do you REALLY need a Xeon and Quadro??

[Hot in Dubai]

How about Heat?

 

As someone being forced back into Solidworks and then providing renders for my business, I found this video quite informative.

 

My question is heat.  I live and work in Dubai.  The coolest ambient my PC will see for 9 months of the year is 28C (82F)

 

Currently I'm just running a standard I7 5930 and a 980Ti GPU  my case has 2 x 140 intake fans, a 120 at the rear and 2 x 120 on the top mounted radiator.  At idle I'm seeing 48C (118) on teh CPU and 60C (141F) on the GPU

 

If I put it on test (using cheap free down loaded software)  I'm seeing 81C (179F) at the CPU and 76c (170F) at teh GPU before it throttles down.  I have no idea it these numbers are bad or indifferent.  Building PC's isn't' my thing

 

So my question is; If I upgraded the recommended hardware am I going to have heat issues leaving everything else the same?

 

If I need a bigger case, bigger coolers fans etc, fine I can do that (Frankely a new PC is a drop in the ocean compared with the software)  I just want a clue before I spend money as reliability and constant operations in my concern given it's my business and income.

 

PS.  If anyone from LTT chips in with advice I'll reciprocate with free advice and help on TV studio lighting, because that's my job (and their janky set up triggers my professional OCD every time I see it  ) 

 

PPS if they want to conduct proper hot weather testing I can give them 48C (119F) ambient in the shade and truly test your coolers  

 

Thanks in advance

[Dumbee]

I would lie to have seen a RX 570 8GB in there just because 580's are used and abused by miners and overpriced as hell, and a RX 570 can be found for cheaper and would probably be more cost efficient.

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, Dumbee said:

I would lie to have seen a RX 570 8GB in there just because 580's are used and abused by miners and overpriced as hell, and a RX 570 can be found for cheaper and would probably be more cost efficient.

I can't imagine there would be huge performance differences here. I'd say remove 10 to 15% performance off the 580 figures, and that should be an "okay" ballpark.

[Dumbee]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

I can't imagine there would be huge performance differences here. I'd say remove 10 to 15% performance off the 580 figures, and that should be an "okay" ballpark.

Would a 570 still be better than a 1060?

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Dumbee said:

Would a 570 still be better than a 1060?

Hard to say. Depends on the price you can get them at. The higher VRAM on the 570 (We're assuming an 8GB variant) may have some potential benefits, but I'm not familiar enough with these types of tasks to know whether an extra 2GB (let alone an extra 5GB - if we're comparing a 3GB 1060) will matter.

[Dumbee]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Hard to say. Depends on the price you can get them at. The higher VRAM on the 570 (We're assuming an 8GB variant) may have some potential benefits, but I'm not familiar enough with these types of tasks to know whether an extra 2GB (let alone an extra 5GB - if we're comparing a 3GB 1060) will matter.

I am still pondering if I should get a RX 580 8GB, a GTX 1060 6GB or a RX 570 8GB, I really don't know what to get. Btw do ypu know if I should put more money on a GPU or a CPU for Maya, 3ds Max?

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Dumbee said:

I am still pondering if I get a RX 580 8GB, a GTX 1060 6GB or a RX 570 8GB, I really don't know what to get.

What are your priorities? Is the 3D modelling/design/CAD work more important, or something like gaming?

 

It all comes down to cost as well. If you can get them at or close to MSRP (or otherwise a great deal), the 1060 6GB is likely the better choice if Gaming is a bigger priority, with occasional design work.

 

Conversely, if design work is more important, then the 580 8GB would likely be better, and can still do pretty good gaming performance.

 

However, if one of the three is significantly cheaper than the others, I'd likely just get that.

[Dumbee]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

What are your priorities? Is the 3D modelling/design/CAD work more important, or something like gaming?

 

It all comes down to cost as well. If you can get them at or close to MSRP (or otherwise a great deal), the 1060 6GB is likely the better choice if Gaming is a bigger priority, with occasional design work.

 

Conversely, if design work is more important, then the 580 8GB would likely be better, and can still do pretty good gaming performance.

 

However, if one of the three is significantly cheaper than the others, I'd likely just get that.

I'd probably get the card for 50/50 gaming and design work, so a more balanced card would fit me better

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, Dumbee said:

I'd probably get the card for 50/50 gaming and design work, so a more balanced card would fit me better

Hmm. Well, the GTX 580 really smokes the 1060 in a lot of these tests. And while the 1060 will beat it in some games, the difference is not staggering.

 

I'd say that the 580 seems to be a great middle ground, assuming you can get one for a good price. The 570 would also be a good alternative, if the pricing on them is better for you.

[Dumbee]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Hmm. Well, the GTX 580 really smokes the 1060 in a lot of these tests. And while the 1060 will beat it in some games, the difference is not staggering.

 

I'd say that the 580 seems to be a great middle ground, assuming you can get one for a good price. The 570 would also be a good alternative, if the pricing on them is better for you.

Well, i've made up my mind because of you, i'll just save a little bit more and get the RX 580. It will also perform better than the 1060 in games when DirectX 12 gets better implementation, so thats good since I'm thinking on keeping this pc fpr atleast 3 years. Thanks for the help

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, Dumbee said:

Well, i've made up my mind because of you, i'll just save a little bit more and get the RX 580. It will also perform better than the 1060 in games when DirectX 12 gets better implementation, so thats good since I'm thinking on keeping this pc fpr atleast 3 years. Thanks for the help

No problem! However, don't put too much weight into DX12 - especially for "hypothetical" games that will use it more. Make sure you're accounting for games that you want to play right now, that have actual benchmarks.

[Dumbee]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

No problem! However, don't put too much weight into DX12 - especially for "hypothetical" games that will use it more. Make sure you're accounting for games that you want to play right now, that have actual benchmarks.

Yeh, Six Siege and LoL don't have much performance diference, and Kingdom Come Deliverance is still too new to be sure, as for other games like The Witcher and Shadow of Mordor/War, there is also not that much difference in performance so I'm gonna be handy dandy for gaming with either card.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Dumbee said:

Yeh, Six Siege and LoL don't have much performance diference, and Kingdom Come Deliverance is still too new to be sure, as for other games like The Witcher and Shadow of Mordor/War, there is also not that much difference in performance so I'm gonna be handy dandy for gaming with either card.

Awesome. Well even with DX11, the 580 isn't a shitty card. It's well matured now too with the drivers. It'll be fine.

 

Plus, FreeSync tends to be cheaper, if you wanted Variable Refresh Rate monitors.

[Marinatall_Ironside]

On 2/16/2018 at 6:49 PM, dalekphalm said:

So, I just went hunting through specs and reviews to confirm numbers - and first, FP16 specs are not posted in very many places. But I was able to confirm:

 

GP102 seems to be consistent across GTX vs Quadro for FP32, FP64 (1/32 performance), and FP16 (1/64 performance)

 

It's worth noting that the GP100 has insane FP16 performance, which is 2x the FP32 perf. Though GP100 never made it into a consumer chip.

 

So, I'll concede that. In times past, Quadro's often had much better FP64 perf over their GTX counterpart, but that trend seems to have mostly died.

 

However, increased RAM is still a huge benefit. The P6000 has 24 GB, compared to the various smaller amounts for the rest of GP102.

Yeah, FP64 was hamstrung after Kepler. Started with Maxwell where the FP64 performance was 1/32 that of FP32. From what I've gathered, Quadro users never really needed that FP64 performance anyways, or for simulations that do use FP64, they're putting onto servers equipped with Tesla cards, which excel in FP64 because FP64 is just time-consuming to run on a workstation without a Tesla.

 

For users who need/want the latest Quadro with brute force FP16/FP64 performance in mind, the Quadro GP100 is really the only choice, and the Quadro GV100 is set to be its successor, with Tensor Cores implemented (how is a CAD designer or 3D artist going to leverage Tensor Cores?).

 

And GP100 didn't make it to consumers because, quite frankly, what type of consumer needs GP100? They're going to be playing games anyways, and maybe do content creation that's going to undoubtedly be using FP32 almost exclusively.

 

But clock speeds, excellent FP32 performance, certified drivers, and massive VRAM sizes are also beneficial for those who don't need FP16/FP64 performance. So someone like me could use something like a Quadro M4000/P4000, which would be perfect for what I do.

[AlexTheGreatish]

On 2/18/2018 at 11:36 AM, Hot in Dubai said:

How about Heat?

 

As someone being forced back into Solidworks and then providing renders for my business, I found this video quite informative.

 

My question is heat.  I live and work in Dubai.  The coolest ambient my PC will see for 9 months of the year is 28C (82F)

 

Currently I'm just running a standard I7 5930 and a 980Ti GPU  my case has 2 x 140 intake fans, a 120 at the rear and 2 x 120 on the top mounted radiator.  At idle I'm seeing 48C (118) on teh CPU and 60C (141F) on the GPU

 

If I put it on test (using cheap free down loaded software)  I'm seeing 81C (179F) at the CPU and 76c (170F) at teh GPU before it throttles down.  I have no idea it these numbers are bad or indifferent.  Building PC's isn't' my thing

Sounds like you need a cooler upgrade, but 80C is far from worrying, until its near 100 it's not going to hurt anything.

[AlexMez]

Need another video comparing to the Quadro series to the Radeon Pro Wx from AMD

[xXDeltaXx]

Catching up on the videos, but I can say that some things will run on some really old equipment...
I had SolidWorks 2013 to 2014 / 2015 running on an OC'd Intel Q9450 @ 3.6GHz, Abit IP35 Pro XE, Gigabyte GTX470, 8GB (4x 2GB) Geil Back Dragon. That ran the software fine and would allow for some complex models, not thousands of parts, but multiple hundreds. That's not to say that it wasn't a bit slow at times (rebuilds and renders), but as a starting point, it's not too bad. (excluding limitations in the software requirements).

On the other hand, I'm searching for a new motherboard to get more RAM into my current system, as I'm hitting the max 16GB limit I have. My current system is a 4790K (stock), Impact VII (hence the 16GB limit), and a Quadro K4200. That is more than capable (bar the RAM) of running a multiple thousand part assembly in Solidworks 2018 and running  AutoCAD at the same time.

[Ajay2223]

On 2/15/2018 at 1:26 AM, AlexTheGreatish said:

What exactly makes Solidworks work.. solidly?  We test a whole bunch of hardware to give you the answer.

 

Buy a Quadro
On Amazon: http://geni.us/KP3OPR
On Newegg: http://geni.us/rVEAB

 

 

could you please do an update on this video .....

thank you

[AlexTheGreatish]

11 hours ago, Ajay2223 said:

could you please do an update on this video .....

thank you

Probably not, the basic theory hasn't changed.  Single core performance is king for Solidworks, Mulitcore only matters if you're doing a lot of rendering.  The i7-8700K, R7 2700X or i9-9900K are all good options.  For GPU Quadros are still king, get whatever one you can afford, the P4000 is the sweet spot.

[Dylpyckle13]

On 10/31/2018 at 4:10 PM, AlexTheGreatish said:

Probably not, the basic theory hasn't changed.  Single core performance is king for Solidworks, Mulitcore only matters if you're doing a lot of rendering.  The i7-8700K, R7 2700X or i9-9900K are all good options.  For GPU Quadros are still king, get whatever one you can afford, the P4000 is the sweet spot.

Please don’t hate for bringing up a dead thread but just had a question! Given new parts and products (RTX 30 series, 10th Gen Intel, new Ryzen 5 series beating Intel), would the same apply where Quadro is still king? Or given new parts, what would be recommended? What would a good CPU be to go with this now?

 

Mainly asking as I’m starting a new degree in element modelling, optimization, and analysis that will have me running complex models using SolidWorks, ANSYS, Abaqus, and some other programs. I’d like to build a desktop that is pretty much top of the line for these programs, I just don’t know where exactly top of the line is.