Workstation class cards

[Bigus Dickus]

I've been asked by my company to spec out a few workstations to be built at our site (I work for a 6000 employee company, but there are only 5 employees at our specific site, so we are our own IT support) as an alternative to buying or leasing - typically from Dell.

The computers will be used for 3D solid modeling (Mechanical Desktop) and finite element analysis (ALGOR). MechDesk can use OpenGL or DX hardware acceleration for Gourard or Phong shaded solids and surfaces (but I've always found OGL to perform better), and I believe ALGOR can use OGL for shaded models as well.

2D clarity is a must, but so is 3D power. I found a tremendous difference working with solids when I went from a Radeon to a Radeon 8500 on my home machine.

So, the obvious question... what suggestions do you guys have for cards to look at?

As far as the lease/purchase from Dell option, the choices are rather limited it seems. GF4 Ti4600, Quadro4 750XGL, Quadro4 900XGL. These are the only options from them I would consider (there weren't any ATI options on workstation class machines as far as I could tell). The 750XGL and 900XGL are rather expensive.

That, in itself, may not be a bad thing, since the desire of the three engineers looking to get new workstations (myself included) is to build the system ourself, which means less money spent for the company and better quality components in the machines for us. For reference, the Dell machine configured as we would like (with 900XGL) was $4000. Our company normally does a 36 month lease with Dell, turning the computers back in at the end. This equates to $5800 over three years for the same machine. We could build the same machine, nearly identical specs in all cases, for $3100. Or, alternatively, we could build a system of comparable speed (with better quality components in many cases) for ~$2300.

Hopefully, our company will realize that, even with the tax write-off a lease gives them, they will save money by letting us configure, build, and support the workstations ourselves. I wouldn't do this in a normal work environment with lots of employees, but our site is essentially remote from the parent company, is small, and self sufficient anyway (as far as networking, computer support, phone system, etc.)

OK, enough rambling, back to why I posted this thread. The machines we spec'ed out ourselves included a 3DLabs VP870 (the 970 seems like too much of a cost premium for the increase in performance). I read the review and benchmarks at THG containing the P10 cards, and it looks like the 870 falls just a bit below the 900XGL on average, for quite a bit less money.

Are there any other options we should consider? I know a Parhelia would have excellent 2D, but what about it's 3D power in the type of apps we use? What about the R9700? I know it has superior vertex processing power to the GF4 Ti4600 by a large margin... is this the same with the 900XGL (and, for my information, is the 900XGL based on the Ti core or something different?)? How would the R300's gaming power translate into workstation type usefulness? Any idea on availability of the Fire GLX1, and speculation on price?

Maybe one of these mysterious 9700 reviews we've been waiting on for some time will contain some information.

If we get the go ahead to build them ourselves, then the budget could support a video card up to $600 or $700. If it was your decision, what cards would you be considering?

 

[DadUM]

xbit labs just did a shootout between the 900XGL, 4600, 9700, and Parhelia in 3Ds Max 5. Not the MCAD applications you are suggesting. But the results showed the 900XGL really taking a lead on all the other cards. For these professional level programs, tweaking the drivers can show great dividends. Make sure to try and find reviews mentioning how good the drivers are for your applications.

The review is at http://www.xbitlabs.com/video/3dsmax5/.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Thanks, I'll check out the review, but I'm not to comfortable with any results coming from Xbitlabs.

 

[Nagorak]

Why wouldn't this be something done in a normal work environment? Surely the IT staff knows how to put computers together...why spend a lot of money on a PoS DELL when you can just buy a load of components and slap them together. You could set it up as an assembly line with 5 guys each doing part of the work. I don't see why it's impractical since the company would still save a load of money building machines from scratch. The major problem is most of the people in accounting or management probably are the type who are "afraid" of computers and don't realize that it's possible to custom build them at all.

By the way, tax write-offs are a total joke. You never save money buying something for more and then writing it off on your taxes.

 

[KimB]

Yeah, I looked at that xbitlabs review. I really think he was rather off-base, however, in pointing to the drivers as the sole cause of the GeForce4 and Quadro's superiority. There are architectural differences between these video cards, too.

But, what it did show, rather plainly, was that the Radeon 9700 fell short of even the GeForce4 Ti cards in workstation performance (at least for the programs that xbit used), while the Quadros were far in excess of even that.

However, the gamma-correct FSAA of the Radeon 9700 should make it look quite a bit better for viewing wireframe models, in particular.

As far as 2D quality goes, going for an ATI 9700 or a Quadro should assure good 2D, though paying attention when going for the GeForce4 should yield equivalent results.

Personally, if I were you, I'd just try to get your company to pay for the Quadro card.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Why wouldn't this be something done in a normal work environment? Surely the IT staff knows how to put computers together...why spend a lot of money on a PoS DELL when you can just buy a load of components and slap them together. You could set it up as an assembly line with 5 guys each doing part of the work. I don't see why it's impractical since the company would still save a load of money building machines from scratch. The major problem is most of the people in accounting or management probably are the type who are "afraid" of computers and don't realize that it's possible to custom build them at all.

I used to think the same way, but at some company size this gets to be a large burden. My company employs just over 6000 people. How many full time employees would you need just to support the building, setup, and maintenence of computers? One benefit of buying or leasing Dell stuff (or HP for that matter) is the excellent support (four hour response time on site, if you pay for that option). It makes it even more attractive in the case of my company since there are dozens of locations which would each require support... logistics becomes a problem.

That being said, since our location has only a few people I think it's wise not to go with a Dell system in this case, for the reasons you mentioned.

By the way, tax write-offs are a total joke. You never save money buying something for more and then writing it off on your taxes.

I didn't say it was a good reason, but companies do often put more importance on that than they should. Even with a tax write-off, it would be cheaper to build a system identical to the one Dell offers. Oh wel... that's suits for you.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Yeah, I looked at that xbitlabs review. I really think he was rather off-base, however, in pointing to the drivers as the sole cause of the GeForce4 and Quadro's superiority. There are architectural differences between these video cards, too.

I've been wondering just what those differences were. I know in the GF2 days the Quadro's were essentially the same card with different drivers (or possibly BIOS), much like the ATI Fire GL8800. I knew that the Quadro4's did make more of a departure from the gaming cards, but I've never really seen a good explanation of what it offers other than drivers. Is is easy to summarize?

But, what it did show, rather plainly, was that the Radeon 9700 fell short of even the GeForce4 Ti cards in workstation performance (at least for the programs that xbit used)...

They only used 3ds Max AFAICT. Obviously nVidia does well in that particular program.

However, the gamma-correct FSAA of the Radeon 9700 should make it look quite a bit better for viewing wireframe models, in particular.

I wondered about that, but I don't think it would actually help in my case. If you'll take a look at the end of the "Best AA (poll)" thread, you can see from the pics that I posted that Autodesk applications aren't using hardware line antialiasing apparently, judging from the 60+ intermediate color values used (unless I'm completely ignorant on this... I have assumed that the intermediates are limited to whatever the hardware is capable of for polygon edge AA, be it 3 or 5 or whatever. Is this correct?). I'll take a look a bit deeper into the display options in MechDesktop to see if there's an option for hardware line AA acceleration, similar to the option for software, OGL, or DX shaded model support.

Personally, if I were you, I'd just try to get your company to pay for the Quadro card.

In the end, we may, though that's a pretty big jump. The 900XGL is a smooth $1000. For the difference in price between that an a VP870 or R300, we could opt for SCSI drives, a bigger monitor, or even dual processors. Perhaps the 750XGL would be a better choice.

To be honest, it's not like we are doing 3D graphics development or anything. We do engineering, and it just happens that we work almost exclusively in solids (and surfaces occasionally - like in FEA work). We don't need a "fancy" card, just one with lots of brute force, because the models we generate are typically very complex in nature with a crapload of polygons (ship superstructure and the like). I've never seen an Autodesk application "benchmark" in a review... they always use ProE, SolidWorks, Unigraphics, etc. (and I wish we did too, but unfortunately we use what our customer requests), so I don't really have much to go on in picking a card. I know the models in MechDesktop are simply shaded, though they do support crude texture mapping and transparency, for whatever that is worth. My guess is that pushing simply shaded polygons is going to be the main criteria for our needs.

 

[gkar1]

Wait for the 9700 based workstation card from ATI and look at the price/performance ratio of both(900GXL). Also wait for a comprehensive review/comparison not one based on a single application.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Have there been any announcements yet, or any semi-official dates indicated as the official launch date, or any hints of such (regarding the FireGL X1 - R300)?

 

[Username]

Come on guys, its obvious he's asking for a good reason to NOT buy an Nvidia board.

It sounds like you already have your mind made up on what to buy, why bother doing more baiting?

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Come on guys, its obvious he's asking for a good reason to NOT buy an Nvidia board.

It sounds like you already have your mind made up on what to buy, why bother doing more baiting?

Thank you for the good advice. This informative post has gone a long way towards helping us identify possible cards, and choose the one best suited for our needs. Please continue with the quality posting in the future.

Quite contrary to your knee-jerk post, I would absolutely love to have a Quadro4 in my work machine. It would be a tremendous jump from the POS GTS that's in there currently. However, if there is another alternative (which could be a GF4 Ti) that will be just as, or nearly as fast for our specific applications, and half the cost, then I'd rather go that route and add dual processors to the spec sheet.

Fairly rational, don't you think? But by all means, if you can give me a reason not to recommend a Quadro4 (such as giving me an equally performing cheaper alternative) then I'm all ears.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Come on guys, its obvious he's asking for a good reason to NOT buy an Nvidia board.

It sounds like you already have your mind made up on what to buy, why bother doing more baiting?

Username - when are you going to provide something useful to this forum? You've been far from doing so as yet.

 

[MikeC]

Try this link in your spare time.

http://www.nvnews.net/cgi-bin/search_news.cgi?keyword=professional

You'll run across links to articles at Ace's Hardware, AnandTech, Digit-Life, ExtremeTech, Reactor Critical, and The Tech Report.

 

[Bogotron]

This, to me, sounds like the perfect opportunity to play around with some hardware. When it comes to workstation performance and hardware testing, few benchmarks run the same set of operations you do. Maybe you have more memory, faster disk, dual-processors, different working datasets etc. etc. which can all influence performance quite a lot.

I work as researcher/sysadmin at a research institute (mainly spatial databases and sattelite imagery) and so far all I've noticed is that benchmarks tell you about 10% of the end result. The only way to know is to take the hardware and run actual jobs on it.

So, my recommendation is basically, buy one gfx card of each variety and test them.

Even better if you know or can get a deal with a local hardware supplier to test the cards before committing yourself. If your retailer is interested in your business he should be open to the idea. "Hey, I might be interested in buying 5 x Quadro 900XGL, but I'd like to test one first just to be sure they're actually worth it. You can have it back in two days. Oh, btw, is there any chance to borrow a GF4 and/or a R9700 just for reference?" Has worked for me in the past.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Thanks MikeC and Bogotron... I'll look at those links and check around with local hardware vendors.