At Siggraph this year, ATI announced its line of super-powered, new generation, 3D whooping, FireGL™ graphics cards. With features that lends itself to perform better with 3D applications, you would think it’s what everyone with slow graphics performance would want. So what kind of KILLER video card is this going to be?
Here’s what Efrat Ravid, director of Marketing and Alliances for SolidWorks, had to say,
“Given the new realistic rendering effects built into SolidWorks 2008, AMD’s release of the new ATI FireGL™ workstation graphics accelerators gives SolidWorks customers the power and advanced rendering capabilities to boost their productivity and creativity. The innovative unified shader architecture and larger frame buffers of the ATI FireGL accelerators can remove past constraints when working with large data sets, while enabling real-time rendering of more complex assemblies.”
Bios Magazine
Wow, that’s a mouthful.
I’d like something to boost my productivity and creativity. I tend to draw inspiration from nature or cool designs, but that would be cool if this card’s graphic accelerator granted me the power to summon productivity.
I’ve always liked AMD (who owns ATI), but have preferred nVidia to ATI. However, if this card does what it claims, you may be looking at a fast AMD system with a fast AMD video card.
What to like and not like
I like the amount of available memory, unified architecture, CAD certifications, multiple core usage and the mid-range price isn’t too bad ($599 for 512MB). Basically I’m expecting SolidWorks to run and look like Gears of War on the Xbox 360…without the scary monster.
But then, the first MCAD test I read shows it performing slower against the nVidia FX 1500 (my current favorite) in SolidWorks 2007. And then again, other reviews have shown ATI socking the snot out of nVidia’s best. Granted those were on games. I think some more testing needs done against SolidWorks 2008 and Vista. It will also be interesting to see if nVidia tries to release something to compete.
ATI FireGL Pricing information
ATI FireGL V8650 – 2GB $2799
ATI FireGL V8600 – 1GB $1899
ATI FireGL V7600 – 512MB $999
ATI FireGL V5600 – 512MB $599
ATI FireGL V3600 – 256MB $299
Conclusion
From the news and reviews that have been generated about the video card, I’m beginning to think about switching parties, but there’s still something that’s telling me to hold back. I just may be hoping for too much, but it’s cool to see what’s coming out.
If you’re waiting like me till next summer, when Vista should be at SP1 and SolidWorks 2008 is well past pre-release, to get a new card, there should be some more info on this card’s performance and possibly a price drop. The first ones on the counter will be the entry-level FireGL. Look for the V3600 to be released in September/October this year.
Loading ...
SolidSmack is a very small behemoth of an online community about 3D CAD, technology, design, robots, and ninjas… Ok, maybe not ninjas so much, but those guys are COOL so there just might be something about some dang ninjas.
{ 28 comments }
← Previous Comments
Hi Josh-
I’ve been bitten twice in the past 5 years by crappy ATI cards. I’ve found their support to be terrible.
Devon
I agree Devon. They’re gonna have to soup up more than the tech. I’m staying optimistic, but will look for results others are getting before dumping that kind of cash.
I’m looking at getting the FX-4600 – anybody using one? How does it compare with the ATI’s?
<a href=”http://mcadonline.com/index.php?option=com_content=view=405=73″ rel=”nofollow”>Nvidia Quaddro FX 4600/5600
Hi, John. that is one hefty card, 768MB. Very cool. I haven’t used it but I do prefer the Nvidia over ATI at the moment. I like the FX 1500 which is sufficient for the work I do.
If you go with the 4600 or a similar card, I do know you’ll get more benefits with larger screen resolution. I’d reccomend the 24″ Dell Ultrasharp or something that can give you similar resolution.
Here’s a review on the card from MCAD
Nvidia Quaddro FX 4600/5600
Thanks Josh – much appreciated. I am looking to order a Dell 30″ monitor with dual quad-core CPU’s… since I’m not paying for it – I went all out. I suspect my assemblies may get rather large in due time and I want to be ready….
John
RIGHT ON. that is a sweet deal. I did a benchmark with quad-cores on SWX 2007 and XP and didn’t get any performance gain in solidworks, but depending on your setup you may get some really good results. I’d love to see a benchmark on your machine.
I have to agree with your hesitation. I know in the past there have been issues with ATI cards so I have always stuck with nVidia and everything has worked fine. Until I see some improvements with their quality then I think I will continue that route.
I do have a question though: Does anyone have any suggestions for a mobile graphics card? I currently have the nVidia GeForce4 440 on my laptop and while it does alright with one SW window open it really starts to bog down with multiple windows open. Granted, the card only has 64Mb of Ram on it so am sure that has something to do with it.
Has anyone done any testing or can recommend an upgrade to what I have?
I have to agree with your hesitation. I know in the past there have been issues with ATI cards so I have always stuck with nVidia and everything has worked fine. Until I see some improvements with their quality then I think I will continue that route.
I do have a question though: Does anyone have any suggestions for a mobile graphics card? I currently have the nVidia GeForce4 440 on my laptop and while it does alright with one SW window open it really starts to bog down with multiple windows open. Granted, the card only has 64Mb of Ram on it so am sure that has something to do with it.
Has anyone done any testing or can recommend an upgrade to what I have?
Thanks Josh. Is there a standard benchmark I could run using SW2007? Is there perhaps an EXE that uses SW to provide a benchmark?
Thanks Josh. Is there a standard benchmark I could run using SW2007? Is there perhaps an EXE that uses SW to provide a benchmark?
Chris – I haven’t tested any laptops but you can find certified cards by system that have been tested here
John – There’s a standard benchmark created by spec.org for SolidWorks 2007. It’s the first one I use. SolidWorks 2007 Benchmark
Rob Rodriguez also just posted about his upgrade to a Nvidia Quadro FX 3500. He does a lot of rendering with PhotoWorks.
The Nvidia Quaddro 4600 and 5600 are pretty high priced for most users/companies so I’m thinking that Nvidia will have something coming out spring/summer ’08 to bury ATI mid-range, although it could be argued that they already have.
Just ran the SPEC test and here are the results for my current computer – could you post yours so I can see how much better a quad-core CPU would be:
1 12.50 14.60
2 12.50 10.70
3 12.50 10.70
4 12.50 9.84
5 12.50 24.90
6 12.50 18.70
7 12.50 35.70
8 12.50 15.00
Weighted Geometric Mean = 15.91
Just ran the SPEC test and here are the results for my current computer – could you post yours so I can see how much better a quad-core CPU would be:
1 12.50 14.60
2 12.50 10.70
3 12.50 10.70
4 12.50 9.84
5 12.50 24.90
6 12.50 18.70
7 12.50 35.70
8 12.50 15.00
Weighted Geometric Mean = 15.91
Can you look at the APCResults1.txt in the Benchmark folder and look at the overall results. That’s what these are below. I’ve posted three configuration that I’ve done.
1. FX-60 Dual-Core (2.61 GHz) – 2Gb RAM – XP
2. FX-53 (2.41 GHz) – 2Gb RAM – XP 64
3. Quad-Core AMD Opteron (2.0 GHz) – 2.10Gb RAM – XP
(Total , Graphics, CPU, I/O – in seconds)
1. 161.31, 46.68, 52.68, 61.95
2. 175.23, 43.14, 58.39, 73.70
3. 205.41, 53.91, 72.22, 79.22
Thanks Josh – I can’t find that file (nor the Benchmark folder). All I ran was the Solidworks test – should I have ran ALL TESTS? I have these files:
viewperflog.txt
viewperfresult.txt
No biggie. I would like to, though, compare what I have now to the computer I will be getting so I need to do a complete test…. thanks.
Oh I see, you downloaded the SPECviewperf® 10 benchmark.
I would just download the “SPECapcSM for SolidWorks 2007™” near the bottom of the page.It will install into a folder like
C:Program FilesSPECapcSolidWorks Benchmark 2007
Sorry for the confusion!
Oh I see, you downloaded the SPECviewperf® 10 benchmark.
I would just download the “SPECapcSM for SolidWorks 2007™” near the bottom of the page.It will install into a folder like
C:\Program Files\SPECapc\SolidWorks Benchmark 2007\
Sorry for the confusion!
Here you go:
Model : Precision WorkStation 380
OS : Microsoft Windows XP Professional
OS SP : Service Pack 2
CPU : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.60GHz
# of CPU : 2
Memory : 3582
Test Averages for 5 tests(s).
Test Total = 286.07
Graphics = 106.61
CPU = 78.82
I/O = 100.64
Here you go:
Model : Precision WorkStation 380
OS : Microsoft Windows XP Professional
OS SP : Service Pack 2
CPU : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.60GHz
# of CPU : 2
Memory : 3582
Test Averages for 5 tests(s).
Test Total = 286.07
Graphics = 106.61
CPU = 78.82
I/O = 100.64
E6600 (2,4GHz) 2 GB Fx1500 WinXP 32bit (Precision 390) and my 18k elements assembly takes 7 minutes to load! Rebuild time also too long :-/
Any idea what to upgrade to cut rebuild times?
BTW: A 30″ HP monitor turned out to be a good companion
E6600 (2,4GHz) 2 GB Fx1500 WinXP 32bit (Precision 390) and my 18k elements assembly takes 7 minutes to load! Rebuild time also too long :-/
Any idea what to upgrade to cut rebuild times?
BTW: A 30″ HP monitor turned out to be a good companion
That’s a pretty good system. You may consider upgrading to a Fx3500. What you have should be able to push pretty good though. It may be the complexity of your parts. With large assemblies I work in, I will typically create simple configurations of parts and open those to save on load times. You may want to make sure that you don’t have circular references (parts referencing each other), complicated patterns or a lot of items in the design binder. Those are the three main things I see that slow down assemblies.
That 30″ would be nice. I have the 24″ and that would just be incredible, although it wouldn’t fit under my desk shelf.
I’ll try and do that Josh! About parts referencing to parts – generating 2D from large assemblies takes ages as SW2007 loads all the parts. Is there a way to reduce this effect or is it just a “feature”?
Are you referring to creating Drawings? If so, it may help to used simplified assemblies in the drawings and split up the assemblies into easier to detail sub-assemblies. Hope this helps.
Are you referring to creating Drawings? If so, it may help to used simplified assemblies in the drawings and split up the assemblies into easier to detail sub-assemblies. Hope this helps.
I’ll try to use simplified assemblies Josh!
I searched for ‘What Cpus Were Made By Amd’ at Google and found your post named ‘ATI FireGL the Killer Video Card for SolidWorks? | SolidSmack.com’ in search results. Quite interesting to read.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 121 trackbacks }