GeForce 8600GT display issues...
-
I upgraded from a 1.8 GHZ, 1 GB RAM notebook with a radeon 9700 to a 2.4 GHZ, 2 GB RAM, Quadro FX 570M machine and I too am not really noticing any diff. in the performance of SketchUp. What gives?? Maybe the 9700 was a super-underrated card??
[cwaters617]
-
The nVidia GF 8xxx (and ATi HD 2xxx) series cards are new generation which are aimed at DX10 and do not care much for OpenGL enhancement.
Apart from that I think Google needs to take a look at the SU code to have it make better use of the new generation hardware that their userbase are (or will soon be) running in order to further the speed and features of SU.
From what I've read in this thread, I've just sent a lot of money down the drain as I too am building a new (a little above average specced) machine. GRrrrr........
-
I'm most certainly not an expert when it comes to hardware issues but I like to just make a couple points.
I've been using SU for years and have never had AA turned on, for work or exporting.
And its been common wisdom that SU performance depends as much on processing power [and maybe RAM] as it does on the video card.Stu
-
This is rather interesting seeing I am considering buying the 8600GT, I have heard however that SU DOES NOT utilise dual or quad core power. It uses just a single core and doesnt know how to deal with more. Something I expect seeing fixed in SU7.
So it's logical you won't see any improvement. As far as the AA goes that is just relative to the amount of lines displayed the more lines the more SU leans on your gfx card, however apart from that it just leans on your core, for exporting for modelling, for handeling big models, all of it.
So in theory a single core 3.4 gigahertz would be faster with SU than a 2.6 quad. Sad really if you ask me.
As to RAM, ram you only need when the program tries to massload information. Something SU does not do as far as I know, it can do perfectly with 1 gig. I tested this, I was modelling a pretty heavy model and copied it entirely trying to load up my 3 gigs of ram though it didnt jump any higher than 700. And this was a big model!
-
You are correct rob, it is a real shame SU is not taking advantage of modern hardware, it still seems to be 3-4 years behind.
Lets hope 7 addreses this. -
http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro_professional_software.html
"NVIDIA
provides a full range of software solutions designed for professionals to take full advantage of NVIDIA Quadro graphics solutions"Glenn
-
Following this thread with interest also; I am going to get my computer guy build me a new machine and this it just the info I need to get it right.
So what is a good balance for SU as it is? [Processor, RAM, Graphics cards...]Thanks Guys...
-
Utiler, I recently bought a Dell Vostro with Windows XP and 256 MB GeForce 8600 GT card and it works perfectly. I've noticed in other posts (this forum and elsewhere) people complaining about the performance of the 512MB GeForce 8600 cards. Something to keep in mind.
-
@utiler said:
So what is a good balance for SU as it is? [Processor, RAM, Graphics cards...]
Processor: as fast you can get, within reason
RAM: it seems that 2GB is enough with XP, but get 3
Graphics card: Midrange is enough, the performance difference to high-end is negligible. The Nvidia QuadroFX series cards seem to be the least troublesome.Anssi
-
@anssi said:
Graphics card: Midrange is enough, the performance difference to high-end is negligible. The Nvidia QuadroFX series cards seem to be the least troublesome.
lol, try telling Tom that - it seems as though his Quadro FX1700 also has some issues.
Advertisement