Hardware recommendations
-
There are 2 tests on there. I'm not sure what the numbers are referring to on the first test so I can't comment on that one. But on the second test the 480 seems to do pretty well. The comments at the end of the article are useful as well. He basically says that the results are really quite similar between all the cards and recommends not using SU as your primary benchmark when purchasing a graphics card.
I saw that same article some time ago and if it taught me anything it's that graphics cards are really unpredictable when it comes to viewports. You can buy a high end card that would run the best fps on the market or do great in a cinebench test, but lags behind a mid range card in viewports. Very weird.
-Brodie
-
It's strange and it's a bit confusing, but I think the Fermi architecture play a very important role in this. But nevertheless, the numbers, in the Sketchup test, are strange. I thought I've bought a high-end card that would blow away all those Geforce game rubbish....not....
-
@pep75 said:
It's strange and it's a bit confusing, but I think the Fermi architecture play a very important role in this. But nevertheless, the numbers, in the Sketchup test, are strange. I thought I've bought a high-end card that would blow away all those Geforce game rubbish....not....
It does not go quite like that. Gaming cards have definitely more bang for the buck than the QuadroFX models. What you get with a Quadro is some more reliability and better drivers optimized for 3D content creation.
I have been happy with my FX1800/i7/Win7-64 combination, also with Photoshop. Are your drivers up to date?
I am not sure about the situation today, but some years ago Photoshop and DTP professionals used to prefer Matrox cards, and definitely they gave the best looking screen image on CRT monitors. You have to forget about SU, though - I once tested, and got a BSOD...
Anssi
-
My drivers are up to date...and I think/know CS5 is working "crappy"...and I don't notice spectacular differences with my fx1800 card...that's why I'm wondering what I should do!
Well....
-
This might be a little late of a response but maybe it will help someone or at least be a useful reference.
I just built a system around an i5-2500k and an AMD HD6950. I've played with it all weekend (although not exhaustively yet or even had a chance to benchmark anything) and have had absolutely no problems with sketchup or any other program. I'm not sure if it's the processor or the GPU but performance is (subjectively) very impressive.
From my point-of-view the ATI (now AMD) su errors are a thing of the past. If I do come across any problems after I have a chance to use it a bit more I'll let people know. -
-
Alright, got my new toy!
a really good looking thing
it is Sony Vaio EB4
i-5 560 2.6 Ghz turbo to 3.2 Ghz.
RAM 4 Gb, GPU - ATI Mobility Radeon
HD5650 1Gb
nice full keyboard and 1920x1080p screen.
Performs nice and smooth. No issues with ATI card.
(I did have to purchase the mate film for the screen, so I can kill the glossy effect the laptop came with. It was $50 extra - but it works rather well. Also I upgraded to 4Gb RAM right away (original system had 2Gb) + Windows 7 Ultimate (64bit) so I can change the System original language to English.The only serious compromise was the backlit keyboard. This model doesn't have it
Total demage $1260 (in Shanghai, here the hardware is a bit more pricey than back in US)
However, the funny part is that on the SU hardware speed test
(http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=20076&p=302554&hilit=speed+test#p302554)
it performs about the same as my 5 year old Dell laptop (2.13 Ghz pentium, 4Gb, nVidia...512Mb) 60+ f/sbut the old thing is clunky and does't have full keyboard and weighs a ton.
Well, by this I can sort of justify the money spent.I guess after all the research I did and actually getting the thing it is fare to say that Vaio EB4 is the best value for the money for an architect designer. (considering that SU is your bread and butter. where PhotoShop, Gaming, video editing and Revit are supplementary)
-
pls pls pls
i7 2600 3.40 + 16gb + nvidia GeForce GT430 = lot of problems with textures/shadows working on my big projects.
What is the best GPU for my sketchup-workstation? should i go for a fx series? -
@firfirikis said:
pls pls pls
i7 2600 3.40 + 16gb + nvidia GeForce GT430 = lot of problems with textures/shadows working on my big projects.
What is the best GPU for my sketchup-workstation? should i go for a fx series?Have you updated the drivers? They can often make a big difference.
Also, what problems? (Just so that people don't recommend hardware for something hardware can't fix.) -
yeap, the drivers are the latest ones!
the probs are that when i orbit the project i have the texture-lag (textures appear 2-3 secs later). You can imagine what happens with shadows ''on'''... what can i do??? will that problem be fixed with a GPU with opengl hardware? -
How large are your textures?
How large is your model? (number of faces and edges?)The effect you see is a feature in SketchUp in order to maintain performance when orbiting, textures edges effects and shadows will be progressively turned of - eventually geometry will be displayed by their bounding box.
Note that edge effects takes at least as much toll on your hardware as shadows.
-
faces:50701
edges:16302
the size of textures? what does it means? -
By pixels. Like extremely large texture files (thousands of pixels) can drive SU crazy when there are a lot of them and max texture size is checked.
The poly count does no seem to be large IF you also checked "show nested components" on the top of the statistics window.
-
ΞΞΞPS!!!
i ve just clicked on the nested components...
edges : 1.683.524
faces : 633.283
do i have to worry????!!!!
the texture size is the standard su texture size (su stone, su bricks, etc etc...) -
@firfirikis said:
ΞΞΞPS!!!
i ve just clicked on the nested components...
edges : 1.683.524
faces : 633.283
do i have to worry????!!!!
the texture size is the standard su texture size (su stone, su bricks, etc etc...)With that kind of size you have to expect Shadows, Edge Styles, Textures and Geometry to degrade while orbiting. Save your money. Optimize your model. (Purge, erase unnecessary geometry, reduce detail you don't see.)
-
did i reach the limits of su?
you think that there is no GPU wich can handle my job?
what can i do then for my presentation ???!!! -
@firfirikis said:
did i reach the limits of su?
You're pushing it, yes. 500K faces+ is very heavy. I have had some models like that, up to a million or two faces, but it's been either crazy experiments or interior models with lots of high poly furniture.
@firfirikis said:
what can i do then for my presentation ???!!!
@thomthom said:
Optimize your model. (Purge, erase unnecessary geometry, reduce detail you don't see.)
Remove all you don't see in the model. Reduce detail unless you see it up close.
If you need real time performance you must think like game modellers do. -
maybe i should try another gpu (if some friend can give me a quadro) to see what happens...
thank u so much for your comments! -
@firfirikis said:
maybe i should try another gpu (if some friend can give me a quadro) to see what happens...
thank u so much for your comments!I have Quadro FX 3800 (I've had 3500, 3700) and I still see degrading with such models.
-
I'd agree with thomthom. GPU helps some, but with sketchup it won't help much.
-Brodie
Advertisement