Video Card

[glorybound]

I try to follow you guys, but frankly, the talk makes my head spin. My 980ti isn't working in MAX 2017, so I want to try a new card. What is the best for the buck? I see that the Titan X is all the rave, but I am seeing prices from $1000, to $2000, which seems to be for the same card. I did see a Titan X hybrid for $1500.

https://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-.../dp/B00UXTN5P0

[glorybound]

This says it is like the Titan X, but heck, it is $5000

https://www.pugetsystems.com/parts/V...I-E-24GB-11657

[glorybound]

How about an 8GB PNY Quadro for MAX and a 4BG PNY Quadro for my 4K monitor. Does it matter what motherboard you have?

[Neilg]

Why are you using max 2017 if your video card wont work with it?

[glorybound]

Well, I didn't know it didn't work until I started using it. I am not sold on it being the issue because the 980ti is successfully being used by others in MAX 2017. I have a 4K monitor and MAX 2017 is the only release that works with it. I can get a new monitor that isn't 4K, which might be the solution. The only reason I am not steaming mad at Autodesk is that I am at least using 2017, kind of, and I didn't blow a grand on subscription. It would be insane to go back to an older version when you paid for the new, or at least in the real world and not AD's pretend world.

[Nicinus]

I have two large monitors now but have been considering one 40" instead, hoping it may be a bit more ergonomically, and maybe even faster driving just one screen although at higher res.

Are you happy with yours, Bobby, or could you just as well go back if needed?

[glorybound]

I am happy with mine as long as it's not my MAX issues. I don't want to jump ship on my 4K yet. since I don't think it has anything to do with my MAX issues. I might look at a larger monitor that's not 4K. I don't think you can tell the difference unless you compare side-by-side.

[Syclone1]

One thing i would look at esp if you have a big video card is make sure the back side (opposite to where the monitor plugs are) is not drooping at all. Ive had 2 workstations that I had to build a support for the cards because they were too heavy and not all the pins would connect and would get strange errors or they wouldn't work at all. Once I got them level with the PCIe slot raising the back by only 2 or 3mm then they were rock solid. Or I would also make double sure your PSU can handle the video card. The HP at my office needed to be upgraded for the GTX780 that's in it.

[glorybound]

I will check that out, thanks!

One thing i would look at esp if you have a big video card is make sure the back side (opposite to where the monitor plugs are) is not drooping at all. Ive had 2 workstations that I had to build a support for the cards because they were too heavy and not all the pins would connect and would get strange errors or they wouldn't work at all. Once I got them level with the PCIe slot raising the back by only 2 or 3mm then they were rock solid. Or I would also make double sure your PSU can handle the video card. The HP at my office needed to be upgraded for the GTX780 that's in it.

[Morne]

If you do go for a new card, don't get suckered into buying the OLD Titan X. There's a NEW Titan X now.
The old one is based on Maxwell Architecture, while the new one is based on the Pascal architecture which is way better. For some reason they'r both still called Titan X so I can see a lot of people getting suckered into buying the old one

[glorybound]

Good to know. I reinstalled MAX and I think that my problem is now gone. Why they would keep the same name is weird.

[mitviz]

yeah the new pascal cards are about 1200, i know someone who just bought it, its a beast! but the 1080 beats it up interms of bang for buck because for the titan x new one the render time is about 10 percent faster but! the big but is it has 12 gigs of vram and the 1080 8 gigs of vram which really comes in handy in big scenes, i personally am doing more gpu rendering these days than cpu, heck for the past month only gpu rendering i should mention and looking to get maybe two more 1080 cards, later when the 1080 ti drops it might beat up the titan x (hopefully) or i might just say fuckit and get a titan x instead, am stil thinking about it, but for you who are using windows 10 that eats up a chunk of vram better the titan x

[Nicinus]

yeah the new pascal cards are about 1200, i know someone who just bought it, its a beast! but the 1080 beats it up interms of bang for buck because for the titan x new one the render time is about 10 percent faster but! the big but is it has 12 gigs of vram and the 1080 8 gigs of vram which really comes in handy in big scenes, i personally am doing more gpu rendering these days than cpu, heck for the past month only gpu rendering i should mention and looking to get maybe two more 1080 cards, later when the 1080 ti drops it might beat up the titan x (hopefully) or i might just say fuckit and get a titan x instead, am stil thinking about it, but for you who are using windows 10 that eats up a chunk of vram better the titan x

I have similar thoughts. As I can't see myself going the 20 core Xeon route my other alternative would be to beef up the GPU side. Have done other things for the last month so decision has been postponed, but in my case I wonder if 8 vs 12 Gb really matters. I'm kind of reasoning that 8GB is a good chunk and should work for basic light setups in clay etc., whereas for serious work with lots of textures and proxies 12GB won't be enough anyway. This is primarily an interactivity thing for me as well, and I feel that when scenes are starting to get heavy it takes such time to load into RT that the interactive element is gone anyway. (Was the 'pause' button ever implemented?)

Would be great if someone with practical experience could chime in.

[glorybound]

Good logic and I concure. 4Gb wasn't enough with my 4K monitor and V-Ray RT and 12Gb was too pricy and my scenes wouldn't fit into it anyway. Until we start seeing 24Gb cards, I'll stick with my 8Gb one. I might get a second 8Gb to power my monitor, but I am not sure.

I have similar thoughts. As I can't see myself going the 20 core Xeon route my other alternative would be to beef up the GPU side. Have done other things for the last month so decision has been postponed, but in my case I wonder if 8 vs 12 Gb really matters. I'm kind of reasoning that 8GB is a good chunk and should work for basic light setups in clay etc., whereas for serious work with lots of textures and proxies 12GB won't be enough anyway. This is primarily an interactivity thing for me as well, and I feel that when scenes are starting to get heavy it takes such time to load into RT that the interactive element is gone anyway. (Was the 'pause' button ever implemented?)

Would be great if someone with practical experience could chime in.

[mitviz]

the the quadro m6000 is a 24 gig card but i think most scenes will fit into a 12 gig card, currently on my 1080 and doing up to 50 mill polys and using about 4 gig of vram, the trick is with textures, most people just use anything they find online or buy online so what you have to do is optimise those textures, even with regular vray its a good idea to optimise but for most scenes optimising textures can be a fast batch process in photoshop, and then it can handle huge scenes, my only issue is with vray rt, for large scenes it starts to get reallly slow on my 1080 card but one other gpu renderers its perfectly smooth, i guess it can only hand midsize and smaller scenes at the moment but its am invaluable too to have so i would say go for the 12 gig card, gpu rendering is dam fast, you should see rt with midsize scenes, its crazy fast! but for me, i think what grabs me is that i can upgrade anytime or double my speed anytime with gpu while with cpu, hmmm its tough