04-28-2012 03:36 PM
the PCI and PCI-e stuff i figured out for myself (mostly - thx for the calrifications on the nature of the slots) but when i consider the relevance of updating my as-configured FX1700 to the FX4600, well, i'm wondering what actual benefits i would be realizing.
bear in mind i've already elected to upgrade the CPU from the stock E6850 to the Qx9650 owing to consistently high (above 75%) CPU usage when using certain graphics heavy programs and large excel/access files. here are my use parameters in terms of rendering:
1] i use ArcGIS and other mapping tools - with dense (heavily layered) files the details fill in slowly, and sometimes very slooooooooowly even when switching off a number of layers: not sure if this is CPU or GPU related, or a combination of both
2] i use SketchUp often (designed our house with it) for designing 'finish' objects in the house and with denser models run into the same issues with slowly and very slooooooooowly- and again, not sure if this is CPU or GPU related, or a combination of both
when i checked the nvidia website i choked on their msrp ($1,999) but found the FX4600 on amazon for a far more reasonable $245; i see 'used/like new' for about $100 less than that. i am reluctant to buy used as returns from VN would be hellish - and i'd already be saving something on the order of 88% on msrp
opinions, you spocks out there?
Solved! Go to Solution.
04-28-2012 03:57 PM - edited 06-25-2012 04:17 AM
since i'm already online today i'll take a shot...
what's your realistic budget?
while unsupported officially, you could go with a quado 2000 (or 2000D for dual DVI) or 4000 and end up with a far better GPU than the FX4600. the only drawback i can think of on the Q4000 is that they run hot. the FX4600 was a power hog, ran somewhat hot, and wasn't always the most quiet. otherwise, the FX4600 works well but there's no reason to spend money on something that old.
the Q2000 would likely equal or surpass the FX4600 in just about every way while drawing less power, putting out less heat, and making less noise.
the furthest back i'd go on any recommendations would be the FX3800 or FX4800. the 4800 was an excellent GPU and quite possibly the most stable high-end quadro i've ever owned.
if i needed a budget quadro today, the Q2000/2000D is probably where i'd sink some cash unless i needed more memory, then the nod would go toward an FX4800 or Q4000.
scratch that. the Q2000 doesn't appear to work with the S10.
04-28-2012 05:24 PM
was wondering about the age of the card - and i think at this point i'll wait, save a few more scheckels and follow your advice with the Q2000D. always best to have the dual monitor option and since i don't game, just render certain practical things, something that's rock solid stable sounds most my style. much appreciated, as always...
04-29-2012 04:08 PM
the standard Q2000 can run dual monitors as well. the difference is that the Q2000 is DP + DP + DVI (pick any two) and the Q2000D is DVI + DVI. your choice would depend on your display(s) and whether displayport or DVI is more important.
since most displays are shifting toward displayport, the standard Q2000 is arguably more future-proof. the 'D' model was originally intended for high-res medical imaging displays where DVI still rules the market. both cards are identical in hardware save for the ports.
04-30-2012 12:09 AM
excellent point and well taken - that settles the video card question - opt for more future options for less $, not less for more