I have twin xeon 3.0 quads with 8 mb ram and a Radion xt1900 graphics card. I have files with alot of raster images.
Question: I want "instant" regen. What is more effective:
More ram or a better graphic card?
|
I have twin xeon 3.0 quads with 8 mb ram and a Radion xt1900 graphics card. I have files with alot of raster images.
Question: I want "instant" regen. What is more effective:
More ram or a better graphic card?
Well the processor you have is top end, assuming you mean 8GB of RAM (and assuming you are running Windows Vista) you won't be able to increase the RAM any more anyway, and the graphics card you mention is roughly comparable with the higher end of Geforce 7 Series which is not slow by any standard (yes it can be upgraded to say a Geforce Quadro series card).
I don't know what Autodesk program(s) you are running but on current hardware technology available I think you will be struggling to get any more performance.
Whether it will run better on XP than on Vista or whether other hardware drivers will have an effect who knows (NB again assuming that the program in question is listed as being compatible with the OS you are using and you meet all other system spec' requirements).
Another thought with regards to the raster images and regens, depending on how your folders are structured it may be better to look at network or hard drive speeds.
Or plot things to a single dwf and use as an underlay rather than having multiple image files attached.
Just a thought though.
Last edited by H'Angus; 2007-11-28 at 09:20 PM.
Video card won't have much effect on referenced raster images. Once you get to a certain point in maximizing the hardware, you won't see any visible results.
Autodesk software is pretty bad at utilizing high-end hardware.
Out of the 8 processors in your dual Xeon quad, you are using 1 of them, and 7 are being mostly-wasted. Aren't you glad you spent all that money?