Which card for a workstation?

Hardware Hub GPU
1

Hi all

Im in the process of putting together a new workstation on the x99 platform and am thinking about which gpu to get. I will be playing the occasional game on the machine, but it will mostly be used for 3D work and compositing. These are the applications I typically use:

- Zbrush: 3D sculpting (entirely software rendered so gpu wont make a difference here)

- Mari: texturing (capable of handling multiple 32k textures, but I usually work at 8k)

- Maya: animation and simulations

- Nuke: compositing (like a node based after effects with a little bit of cuda acceleration here and there but nothing major)

The first 2 (zbrush and mari) are sometimes replaced by Mudbox depending on the situation

If I had to list, in order, how much I use each program it would probably look something like: Nuke > Zbrush > Mari > Maya

 

OK so onto the GPUs. I won't be getting a workstation card as they are too expensive for what they do. I'm considering the following:

1. GTX 770 (Gigabyte, 4gb, 1.14ghz) - $460

2. R9 280x (MSI, 6gb, 1ghz) - $475

3. R9 290 (Sapphire TriX, 4gb, 1ghz) - $475

4. GTX 760 (EVGA, 4gb, 1.08ghz) - $366

5. R9 280 (Gigabyte, 3gb, 950mhz) - $250

 

First of all, if money were no issue, which card (from the list) is going to be best for my work?

Next, when considering price/performance ratio, do one of the cheaper cards work out better?

Is there a preference for AMD (opencl) over Nvidia (CUDA) in the applications I use?

How much does vram matter for a workstation like this? Does clock speed matter? Do neither matter to the point where I can just get a cheap 760/r9 280?

thanks!

2

The most power full video card that uses cuda from what i can find would be best for you since NUKE system states that only runs on cuda. So if you can a 770 would be good or a titan for the extra VRAM.  You should also look into quadros depending on your budget. If you have more then 600$ then a quadro would probably be best. Though take this with a grain of salt as I have never used nuke or zbrush.

I got my info from here

http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/nuke-product-family/nuke/sys-reqs/

http://pixologic.com/zbrush/system/

 

3

thanks for the comment

Nuke is not terribly gpu dependent, it is mostly bound by cpu, ram and IO. If you have a CUDA capable card then some nodes will be accelerated but its not that many. Currently talking to the foundry to figure out their stance on opencl

I think quadros (and fireGLs) are too expensive for me. My max budget is probably no more than 500, and even that is pushing it

Im mostly wondering:

1. 770 vs 290 tri-x performance in openGL

2. Whether the 6gb vram would make the 280x better for my use case than any of the other cards

3. Whether the 760 and 280(non x) are good enough performance wise, in my use case, compared to the more expensive options that I can save a few hundred $

4

Well this is where you are going to need to dig more but

1. Im finding mixed information. In terms of raw power the r9 290 is that, but depending on how well the system is optimized for cuda you may find better results with the 770

2. For the work ive done with rendering vram didnt make much of difference, maybe 1-5% though again i haven't used nuke.

3. Again this comes down to how well the system takes advantage of the GPU. 

For the information i"m finding i would go with nvidia since the company lists only nvidia cards in their system requirements and has only tested with 2 gpus both of which were quadros. Beyond what i've told you i can't provide much more information sorry.

 

5

You would probably see better performance from the 290 but better support from the 760 or 770. More Vram the better so stay away from the 7803gb. 780 6gb could be an option if you have the coin. similar performance to the 290x with cuda and extra vram.