Hey everyone

do you think the new Quadro K2000 is better as a GTX 770 or 780 in Houdinin.
Thank you

In terms of raw performance, the GTX 770/780 will be much faster than the Quadro K2000 (1536 or 2304 ALUs, vs. 384). However, using consumer drivers is a bit more risky, as they aren't quite as stable as the pro drivers. If you do purchase a consumer card, find a driver that works and stick with it

Risky, how is it risky exactly? Are you saying applications with Quadro or Firepros never crash, I would definitely go for 770 or 780, they are far better cards in comparison to K2000.

If you have a chance to Demo these cards, you will see what I mean,

I work at a medium sized studio 100 - 200 as an FX TD, and I have an GTX 660ti on my Linux Machine, I never had an issue. Yes maybe 50 million polygon mesh will spin faster if you have a K4000 but since you want this for your home machine I suggest go with a good consumer card.

I use a consumer card at home because I game. I have an AMD 7950 3GB, it used to suck really bad in terms of performance and glitches inside Houdini 12.5 and It was amazing in Maya, but now in Houdini 13 it actually performs %20 to %30 better than Maya but it still gives me some corrupt text.

Save often, and you will be fine.

I use both a k4000 and 670 as well as a quadro 6000 and the 670 beats them so bad it is almost embarrassing. I have never ran into a driver issue that could not be addressed with an update or a rollback. just stay away from ati…i

tricecold
Risky, how is it risky exactly? Are you saying applications with Quadro or Firepros never crash, I would definitely go for 770 or 780, they are far better cards in comparison to K2000.

“Risky” in the sense that upgrading the consumer driver version is not as safe for workstation apps, compared to the rather-stable pro drivers. As sl0throp mentions, you have to be prepared to rollback to your previous driver.

Part of the problem I have with the current Quadros is that the model number is a bit out of line with the hardware itself:

• Quadro K6000 - 2880 ALUs (cuda cores), 12GB
  
• Quadro K5000 - 1536, 4GB
  
• Quadro K4000 - 768, 3GB
  
• Quadro K2000 - 384, 2GB
  
• Quadro K600 - 192, 1GB
  
• Quadro K410 - 192, 512MB
  
  While the clockspeed of the shaders increases somewhat as the # of ALUs decrease, it can't make up for the halving of the resources. Meanwhile, the model numbers don't really correspond to that drop in the same manner (though the price does). So you really have to do your homework before buying one. I wouldn't recommend the K600 or K410 at all.

Thank you all for the answer
So i decided for the Gigabyte GTX 780

Houdini use GPU AND CPU am i right?
GPU for viewport an CPU for rendering?
please correct me if i am wrong

Thanks!

GPU for viewport an CPU for rendering?

Correct. There are also some DOPs which use OpenCL acceleration, but for the most part the GPU is used to render the various viewports.

Just installed a 770 4GB on Win 7 and scored a 92.46 fps using Cinebench.

Moritz let's have a bench-off I want to find one of the files from other threads where people were posting fps from a Houdini file, but I'm not sure how to run it once I get it. I'm moving from a 6870 in a Hackintosh, so I'm sure my experience will be much better now that Houdini doesn't have to compete with it's arch enemies AMD and OS. Although I'm tempted to check it out with H13 and Mavericks.

I am afraid cinebench wont be a good comparison tool for Houdini performance, I have been complaining here on the forum how bad the performance of HD7950 3GB card has been for H12 and 12.5 and meanwhile how the performance in maya was so much better. Well currently the same card is flying inside H13 and is considerably faster than in maya in high poly meshes.

I did the cinebench R15 test on this card with HD7950 3GB and it gives me 109.31fps , however I am certain you will have a better experience inside Houdini with your card.

My Cinebenchscore ist 95.67 fps