Gaming Card for AutoCAD

[Jut]

Hi, I've got a lot of friends looking for a rig that can run AutoCAD comfortably at tight budgets (i.e. budgets that won't fit an FX5800)

My question is, how much do gaming cards help in AutoCAD rendering?

For example, how much faster will a Phenom II X4 955 BE in AutoCAD with a GTS 450 as compared to without it?

What about higher end cards like the GTX 560 Ti? How does it compare to a low-end Quadro like the FX 580? I've read that AutoCAD, which previously only supported OpenGL, now supports DirectX as well. This purportedly makes GeForce cards viable choices as well.

Also, what about Radeon cards? Is AutoCAD dependent on CUDA cores, thus effectively limiting viable gaming cards to GeForces? Or can Radeons be used as well?

Sorry for the questions, but I really am interested in learning about the significance of a gaming GPU for workstation apps like AutoCAD. Thanks

 

[Arkadrel]

http://www.nvidia.com/object/autocad_pd_perf_drivers.html

Basically its all OpenGL, which means its not limited to nvidia cards (its not cuda).
There are youtube videos with the Firepro cards vs the Quadros... so it seems like it works reguardless of which you pick.

So no its not just limited to Geforces, radeons can do it as well.

Which is faster? no idea... i ll try googleing for some benchmarks.

 

[Gillbot]

Depends on what you are actually doing, though from my experience with a CAD station, your HDD speed and Ram speed/volume matter more than anything else.

 

[kevinsbane]

Actually, in AutoCAD 2010 + 2011, not only is DirectX supported, it is the only option. OpenGL is not present in 2010 and 2011; 2009 is the last release of AutoCAD that uses OpenGL on hardware.

At least that's what the official FAQ at AutoDesk says. I'm busy (sorta) running AutoCAD Civil 3D 2011 on a HD 5450. I think the OpenGL driver from NVidia is a software OpenGL emulation driver?

 

[Cerb]

P.S. Grrr, ninjas!

Many pro apps still cling to OpenGL, but it's not all OpenGL, and AutoCAD has not even listed OpenGL support as requirements for a few years, now.

AutoCAD will work fine with gaming cards, and even feature cards (I have one client happily using it on a 8400GS, so as to get two VGA outs from the same GPU--the AMD IGP is probably faster, but it works well, and the budget was tight). With Direct3D, the differences are greatly reduced compared to OpenGL. For high quality renders, worry about CPU first, having enough RAM second, having a nice disk drive third (budget, obviously), and having a nice pro card last, unless you absolutely know before-hand that you have an app/plugin/etc. that needs a pro card for something.

When you get to the pro card, realize that drivers account for most of the differences. If the CPU/RAM are invalidated as limitations, and normal editing is slow, a Quadro 600 might make a world of difference, but from the drivers, not from being a powerful card.

Also, apps that use CUDA, but only support Quadros, often can be made to use Geforces (like w/ Adobe, it seems to be more of a, "don't call us if it doesn't work," issue).

For AutoCAD, you will be much more benefited by a pro card for normal editing, with solid colors and wire frames, than for a quality render.

Gaming-level card or not, make sure to get at least a 1GB card, even a slow one. Modern cards will happily eat up system memory as well as their own, so you shouldn't 'run out', but swapping can still slow things down.

IMO, a low-end nVidia card, like a GT 240, or GTS 430, would be the best fit. There is enough support out there for CUDA that a 240 or 430 could provide benefit with it v. just CPU, even if down the road, and those shouldn't break the bank (but if the budget is tight enough, $30 cards will do fine). Consider how many displays, and of what type, will be used, as well (this alone could push you over to a Radeon 5xxx, low-end Quadro, etc.), and be aware that those 3 and 4 output Geforce cards can't use all the outputs at once.

 

[elkinm]

My dad uses AutoCad and auto cad is still not very graphics intensive, at least compared to the likes of SolidWorks or Pro-E, so I believe any modern card will do fine.

However, in some or many cases, if you can properly install FireGL or Quadro drivers with a mainstream card you can get significantly better performance. For that purpose I think AMD (ATI) is better as it is easier to get them to work or find the modified drivers. I modified a 3870 for 10x improvement but could not do it with a 8800GT.

Either way, you might need to go with older gen cards as usually the professional cards are a little behind and there might not be an equivalent pro driver.

 

[Cerb]

I'm not well-versed in that, but if you can fairly easily take a reference low/mid Radeon, and either flash it, or just change INF info, that would be a killer budget option, too.

 

[Jut]

So basically, given a Phenom II X4 840 + HD 4250 IGP vs. Athlon II X4 635 + GTS 450, the build with a GTS 450 will be faster even if it has a CPU that's a tiny bit (300 MHz) slower?

If yes, how so? Does it affect both 2D and 3D rendering? And how much faster will it be?

 

[timma]

buy 6850 OC or GTX 460 SOC~

 

[Jut]

A faster video card is out of the question. That's the fastest that can be included in the budget.

 

[sgrinavi]

I use Autodesk software 16 hrs a day....

In autocad just doing 2d drafting you'd be better off spending more on a fast dual core CPU and less on the video card. In the $100 range the 450 or the 5770 would be great choices - I set up a home workstation for my boss with a 5770.. he loves it and its faster than his work desktop that has a low end quadro card.

In all reality you can do simple 2d work with almost anything, but the nice thing about having the 5770ish card is that you can also do some decent gaming and if you step up to 3d work it would be a big help when you are trying to model in a shaded viewport.

REVIT & 3dsMAX are another story

BTW, You see 1 GB 4850's for around $50 these days with rebates, that would work too.

 

[3DVagabond]

So basically, given a Phenom II X4 840 + HD 4250 IGP vs. Athlon II X4 635 + GTS 450, the build with a GTS 450 will be faster even if it has a CPU that's a tiny bit (300 MHz) slower?

If yes, how so? Does it affect both 2D and 3D rendering? And how much faster will it be?

Basically, the faster your CPU/GPU are the better. I don't think the PhenII will really be a lot faster than the AthlonII rendering. The 450 should be noticeably faster in the editor though.

You need to use Mental Ray as the renderer and iray is the "plugin" for it that allows gpu rendering. I don't think Mentalray is the standard renderer for Autocad though, just Max.

 

[Cerb]

So basically, given a Phenom II X4 840 + HD 4250 IGP vs. Athlon II X4 635 + GTS 450, the build with a GTS 450 will be faster even if it has a CPU that's a tiny bit (300 MHz) slower?

No. Given a Core i3 and a cheap Radeon or Geforce, you would be faster than either of the above (IMO, nV/AMD card > AMD IGP > Intel IGP). A GTS 450 will be overkill (well, with a really tight budget, anyway), and a ~3GHz i3 should stomp the Phenom all over the place. A GT 210, GT 240, HD 4550, HD5450, maybe even a 4350, etc., should be plenty for a low budget build. A decent Intel CPU would be more worth putting money into than a good video card. Let a good video card be a future upgrade option, and get a good CPU right now.

If you want to get a card compatible w/a ATI pro card, looks there's good info here.