Those tables are so much out of date and irelevant, that I just can not believe it, that they recommend it to even take a look.
I will just point out some things at first glance:
1. Drivers used are old and buggy
2. Graphic cards are waaaay out of date
3. Only low-range gaming gpus are compared
As of upgrading to Archicad 19, GPU tables:
1. Again old Cards with old drives
2. Comparing GTX 750 (150$) to 500$ - 1500$ Pro cards
3. The 750 is the slowest card on the market with only 2GB Vram
4. It says: "some popular gaming cards"
- I don't see them. I see old 2010 and the slowest cards on the market.
The 780Ti was popular, yes. Especially for it's amazing rendering and drawing speed. Its available for 300$ again.
Q:
1. Where are the 300$-400$ gaming cards (970, 980, 280, 290, 285, 390) ?
- Example: the 390 offers 8GB VRAM for 300$ and is 3x faster in Maya or OpenGL.
2. Where is the Fury which has blazing fast HBM memory and 4096bus and 500GB/s bandwidth, costs only 600$ (as the K2200) ?
3. Where are the Titan cards, Titan with double precision, Titan X with 12GB Vram, the 980Ti, which scores amazing 150fps in Maya 2013 in specviewperf.
- Recently checked other OpenGL software and software using RT render engines, they all recommend gaming cards from 300$- 1000$ and Tesla cards. Actually none of them recommeng quadro or firepro cards.
The only thing where they recommend those cards are Catia, Creo and Siemens NX. Even solidworks is faster on a 290 (250$) with realhack than a firepro card for 800$.
4. Also we are moving to the FREE Windows 10 (in two weeks) upgrade and there isn't a single test for that either.
Those tables are just wrong on so many levels. I've come here to ask for real relevant comparisons and all you get is this.
This post is no offence in any way, its more of a positive criticism.