I have a Quadro FX 580 in my system now, but Blender wants to see a higher “compute capability” in order for me to use GPU rendering. And I also like using Cycles, which I understand likes more cuda cores. My current card has 32 cuda cores and 512mb memory. The K620 has 384 cores and 2 gig memory.
I’m wondering if the K620 would be a good option for me?
I consider myself a hobbyist. I like to use Blender & iClone and the FX 580 does “okay” as long as I don’t push it. I also use my machine mostly for work that is not animation-related, so I don’t really want a high current drain card running when most of the time I will not be using it.
Will I see much of an improved performance with the K620? Or am I barking up the totally wrong tree?
Any help/advice/info appreciated.
Thank you,
Bud
SYS SPECS:
3.07GHz Intel Core i7 machine running Windows 7 Pro (v 6.1.7601 SP1)
6GB RAM
NVIDIA Quadro FX 580, 512MB RAM
Is there a specific reason you need a workstation (Quadro) card? You can get far better performance/$$ by getting something like a GTX 780/780Ti, or a GTX 970/980 if you want fast GPU rendering.
This does depend on your case/power supply, what is your current setup running?
My son built the machine for me 3-4 years ago when I was doing a lot of video editing (but not so much animation/blender/iClone). I remember he’d said the Quadro was optimized for video editing. These days I use the PC to do my “regular job” in which I use InDesign and Photoshop mostly. For “fun” I play with Blender, iClone, After FX. And for video editing I use Premiere or Avid Media Composer.
The only time the PC really seems to bog is when I have iClone running, which I do now (it’s rendering something as I type this and my monitor is updating sluggishly, lagging my typing). Blender renders take a looooooong time and use 100% of all my cores (i7 machine). So it would be nice to have some GPU rendering ability (right now none for Blender). Doesn’t necessarily have to be fast. Just faster than what I have now.
The power consumption of the GTX’s seems very high, which I suppose would be okay for a dedicated machine, but I use the machine mostly for work (which my current card handles just fine).
If I were to get a GTX, would it be possible to turn it on only as needed? While using my present card most of the time (for work)?
I do have a 750W supply in the case. I did a power consumption analysis recently and found I have over 400W of headroom (using all peak power numbers, so nominally it’s even more than that).
I understand about performance/$1 on thy buying end, but with the work PC running all day, an extra 150W draw could add up over a year. A lesser concern, but it’s still something I think about.
750W power supply is plenty to do what you want to do, I have the same size PS in my box and I’m running a GTX460 and a GTX980 without problems. The only thing you need to check is that you have a slot on your motherboard to put another card in. If you do than that is the perfect combo, keep your existing card to run your monitor and have the other card to render on.
I think that most of the newer Nvidia cards usually run around 40 to 60 Watts when idle, I don’t know what that would add up to though.
I do have PCIe x16 slots available. I see the GTX specs say “PCIe x16 3.0” – I’m not sure what 3.0 means, but I don’t think I have that because the box is 3-4 years old. Do you know if the “3.0” part makes a difference?
Good point about the lower power usage when idle. I have to remember the ratings are for max. So that doesn’t sound like so much now
Hi, it is even less, the GTX 970 draw < 20 Watt in idle.
PCIe 3.0 is the latest but is backward compatible with 2.0 or even 1.0.
This is not important for render only for ultra power gaming.
Thank you! That’s great info. Glad to know the 3.0 won’t be a roadblock. The benchmark tests are great research. I can’t do it because my card only has “compute capability” of 1.1. But just for giggles, I’m rending the benchmark via CPU as I type this. Just to see how long it takes (and for my own personal benchmark for after I upgrade the card).
Looks like the consensus here is one of the upper end GTX cards. Going to price some out soon.
Thanks for all the help. I’ll post my crazy CPU render time if it ever finishes . . .
No, I forgot. I read something on the benchmark page that said not to change the settings and then I forgot you had mentioned the 32x32 change. So tonight I tried it and it rendered in 32:11. Considerably faster. Interestingly, it’s just as fast (within seconds) of some of the GPUs on the spreadsheet you’d sent. So this is great info. Would not have been a big advantage for me to get the Quadro card, at least as far as Cycles GPU rendering is concerned.
Thanks for all the great advice. After weighing the info here and at a post I had in the iClone forum, it seems my best fit for both softwares (as well as others I run), in my price range, is the GTX970.
So I have one on the way from Newegg.
Will let you all know how it goes. I imagine my Cycles rendering will be at least 300% faster once I have it installed, based on tests so far.
I will run the benchmark again once I do, and let you all know.
