Workstation 3D?

[Mark R]

We've just got a very expensive specialist industry-specific software package at work. It came with pre-built workstations, dual quad core Xeon, 16 GB RAM and 4k displays. The graphics cards were those specified by the software vendor, Nvidia Quadro FX 370.

We're needing to add a few extra workstations to support working from other sites, but are on a major tight budget, so we're looking for a cheaper graphics option, instead of the expensive quadro cards (which despite their cost are actually quite buggy and glitchy).

The software seems massively graphics bound, lagging severely at large viewport sizes, CPU usage rarely hits 5%, and RAM usage doesn't go above 2.5 GB as the main software appears to be a 32 bit binary.

So I was wondering whether a decent "consumer level" graphics card might be worth trying. The vendor will only recommend the quadro cards, but while the accountants didn't mind signing off on the uber workstations, they are whining like hell at funding the purchase of some low-end hardware to go on some satellite sites.

I did some testing at home, using a virtual box running on my ivy bridge with integrated graphics, and it seemed to run a lot better than the workstations at work, but I was only running at 2560x1440, rather than 4k. Does this suggest, that ivy or haswell integrated graphics might be good enough?

 

[ph2000]

this article should be interesting for your need
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493.html

 

[moonbogg]

It sounds like you are using an exclusive software package. I doubt people here will have experience with it, and without that experience its hard to suggest anything. After spending all that money I find it silly to not include good quadro cards for each PC. I am pissed off for you.
Find a forum for that software, if there is such a forum and ask them.

 

[Mark R]

Hmm. I checked out that toms article. Thanks for that. They didn't even bother testing the cards 3 or 4 "notches" higher in Nvidia's line up, saying they were so low-end that they couldn't be bothered to run the benchmarks as they were so slow.

It turns out that the Quadro 370 is obsolete, it's not even listed as a current product on Nvidia's web site, and even when it was released it was extreme entry level. I couldn't find any directly comparative benchmarks, but extrapolating, it looks like ivy integrated is close to 10x faster than the 370. Lol. I hadn't even realised that the specs on these vendor-supplied cards were so bad.

I think I'll recommend that they go for a basic haswell powered dell PC without graphics card as a first trial (that should keep the accountants happy).

 

[zir_blazer]

These nVidia Quadro 370 seems to use the G84 die. In other words, they're the same as a GeForce 8600GS/GT/GTS from 2007.

Read about soft/hard modding a GeForce into a Quadro. A Hard mod requieres soldering, a Soft mod should be able to be done by only using modified Drivers, or maybe a modified BIOS. Figuring out if you can make that Software work properly on a modded GeForce shouldn't be easy, but could be worth if you're budget limited.

 

[crashtech]

That video card is from 2007. I hope these workstations aren't new.

 

[Mark R]

That video card is from 2007. I hope these workstations aren't new.

Brand new. Lol.

 

[ruhtraeel]

We've just got a very expensive specialist industry-specific software package at work. It came with pre-built workstations, dual quad core Xeon, 16 GB RAM and 4k displays. The graphics cards were those specified by the software vendor, Nvidia Quadro FX 370.

We're needing to add a few extra workstations to support working from other sites, but are on a major tight budget, so we're looking for a cheaper graphics option, instead of the expensive quadro cards (which despite their cost are actually quite buggy and glitchy).

The software seems massively graphics bound, lagging severely at large viewport sizes, CPU usage rarely hits 5%, and RAM usage doesn't go above 2.5 GB as the main software appears to be a 32 bit binary.

So I was wondering whether a decent "consumer level" graphics card might be worth trying. The vendor will only recommend the quadro cards, but while the accountants didn't mind signing off on the uber workstations, they are whining like hell at funding the purchase of some low-end hardware to go on some satellite sites.

I did some testing at home, using a virtual box running on my ivy bridge with integrated graphics, and it seemed to run a lot better than the workstations at work, but I was only running at 2560x1440, rather than 4k. Does this suggest, that ivy or haswell integrated graphics might be good enough?

TBH "Industry-specific" tells most of the story. In my/my dad's company, he is the one who validates hardware for compatability/usage in the company. For example, if they have a previous gen Quadro card, they can't just upgrade to the next gen when the time comes because they must do extensive testing and make sure that every single piece of software is compatible with the next card. In a Quadro, this is most of what you pay for: the support.

That being said, from a sheer performance standpoint, it would also depend a bit on what industry and what setting the card is being used in. For example, a pro-am modeller @ home might be using Blender, 3dsmax, Maya, and such. This would have different requirements than, say, our company, which is in the Oil and Gas industry. There are cards used here for high resolution 3D seismic renderings of geological terrain and wells in virtualization rooms. I know that Quadro 6000's and such are used in these rooms. But alas, I'm obviously not using a Quadro 6000 in my office computer; the standard workstations and desktops here tend to have mid-range hardware from what I've seen, including Quadro FX 4600's, 1800's, Radeon 3600's etc.

But as you can probably tell, the performance is really not as important (at least in my company) as the support. There are even people still using SUN Ultra 40 M2's here. When considering a consumer graphics card, I would recommend asking yourself if it will support the software you are using and the software in the future, especially if it is very industry specific.

If it's any help, my company has a partnership with HP for workstations and Toshiba for laptops. The older workstations (according to my dad and from what I've seen) can include Sun Ultra 40 M2's and HP XW9300/9400's with Opteron 2222's and 2354's respectively, and Quadro FX 4600 cards. The computer I am using is an HP DC7900, with a Core 2 Duo E8500 and a Radeon 3600 series card. The most recent workstations we have upgraded to are HP Z800's. I don't know the specs for those ones, sorry (I only know that they have SSD's apparently, and i7's from what I've heard). I mostly only know about the older ones more because those are the ones that my dad can bring home and keep (obviously he can't run around stealing brand new $5000 machines). Do keep in mind that this company is a mid-sized one, so a smaller company would probably have more flexibility in hardware and hardware vendors.

As a summer student, I am using 2 1280*1024 HP LP1965 Monitors. I can see that the office employees here are all using 2 1920*1080 HP Monitors (same product line, I think it's LP 2xxx or something)

But getting free Ultra 40 M2's and XW9400's + older Quadro's (4600's and such) is nice too

 

[gorobei]

http://www.pugetsystems.com/all_articles.php
the pugetsound guys provide systems for all kinds of businesses so they have done articles to help their customers figure out what level of hardware they need. there are some maya, autocad, ps, premiere articles from last winter that can give you an idea of how the consumer and professional cards perform.

without knowing where the processing load is for your application its hard to make any clear recommendation. assuming its 2d, then you dont need much gpu power even at 4k. more vram can help with larger images.

 

[Cerb]

Does this suggest, that ivy or haswell integrated graphics might be good enough?

It is highly likely that Haswell's IGP offers higher performance. That's not going to get you what you need, business-wise, though, I doubt.

The FX 370 is pretty ancient, and was not a fast card when it was brand new. It is the hardware equivalent of a Geforce 8400GS (single-channel DDR2). If the software is GPU-bound, that was a shit choice by them to push/recommend, regardless of pro/gamer card issues. Back in 2007, when it was new, it was among their slowest models, probably only beaten in low performance by some NVS using an even older GPU.

A similar-cost new Quadro, if it's compatible, would run circles around it. But, that's something small businesses can get away with much easier than big ones. Having separate accounting people tells me it's on the large side.

 

[3DVagabond]

Looking up the FX 370 it only has 256MB of vram. @ 4K resolutions I don't see how the vendor could ever expect that to work.

 

[Pottuvoi]

Looking up the FX 370 it only has 256MB of vram. @ 4K resolutions I don't see how the vendor could ever expect that to work.

It's incredible how many companies sell obsolete Quadro cards to go with graphics workstations.
Reminds me of the old good, 'lets sell a computer with high end CPU and 64MB of memory as XP workstation' idea..