Quadro 3000M or Quadro 2000M?

Hi everyone,
it's my first post here I have a problem because I am going to buy a professional laptop to work with engineering applications like 3ds Max,CAD applications etc. Now I am considering between DELL Precision and HP EliteBook. But problem is with choosing of graphic card to my future notebook. What do you think that Quadro 2000M will be enough to provide cool performance in the above mentioned applications or should I invest in Quadro 3000M?
I work as a interior decorator with use of these programs.
Sorry for my english, guys, but I hope you can understand me
Thanks for answering.

 

the Quadro 3000M Benchmark Test gives a better score than the 2000M!

Go for the better one, which is 3000M

 

Agreed on the Quadro 3000m. Consider only cards with GDDR5; that's your base point.

Don't bother with anything with the primitive and narrow bandwidth DDR3 memory. Since you are--or intend to be--a professional, those cards aren't made for you.

 

If you are a student, then you don't need to dish out the cash for the 3000M. But if you are a professional in the field and your applications will take advantage of a workstation card, then I would definitely recommend the 3000M.

 

Ok, but I was wondering that the performance of Quadro 3000M is necessery to use of CAD applications or 3ds max. Maybe a good performance can by provided by Quadro 2000M. First of all, it will be use to create projects of interior architecture and to render. So, I don't want to overpay for the device which one I couldn't take full advantage. But maybe should I look objectively and prospectively and take a Quadro 3000M?
Or maybe should I take up in the AMD FirePro series graphic cards?

 

I agree with sgogeta4; if you're a student you should go with the cheapest option available to you. If it was me I would go with laptop with a good gaming graphics card.

Professional graphics cards comes to play when modelling and viewing a project in the viewport. Rendering is almost entirely processed by the CPU.

Since one doesn't need a lot of polygone to make an architectural model (been a model of a building or the interior of a room) I would recommand to buy a laptop with a gaming graphics card and the fastest Intel Core i7 Quad that you can afford.

The Dell Vostro 3750 if you don't mind the weight of a 17" laptop. It has a nvidia Geforce GT525M and an i7-2630QM CPU.

Edit:
The Dell latitude e6420, 14" screen, Core i7-2720QM, and Geforce Quadro NVS 4200M.

The Quadro NVS is a professional card but not as fast as a Quado FX and thus cheaper.

 

Rendering is really only processed by the CPU? So, the professional graphic card like Quadro, doesn't aid the render processing? Choising of the size screen of laptop is depend which graphic card I want to get cause in HP 8560w(15'') I can take only Quadro 2000M, and in HP 8760w(17'') - just Quadro 3000M. I would rather to get a smaller one. I was wondering what the difference between Quadro 3000M and for example AMD Radeon 6990M in the create of architectural model projects and in rendering. Cause I am considering to buy a CLEVO P170H or P150H with AMD 6990M. Which one will be faster and better? I can allocate funds for this purpose 2000-2300$.

 

Incorrect. CUDA is specifically developed to off load rendering tasks to the GPU.

Asked and answered OP. If you want inferior graphics, then get the 2000 card. The 3000 is your entry level card if you're a professional you should not consider anything less.

 

Thanks for answering. So, better option would be take the professional graphic card Quadro 3000M or gaming graphic card as Radeon 6990M? Has Radeon any technologies to aid CPU with render processing?

 

Not that I know of. Nvidia was the only card certified by Adobe and Autodesk. Nevertheless, this stuff changes very rapidly, so you will need to verify for yourself.

 

Thats a really pessimistic outlook, and there is very little truth to it.

The GPU power does not at all depend on the level of "professionalism" but rather the exact application, as much as Nvidia would like us to believe otherwise for the purpose of making money off of us.

Plenty of people who are much more professional than you, krane, do not have any need for a quadro 5010m or even 2000m, they succeed and do much better than all of us in their careers with much worse equipment.

Just saying.

 

When I did work experience two years ago in an engineering plant, their punch machine still used floppies. They seemed to be doing fine to me.

 

How many CAD software do you know have native support for CUDA? I'm not asking about third party rendering plug-ins.

I don't think I'm wrong saying none of the major CAD players offers native support for CUDA. Why? the answer is simple CUDA is designed for a specific hardware architecture. Thus, is doesn't make sense for a CAD software developer like to optimize their software for CUDA, since this will limit their software saleability to nVidia cards' owners only.

The CAD industry has opted a long time ago for the OpenGL programming library to develop their rendering engines. OpenGL and rendering algorithms are linear, and thus optimised for CPU processing. OpenGL and rendering algorithm won't benefit from the floating point calculations abilities built in modern GPUs.

It is easier to optimise a software for CPU processing and difficult to optimise it for GPU processing. This is because the GPU architecture has evolved a lot during the years and because each GPU manufacturer has its own architecture. CPUs are much simpler to optimise for since their basic architecture has not changed a lot (no radical change) since the 1980s and since this basic architecture is about the same for both Intel, AMD, VIA ...

 

You make a good argument and a lot of sense when you explain the details. Something you didn't do in your previous post.