Windows 10 - GTX 980 no performance gain, demand explanation

[Anonymous]

Dear graphisoft,

my client is using the new Archicad 19 and just went through an upgrade from
Win8.1 to Win10
GTX 770 2GB to GTX 980 4GB

Let me list the specifications for each card first:
GTX 770
2GB VRAM,
1536 shading units,
3.2GFLOPS Floatingpoint performance

GTX 980
4GB VRAM,
2048 shading units,
4.6GFLOPS Floatingpoint performance

We did document the 770 performance before the upgrade on a normal neigbourhood model, with a couple of trees and houses with enabled sun shadows ofc.
before:
We had aprox. 55-60FPS orbiting around the model on the 770
after:
We have in the same model orbiting at same distance 50-55 on 980
** also the redraw cicle for shadows seems to be longer/slower

I demand an explanation for my client, why was his upgrade in vain (wasted money)
he is using a brand new 4790K cpu with 4.4GHz and 16GB of ram so there is nothing such as CPU botleneck.

Let me give you a note, that its not a problem on our side, because we run a test in Maya and we got a performance increse from 69fps to 116fps which was expected.

I took a look at this: http://helpcenter.graphisoft.com/technotes/video-cards/recommended-video-cards-for-archicad-19/#Test...

Let me tell you in a proper maner that this is not helpful AT ALL, and the informations is not correct I think.
Just look at it yourselfes. What does this FPS ration thing even mean?

Let us take a look at 10M polygon test in Win8.1:


So you claim that a gtx 560 (kepler) is faster as a brand new K2200 (maxwell) quadro and at the same time the gtx 750 (maxwell) is 5x slower ???!!
Now just a fast check:
-gtx -560 - 1GB vram - 336 shading units - 1.1 GFLOPS - kepler
-gtx -750 - 1GB vram - 512 shading units - 1.1 GFLOPS - maxwell
gtx 750Ti - 2GB vram - 640 shading units - 1.3 GFLOPS - maxwell
K2200 ---- 4GB vram - 640 shading units - 1.3 GFLOPS - maxwell
for contrast the two above
gtx 770 ---2GB vram - 1536 shadin units - 3.2 GFLOPS - kepler
gtx 980 ---4GB vram - 2048 shadin units - 4.6 GFLOPS - maxwell

Does this make any sense to you ?

My client who upgraded because your suposedly new faster Optimised Opengl ,wants an explanation from me, and I want from you...

With this logic it seems that a gtx 560 from 2011 which is selling on ebay for 50€ is faster than a brand new K2200, gtx 980 and even gtx 770 ??

So should my client now throw away his expensive 980 and buy a K2200 for even more, so maybe it will be faster than a 50€ 560, altough your images are showing that its actually slower ?

I hope this is an official Archicad support forum, because I think that me myself and a lot of people need some real explanations here

[SenecaDesignLLC]

Steve wrote:
I wish Graphisoft would publish a list of it's current limitations with regard to CPU's,GPU's, DirectX, Open GL versions, etc...

We all want to use the best hardware we can afford, but we do not want to buy equipment that can not be used with ArchiCAD without knowing it. I am using Maxwell Render so I have a reason for using a graphics card that would otherwise be a waste of money if I were using it only with ArchiCAD and CineRender.

If I buy modern NVIDIA GPU graphics card made for use with DirectX 12, Open GL 4.5, is it a waste of money for use with ArchiCAD 20? Will it even work with ArchiCAD?

If it were a difficult thing to know I would feel bad about asking. But I think people at Graphisoft do know. And they could provide good answers. Is it because they are embarrassed to expose the limitations of ArchiCAD? I don't know because I am relatively ignorant about computer technology.



I do know enough to recognize that there are some limitations with ArchiCAD with regard to using the latest hi-end computer processors and graphics cards. I want to know specifically what those limitations are and how long I can expect them to be a factor so that I can make an informed choice about buying new equipment. Is that too much to ask?

Well put

[Anonymous]

I want to add a few words about the issue.
I have 2 similar machines in office running ArchiCAD 19.
The difference between them is ONLY graphic card. We have bought 2 machines 4 years ago. The setup was i7 -3770, 16GB RAM, GTX 670. AC was running fine, the image quality and speed was ok for AC 15 and the projects we work with. When we worked on one huge project, we experienced the same lags, same PC performance lack, all the same slowdowns. The interesting fact was, that during lags (pause between object drag start and end) CPU was used ~15-20%, RAM 4-5 GB used, VGA ~ 0% used. So the problem is in the software (AC). It just didn't use all the capacity of PCs. There are just some internal procedures, which are taking a lot of time, and 1000% increased hardware potential will not help to solve this problem.
In the end of last year we have bought addon ArchiFrame and made an upgrade to my machine. GTX 670 we have changed to AMD FirePro 8100. All the rest remained the same (ok upgraded both machines to W10).
So now I can compare 2 cards using the same software and project and I did! Opened the same file on both machines, started fraps and did the same operations. This was not some kind of "virtual synthetic test" measuring virtual "cubic sheep in vacuum" value. It was comparison of time spent while working with the project. I moved objects, did some operations in 2D, trned the model in 3D, set the camera and run render with the same settings. And guess what? During the most annoying lags CPU usage is at the bottom, tons of free memory, GPU usage at 0%.
So here is my conclusion: DO NOT buy professional cards for ArchiCAD!
In 2D it does not give any benefit. In 3D model turns better with FirePRO, fps ~30 VS ~50. Rendering time (Outdoor Daylight Medium with quality changed to Final) 4:20 VS 4:11. Picture quality? What is it? If I see no difference, is it relevant?
Now tell me at least 1 reason for spending 1300€ instead of 300 for graphic card.

[Steve Jepson]

laszlonagy wrote:
...Official support questions should be directed to your local reseller.

Reseller!!@#$%#@!~@#$#@!! Are you kidding me!

I can't think of anything that makes me more angry than hearing that phrase - "contact your reseller".

This is a disingenuous pretence! I think GS intentionally uses "contact your reseller" as a means to deflect and defer user inquires.

Perhaps your reseller can be of assistance to you. Not all of them can do anything more than pass along your email message to someone else.

[Steve Jepson]

Vahur wrote:
...
Now tell me at least 1 reason for spending 1300€ instead of 300 for graphic card.

So you can use multiple monitors.

[gpowless]

Steve wrote:
So you can use multiple monitors.

I use multiple monitors without any lag with a $150 graphic card.

As to performance I have noticed that when Windows 10 updates it sometimes reverts the power/performance settings to 'balanced'. If that is the case Archicad flys if it is changed to high performance.

[Anonymous]

Steve wrote:

Vahur wrote:
...
Now tell me at least 1 reason for spending 1300€ instead of 300 for graphic card.

So you can use multiple monitors.

Yes, and see the picture on the screen!
Maybe some designers really need 4 displays, but I don't know why. I found 2x24* 16:10 the most suitable for me. By the way I have 27" at home, but still have chosen 24" for work.
By the way, 100€ card as a rule has 2 DVI outputs, 2 cards will have 4 outputs in total. Ok, if we need better performance and choosing 2x 300€ cards it is still 2x cheaper than a single W8100.

I tell this as W8100 user. Our company has no problems "wasting" several thousands € per couple of years for my work tool, so I've just got what I wanted, I didn't waste my own money. But I do not see the benefits of PRO card. Yes, 3D runs a bit faster in huge projects, is not relevant for most ArchiCAD users. And I compared W8100 to 4 years old mid-range gaming card, not to the gaming card of same price and generation.

[Steve Jepson]

laszlonagy wrote:
...
It is practically impossible to test all the various gaming cards from the multitude of gaming card manufacturers with all their special tweaks and overclocking and various drivers that are different from the reference drivers provided by NVidia or AMD...

But what would be feasible is for every ArchiCAD user to run a test and post their results. What GS needs to provide is the test model and a little program that would report the specific settings, drivers, etc... of the test.

I would think this would be very valuable information for the people who are developing the ArchiCAD program.

Until GS provides something like that ( as so many other CAD programs do - Vectorworks and Maxwell Render for example) It would be very helpful if GS would tell us what the limiting factors are for using ArchiCAD.

The number of tests required to evaluate performance would be radically reduced by knowing this. There is no point in testing certain graphics cards that we know ArchiCAD can not possibly benefit from.

Can they at least tell us what kind of limits there are with ArchiCAD?

http://helpcenter.graphisoft.com/technotes/video-cards/recommended-video-cards-for-archicad-19/

[Anonymous]

Steve wrote:
There is no point in testing certain graphics cards that we know ArchiCAD can not possibly benefit from.

Tere is no point testing all the cards at all unless ArchiCAD engine is using all the hardware possibility properly.
Why AutoCAD has no problems handling 500 000 lines in the screen, but ArchiCAD freezes with already 10 000 units?
Clearly it is the software issue!

[Steve Jepson]

Vahur wrote:

Steve wrote:
There is no point in testing certain graphics cards that we know ArchiCAD can not possibly benefit from.

Tere is no point testing all the cards at all unless ArchiCAD engine is using all the hardware possibility properly.
Why AutoCAD has no problems handling 500 000 lines in the screen, but ArchiCAD freezes with already 10 000 units?
Clearly it is the software issue!

Exactly! These are the kind of limiting factors we need to know about so we can make an informed choice about what hardware to invest in for using ArchiCAD.

[Anonymous]

Is it worth our while to create a simple plan, to share around and then post our results (specifically render times) including hardware setups? With a set couple of views to render in ac. I sure don't want to waste time and money WAITING around for GS to get they're stuff together. We can at least start to narrow down what works best and what doesn't. Thoughts ?