1546 posts
    Has been part of the Envato Community for over 3 years Has been a beta tester for an Envato feature Has collected 10+ items on Envato Market Sells items exclusively on Envato Market
webdesignerart says

Hey Guys i am going to buy 27inh Imac but they only have Geforce GTX 780M, as i know for 3D development rendering is Quadro k4000 is better but GTX 780M has 2150Cuda cores its 4x cores then Quadro, so confuse bit which i have to buy..

And second in apple website i can’t add this card.

So guys for 3d animation development is GTX 780m is better then Quadro k4000?

Singularity_Designs
Singularity_Designs Recent Posts Threads Started
63 posts
    Has sold $100+ on Envato Market Has collected 1+ items on Envato Market Located in United Kingdom Has been part of the Envato Community for over 1 year
+1 more
Singularity_Designs says

Most of the time I’ve always seen Quadro cards being incredibly expensive but not actually offering that much of a performance difference over normal consumer based cards such as the 780M. If anything 4GB of VRAM is probably better in terms of 3D work than 3GB

There’s a forum post discussing the above for a GTX 580 http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-1669344/gtx-580-quadro-k4000-blender-including-cycles-udk.html.

Either way I would think you’d be happy with a 27” iMac, otherwise there’s the Mac Pro which has AMD based workstation cards.

2568 posts
    Member of the Envato Team Helped several times protecting Envato Market against copyright violations Contributed a tutorial on Tuts+ Attended one of our Meetups around the world
+16 more
contrastblack Envato team says

To sum it up, you may also ask why Xeon instead of i7, and the same logic will apply.

Added price accounts for stability, lesser power consumption and improved drivers for professional applications. That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t get a consumer grade (GTX) card to achieve the same if not better performance, but your electricity bill, noise levels, and stability would suffer greatly.

The professional alternatives aren’t meant to be “faster”. They are actually often times clocked at lesser speeds exactly for that very reason: lower voltages, less heat, more stability.

Also, S_D’s argument is also valid, but only if you are actually a professional 3D artist and need to load that sort of huge texture information into your VRAM (large level designs, at once).

There’s no magic answer there… you want professional reliability, you buy a professional, more expensive card. You want the best performance for your buck, disregarding the odd crash, go for the consumer one.

p.s: forgot to mention, unless you’re talking about GFX based rendering (octane/arion whatever else works) you still depend entirely on your processor, and the v-card will only be used for GUI and viewport animation, so the cuda core count outside of that usage scenario is about as relevant as the color used on the PCB :)

by
by
by
by
by
by