CAD/CAM advice (Partmaker)

I've recently gone through a Partmaker (Delcam CAM software) class. They recommend using Nvidia cards, mainly the Quadro type cards. My work is going through a bit of a cash crunch (22K Sq/ft addition), but we do need a few cards for me and the other people who use the CAM software. I've got a ATI 7870 card that is much chunkier at the animations than I would have expected.

So, my question is, what normal Nvidia line cards would provide the most bang for the buck when using them with Partmaker?

Thanks!

What Quadro cards were they recommending?

The guy teaching the class just said Nvidia, not AMD, and Quadro if your company will pay for it. They are also supposed to have a special driver from Nvidia for their software. Let me see if I can find it.

Here is their PC recommendation doc:
http://arrow.delcam.com/download/pdf/PC-Requirements2014.pdf

All professional software says use Quadro or FireGL cards. ALL OF THEM!
Using it with Solidworks?

Do you actually need to use these cards? Most likely not.
The special driver only optimizes OpenGL aspect of the programs more and rips some of the DirectX optimizations out of the drivers. I've modded (software wise) plain ATI GPU's in laptops to run like FireGL GPU's.

I've personally never experienced a performance increase except that you might get to turn on some extra shaders and make it look prettier in the view port than gaming cards. At that some programs will utilize the Cuda cores of nVidia cards that help boost performance in a few cases. These are specialized instances not the norm.

And dang... thats hefty requirements on HDD space. Never seen that before in a CAD software.

BTW I've worked with AutoCAD, Inventor, Solidworks, Pro-E, 3D Studio Max, Maya, XSI all on Gaming Graphic Cards (mostly all on AMD/ATI setups) dating back 15 years and I've never had an issue. As I mentioned above some shader functions are disabled and slight performance drop.

For Quadro, check the K2000 or K2200.
If you want to try Geforce, the K2200 is a 750Ti, but the price tag is more than a 970.

deathman20 said:

All professional software says use Quadro or FireGL cards. ALL OF THEM!
Using it with Solidworks?

Click to expand...

I've got Solidworks, but I probably won't be using it much. I mainly import solid models into Partmaker and work with them there.

Do you actually need to use these cards? Most likely not.
The special driver only optimizes OpenGL aspect of the programs more and rips some of the DirectX optimizations out of the drivers. I've modded (software wise) plain ATI GPU's in laptops to run like FireGL GPU's.

I've personally never experienced a performance increase except that you might get to turn on some extra shaders and make it look prettier in the view port than gaming cards. At that some programs will utilize the Cuda cores of nVidia cards that help boost performance in a few cases. These are specialized instances not the norm.

And dang... thats hefty requirements on HDD space. Never seen that before in a CAD software.

BTW I've worked with AutoCAD, Inventor, Solidworks, Pro-E, 3D Studio Max, Maya, XSI all on Gaming Graphic Cards (mostly all on AMD/ATI setups) dating back 15 years and I've never had an issue. As I mentioned above some shader functions are disabled and slight performance drop.

Click to expand...

Partmaker isn't really CAD, though it has some CAD features built in. It is primarily CAM, where it is modeling and computing tool paths. Speaking AutoCAD though, they just bought Delcam, though from what they said, they are leaving it alone at the moment, but are probably planning on getting them to create an AutoCAD module to make use of CAM functions.

ATMINSIDE said:

For Quadro, check the K2000 or K2200.
If you want to try Geforce, the K2200 is a 750Ti, but the price tag is more than a 970.

Click to expand...

So, I should look at the 750Ti as a baseline for an equivalent. Thank you.

Sorry forgot to answer your question. If truely going with an nVidia card, best bet would be to get not top of the line but a step down from the top. So 770 would be a good starting point it should give lots of performance but I would still probably expect some shudders/gitters in the animations. Depending what CPU you have behind it (which might be the limiting factor) you might not get a nice smooth feel.

Actually the 7870 you have is decently fast and should in beat a 750Ti. How large of assemblies/parts are you dealing with?

Edit:
Also some searching around shows that it doesn't look like its specifically coded for CUDA cores so ATI/Nvidia performance should be on par with similar cards.
Now for gamer vs pro cards, there cases where it seems like people are swapping out Pro cards for the Gamer versions, even a few cases talking about a 770 card, which no ones leaving feedback of course after the fact.

deathman20 said:

Sorry forgot to answer your question. If truely going with an nVidia card, best bet would be to get not top of the line but a step down from the top. So 770 would be a good starting point it should give lots of performance but I would still probably expect some shudders/gitters in the animations. Depending what CPU you have behind it (which might be the limiting factor) you might not get a nice smooth feel.

Actually the 7870 you have is decently fast and should in beat a 750Ti. How large of assemblies/parts are you dealing with?

Edit:
Also some searching around shows that it doesn't look like its specifically coded for CUDA cores so ATI/Nvidia performance should be on par with similar cards.
Now for gamer vs pro cards, there cases where it seems like people are swapping out Pro cards for the Gamer versions, even a few cases talking about a 770 card, which no ones leaving feedback of course after the fact.

Click to expand...

It was actually just a single piece, not an assembly, and it was only calculating for 4 tools (drill, chamfer, dovetail, and end mill), so I was surprised that it was chunking on a 7870. We also have several people who have small cases, small PSUs and 4770 CPUs. Everybody has a minimum of 8GB of system RAM too. Sounds like a half height 750Ti might be a good compromise, like this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125680 And since they are dealing with just onboard intel video at this point, it should be a good step up.

For the people with better systems here (I've got a 4770 with an 850W Corsair PSU and a nice open case), it sounds like an 780Ti might be a good choice. We only have one user here with a Quadro, and it is an older one (K800 or something like that), so I don't think I'll be able to report back with a side by side comparison.

Edit: looking at the prices, maybe just a 780, not a 780Ti. Also, my impression with the chunkiness of the modeling for the 7870 came after starting out using a 280X AMD first. I guess I've got more thinking to do about this. Thanks again everybody for the input. It helps a lot.!

I wouldn't look at the 7XX series except the 750Ti for the lower systems.
The low-profile 750Ti looks like a great solution for the majority

For the better systems look at a 970 or 980.

ATMINSIDE said:

I wouldn't look at the 7XX series except the 750Ti for the lower systems.
The low-profile 750Ti looks like a great solution for the majority

Click to expand...

I've passed on the recommendation to get one, and see if our Quadro user notices an improvement. If so, we'll probably roll those out to the users with the low profile systems.

For the better systems look at a 970 or 980.

Click to expand...

Enough of an improvement that the 980's 2084 CUDA cores are better than the 780Ti's 2880 CUDA core?

Performance comparison of the 980 to 780Ti.
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1351?vs=1072

Worth noting, the 980 is cheaper, has more vRAM, and is going to use at least 75W less at full load.

I use the Quadro 4000 at work and everything is very smooth. I believe Solidworks is slightly less demanding than Catia, but I maybe mistaken. That said you might be able to get away with a gaming card, but in my experience they never render as smoothly. They always seem chunky and very jittery when rotating.

ATMINSIDE said:

Performance comparison of the 980 to 780Ti.
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1351?vs=1072

Worth noting, the 980 is cheaper, has more vRAM, and is going to use at least 75W less at full load.

Click to expand...

Thanks! Yeah, that is a definite increase in ability. The only weird thing I saw in that list was that the 780TI was better in F@H Explicit Double Precision.

Also, the one Quadro user here has the NVS 420. I don't see the number of CUDA cores for it listed at Newegg, but looking at close NVS model numbers, it looks like the 750Ti is going to be a good step up.

torin3 said:

Thanks! Yeah, that is a definite increase in ability. The only weird thing I saw in that list was that the 780TI was better in F@H Explicit Double Precision.

Also, the one Quadro user here has the NVS 420. I don't see the number of CUDA cores for it listed at Newegg, but looking at close NVS model numbers, it looks like the 750Ti is going to be a good step up.

Click to expand...

Yep, being that close in performance while being cheaper and using less power...
Just not worth it for the 780Ti for this application in my eyes.

The NVS 420 is 16 CUDA cores