New Computer Suggestions

[3ddesign]

I'm going to purchase an Intel Xeon 5355 8Gb XP64 machine and have some questions.

1. NVidia Quadro FX 3500 256MB vx. FX 4600 768MB - Any good reason to choose one over the other? I do mostly architectural interiors, high detail, lots of maps.

2. I'm in the US. I've purchased from XiComputer and HP - happy with both. Everyone here, though, seems to rave about BOXX. With same configuration, Xi is $6400, BOXX is $7200 and HP is $7700. I'm leaning to Xi due to price, but BOXX looks tempting. Any experience that would help tip the balance? Performance? Support?

Thanks for your reply, Craig

[joconnell]

Boxx have very good support and they burn the feck out of their configurations to test them so they're pretty damn solid. They're also 3d heads in the first place so they're more aware of what issues may come up in your applications. Their support will send you a new part immediately if you have a fault rather than needing to take it back, examine it and send a new one if faulty. That said though i'd give the quadro a miss - they're a waste in max, get a top end geforce instead and either buy a render node with the difference in cost or send it to me and lele so we can hang around in swanky italian bars drinking cocktails and surrounded by women that'd kill you with a look

[3ddesign]

Thanks for the reply. If BOXX knows 3D as you say, but doesn't offer the GeForce on their 8300, I wonder why. I read the thread about graphics cards and most people there agree with you. As far as I could tell, though, the people who said that they would never recommend a workstation card but prefer a gaming card have never mentioned why. Yet, the person who preferred the workstation card mentioned reliability, better max drivers, etc.

Percy made a great comment about inexpensive $100 cards. Do I really need all that pixel shader jazz if all I do is model architecture? (I'm to old to play computer games. Bacce Ball is more my speed.)

While I trust the 3D gurus who contributed to the debate, can anyone offer experiential evidence why one card type is better than the other? And is tons of memory all that important in day to day workflow?

Thanks, Craig

[mike_kennedy]

The game cards have good performance in Max because of Max's support for direct 3d. Open GL is slower in Max and there for a game card is very well suited for fast view port interaction.

[joconnell]

That's exactly it - firstly max has really bad open GL support so it doesn't use the full power of a workstation card and secondly open GL gets developed at a snails pace compared to Direct X which is possibly to do with the speed of improvements and finance of the games markets. There are the custom maxtreme drivers which will make a quadro card very very fast under max, but that said not so much faster than a top end geforce card that it's worth $1500 more than it. As regards reliability etc, the only benefit I ever got from a workstation card was that it had very good viewport quality - I didn't have any errors or glitches like badly drawn edges or objects being incorrectly displayed in front and behind of each other. That said any glitches i've had are relatively minor and don't happen often so I'm willing to overlook them. I'd totally understand if you were working in scientific analysis or product design and manufacture where you don't want to mistake a viewport glitch for a flaw in a model etc but a dodgy edge now and then doesn't really stop me from working.

I'd say boxx don't offer geforce cards for a few reasons - for starters they aren't certified by any of the software makers, second they don't use any of the application specific drivers that are guaranteed for top viewport quality and lastly they're right, the quadros are in theory the best performance you can get. It just so happens though that the geforce cards happen to be bugger fast under direct x in max. Personally I like their support, they're very swift at solving problems and the company attitude is great. I'm also a very computer literate person so if anything blew up in my machine I'd be more likely to figure out what the problem was, go down to the shops for a replacement part and be back up and running in an hour or two - i'm a really poor back seat driver

If you have the option of a boxx I'd highly recommend it above any other machine, they're the most solid machines I've ever used. I just think that the quadro isn't taken advantage of by max and if you're going to spend money on something, it should earn its keep so i'd be more inclined to get something that'd give you more benefit like a second cheapy render node, a bigger monitor or a really nice eames aluminium group chair

[3ddesign]

Thank you both for your replies. This makes very good sense. Even a Ferrari ain't so fast if the driver don't know how to drive (me for example). A card is only as good as the software that drives it.

John, I do have the option of the BOXX. It is looking more and more attractive and the more I read, the better it sounds. Our company has special pricing through HP but even then, BOXX comes in a bit cheaper.

[voltron7]

I found my latest config to be lowest price at polwell computers.
I wish it were as beefy sounding as yours, though.

[werticus]

i've been doing some extensive research into cost effectivness..


I have discovered I can get 3x quad 2.33ghz and make them overclockable safley to 3ghz easily

with consumer level gear - so 12cores, 36ghz for $AU5.5k

no video card included in that but im looking for render power, 8gb ram, minimal HDD.

far less cost effective to get xeons as the fb ram costs a lot and the cpu's cost too much also.

[RErender]

Hi Craig,

I'd go with the Xi over the Boxx, we've tested the Boxx's and frankly there is nothing special about them IMO. We've bought several Xi boxes and they have ran great and the support is good too.