Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards

About silent_sight

  • Title

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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 si
  6. 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 a
  7. 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 t
  8. 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 - w
  9. 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