Best GPU for display??

NastyCircus · Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:44 pm

Hi, everyone. To get a dedicate graphic card for octane, i want to konw...

what graphic card is better for olny display? (quadro, ge force)

can i put 2 diffetent graphic cards( gtx/quadro ) and use only the powerfull one for octane render??

i'll wait for next generation gpu (kepler).

thanx!!! =)

Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:56 pm

If all you are going to use it for is to display then simply buy the cheapest GPU you can. As long as it can drive your monitor then that is all it needs to do.

YouTube · Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:08 pm

A 460 is good for display and your work in your modeling package, I'm using it with 2 480's for rendering. and it's cheap:)

necko77 · Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:26 am

just take as much as you can CUDA CORES
go to 1000 cuda cores minimum and you will be abale to have pleasent work with interiors and super fast work with exteriors

Ofc, if you can buy 2000 CUDA cores, then do it !

I make a big mistake thinking that i will solve my problems buying gtx 460 with 2 GB of ram (336 CUDA cores)
Now i know that for interior renders, 1000 cores is somekid of minimum

i would buy now GTX 590 with 1000 cuda cores and 3 GBs of ram as my start point
and as octane team is doing great job with every next reliese...everything will get better...
I hope this helps

Necko

Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:48 am

For a display GPU!! Both of these suggestions sound completely OTT.

NastyCircus · Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:51 pm

necko77 wrote:just take as much as you can CUDA CORES
go to 1000 cuda cores minimum and you will be abale to have pleasent work with interiors and super fast work with exteriors

Ofc, if you can buy 2000 CUDA cores, then do it !

I make a big mistake thinking that i will solve my problems buying gtx 460 with 2 GB of ram (336 CUDA cores)
Now i know that for interior renders, 1000 cores is somekid of minimum

i would buy now GTX 590 with 1000 cuda cores and 3 GBs of ram as my start point
and as octane team is doing great job with every next reliese...everything will get better...
I hope this helps

Necko

the response I received form Octane, is if u have a quadro u will perform better and cooler because memory (quadro 4000 at minimium). but a little bit slow in compare to gtx.

with 2 gtx 580, you need 500watt more in your PSU. maybe an watter cooling for them too.

i thing is better survive whit my quadro 600 for display, and wait for kepler gpu's =)

Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:14 am

Hello

I'm totally new to CGI and want to learn more. I've been using Blender 2.5 for a few weeks now and came across Octane render and I want to purchase it.

I have to upgrade my hardware (with Nvidia graphics) but for the moment I don't want to spend too much money on it and I want to keep it mobile so I wanted to ask you what you think about this cheap(-ish) solution:

MEDION® ERAZER® X6813 15.6" Laptop
Intel® Core™ i7-2630QM processor
NVIDIA ® GeForce® GTX460M graphics
8GB RAM
750GB HDD

I understand the more CUDA cores, the better. But this one's got only 196 (I was reading that 1000x is the minimum!). How far am I going to go with this configuration?

Much respect to all of you guys, I've seen the pics you posted on the forum, they are just unbelievably realistic.

Thank you very much in advance.

Karol

kubo · Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:04 am

Don't quite know where you read that is recommended to have over 1000 CUDA cores, but that's far from the truth, lol, I'm sure that having that many would be a pleasure to render with, yet many users have a 460 and it works perfectly fine. The thing is having enough vram to suit your needs, 'cause that'll limit the amount of polygons and textures you'll be able to use. Keep in mind that sharing your GPU for display and rendering your OS is going to suck as much as 200Mb. But for starters that's not a bad rig, and you could even buy a secondary and hook it up to the notebook later on, there is a post in the forum about it, search for it.

YouTube · Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:08 am

KaroBastardKiter wrote:
I understand the more CUDA cores, the better. But this one's got only 196 (I was reading that 1000x is the minimum!). How far am I going to go with this configuration?

Much respect to all of you guys, I've seen the pics you posted on the forum, they are just unbelievably realistic.

Thank you very much in advance.

Karol

Nothing is minimum, he was talking about working with good speed. Your config will work, it'll take longer to render but it will do. Meaning that if with 1000 cores a certain render will take a minute, with your config it will take 5, but in the end the result will be identical. Also you can use cubix expanded later on if you need more speed.

Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:22 am

Every time Radient posts one of his posts he always says you need at least 1000 cores. All I can say is that he must have money to burn. Plus you can only really get 1000 cores in a 590 card which is just 2 x 500 cores anyway. So 1000 cores is some sort of ideal rather than anywhere near a minimum.

When I first started i just used my old 8800 card which only has 112 cores. It wasn't the fastest in the world but it was sufficient.