Intel 945 vs GeForce 7900 GS vs Quadro FX 4500

Hi, the title might be a little misleading but I am not trying to compare those video cards. I am a very basic user of 3ds Max 2008. I do not have a video card other than the integrated video of an asrock wolfdale 1333-d667 (which is an intel 945). I got in my hands a GeForce 7900 GS and a Quadro FX 4500. I though it would be nice to see how faster would 3ds max work with these cards. I had a very basic animation/scene where I could do tests. With my Intel card, I render a single frame from my animation and it took between 25,1 and 25,5 seconds to render. Next, I installed the GeForce 7900 GS, drivers and all, and the same frame took 25,0 to 25,3 seconds to render. I thought maybe 3ds max DOES need a quadro to see improvements, so I installed the Quadro FX 4500 uninstalled GeForce drivers, installed Quadro drivers, started 3ds max 2008, the software detected quadro drivers, installed 3ds max performance driver, restarted max and checked if it was using OpenGL, DirectX or Software rendering drivers but it actually used the performance driver which uses DirectX. Then I opened animation file and rendered the same single frame: rendering time 24,7 to 25,1 seconds.

I do not know what am I doing wrong but there should be some difference in rendering times, right? or perhaps I need a scene that actually uses some OpenGL or DirectX commands/instructions.

I use:
Windows XP Professional 32-bit
Service Pack 3 fully updated
CPU: Intel Dual Core E2160
RAM: 2 GB DDR2-667 (2x1 GB)
Motherboard: AsRock Wolfdale 1333-D667 Latest BIOS according to AsRock web page.

For GeForce 7900 GS:
182.50_geforce_winxp_32bit_english_whql.exe

For Quadro FX 4500:
182.46_quadro_winxp2k_english_whql.exe

3D Studio Max 2008 (It is NOT original, i.e., it is a cracked version.)
Rendering Engine V-Ray Adv 1.5 RC3 (also cracked version)
Scene:
It has an Explosion atmospheric effect in the middle of the effect. There is a plane with a diffuse map applied to it and the same map applied to the displacement slot. There is an omni light. V-Ray is configured with the most common modifications you can make.

I also tried rendering the scene with each video card using different display drivers OpenGL, DirectX, software and performace (in the case of quadro) but the results where the same. Maybe the benefits can only be seen in the UI of 3dsmax and not in the rendering itself, o maybe the difference can be seen if you have a trillion polygons and thousands of objects and meshes and stuff. I also tried the rendering on a different machine with Windows Vista 64-bit, 2 GB RAM (i don´t know why have a 64-bit OS with only 2GB but it is not my computer) with a GeForce 9800 GTX+ and got the same results, but if I used DirectX 10 as display driver, the viewport became impossible to work!!!.

I have seen benchmarking being done and I think I know the difference between these cards but it just blew my head when I got the results from this probably invalid comparison.

Thank you very much for all your comments on this topic!!!!

 

Ok, let me see if I can explain this where it will make sense. The Intel GMA950, GeForce 7900GS and Quadro FX 4500 are all Dx9c compatible. GMA950 is supposedly capable of doing Dx10, but I don't consider 2fps to be capable. So, using Dx10 is completely pointless. Now, are you rendering a single scene, a 2D animation or a 3D animation? The GeForce 7900GS and Quardo FX 4500 would make a difference in how smooth a 3D animation plays compared to the Intel GMA950. Now, since the GeForce 7900GS and Quadro FX 4500 don't have stream processors, they don't support CUDA. This also means that they're pretty well useless for accelerating rendering times, as they can't process the data in the necessary manner to make a difference. If 3DSMax supports nVidia's CUDA, then a Quadro FX 4600 or higher would improve rendering times. Here's a list of Quadro cards that support CUDA.

http://www.nvidia.com/page/quadrofx_family.html

 

Bro, im sorry man, but... why do you still have a 7900gs in your build? Go out and buy yourself a core i7 920 and a gtx 260-295 right now. I'm not quight sure what you are trying to tell us, but, if you are looking for speed... you will need to upgrade to at least something like a core 2 duo E8--- 's or core 2 quad 9---'s + at least a 9800gtx. Hope this helps in some way? I still dont really get what you are saying.

 

Thank you sykozis, I think this is the answer I was hoping to get:
quote
"...Now, since the GeForce 7900GS and Quadro FX 4500 don't have stream processors, they don't support CUDA. This also means that they're pretty well useless for accelerating rendering times, as they can't process the data in the necessary manner to make a difference..."

I now that my system does not have what it should have to be doing rendering. My animation is 3D and has 500 frames. I only rendered a single frame in my tests.

sykozis, I have a question regarding: "The GeForce 7900GS and Quardo FX 4500 would make a difference in how smooth a 3D animation plays compared to the Intel GMA950". Whenever I render all 500 frames of my animation, I usually render to a .MOV or .AVI file, so in the end is just a video. In what situation does a 3D animation plays smoother with a Quadro FX 4500?

I know a GeForce 7900 will perform better on any game compared to the intel or even the quadro (what I am saying is that Geforce´s are made for gaming) but, can you describe a situation where the difference between graphic cards is more noticeable (other than games). For example: in 3ds max, if you have an animation with 4 million polygons you will be able to scrub through the frames much faster if you have a Quadro rather than a Geforce (this is just an example of a situation I am looking for)

Thank you very much!

PS. I wasn´t looking for a solution in my previous post, I just wanted to know why the rendering times where practically the same...CUDA problem. I know if I get a core i 920, 6 GB DDR3-1600 and NO graphics card my rendering times will still go way down!

 

I would recommend Quadro for 3d graphics designing and 7900gs for gaming

 

Thank you GlideFan!!!!
"...Again, 3D cards -> accelerate viewport.
CPU-> rendering performance..."

I think this thread is over!!

Thank you all!!!

 

From my understanding, 3DSMax is CUDA compatible which would allow the GPU to handle the rendering instead of the CPU which in turn would dramatically improve the rendering time. Maya, would leave him in the same position as 3DSMax. Dx9 GPU's simply don't support hardware accelerated rendering as they were never designed with GPGPU in mind. Maya would have to rely on CUDA or AMD Stream for hardware (GPU) based rendering.