RAM vs Graphics Card questions

With the latest versions of my CAD/Modelling programs all seeming to want to run on 2GB of RAM AND Vista seeming to want the same, it is time to start considering my options.

As it stands I've got my eye on getting 2x1GB sticks at 900Mhz.
But recently, someone pointed out that 3Dmax recommends 4GB.

my first bunch of questions:
is there much real world difference between running 4GB@533Mhx and 2GB@900Mhz?
why don't I see advertised, pre-constructed PCs with 4GB@900Mhz?

How much of the work done by one of these programs is done by the graphics card and how much is down to your PC speed?
If I run let's say 2x 256MB 7950GT would it make up for a lack in the RAM department?

would 2x1GB at 533Mhz with the 2x256MB 7950Gt be better or worse than 2x900Mhz with a single 256MB 7950GT?
Does 2x256 work better than a single 512?
why don't I see pre-constructed PCs with 2x512 7950 GTs?

I know that ideal scenario would be 4x1GB and a 768MB nVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX but that's not cheap..... And I am.

No need for two video cards unless you're doing 3d modeling or intensive gaming which is why you don't see to many pc's with dual video cards except like alienware towers which are setup for heavy gaming/graphic use and come with dual or quad sli setup or crossfire setup and 4 gig of ram. With windows vista out and all programs going to start upgrading to keep up with it then the best thing to do is have 2gig 800 mhz ram and get 1 8800 gtx card which as it stands is the only graphics card that is Directx10 compatible. Once you hit 2 gig of ram from there to 3 to 4 gigs is not much noticable difference if you have a fast enough processor. I'm assuming that by wanting to run dual 7950gt's that your motherboard supports sli, if it doesn't support sli then you won't get much help from dual 7950's except dual monitor's. For the best setup if your motherboard is sli capable then get 2gb 800mhz ram and dual 7950's or save your money and get an 8800gtx because eventually down the road it's going to have to be upgraded to the 8800 once most programs update and migrate to using directx10 so save the initial money and hassle and start with what's good.

I do a lot of architectural cad work and interior designs that inevitably requires rendering large scenes with lots of objects and light sources.
I do see dual graphics card machines on sale but only with 2x256MB 7950 GT (or any other 7 series card and even one place that does 2x640MB 8800GTS cards) but none that have 2x512MB 7950GT cards.
it's the same with RAM.
I see either 2GB@900MHz or 4GB@533MHz but never 4GB@900MHz

A lot of the post by dave92cherokee was not really correct, so I wouldn't advise you take every word of it to heart.

Are you planning on buying a machine with dual graphics cards, etc? Why not build it for 2/3 the price? Stop looking at these monster machines made by manufacturers, and start looking at the parts to build one. You will save yourself a lot of money and have a machine that is customized to what YOU really want.

The reason you don't see advertised 4 GB @ 900 mhz is because anybody that is going to buy a pre-built system with that much juice knows very little about memory speeds and PC's in general, so they don't bother to use it. People desiring fast memory usually build their own machine, because if you are particular about the speed of your memory, chances are you will want other things a certain way. The same way is for video cards...nobody in the right mind is going to buy dual 512 MB cards in a pre-built computer by a manufacturer, it just isn't smart and its so much more expensive. That's why they very rarely even offer it.

If you are using the machine for very high demanding applications that will actually utilize the memory, 4 GB @ 533 > 2 GB @900. If you never really use more than ~1.5 GB, then its the other way around. Just remember...when you run out of memory, your page file is utilized more heavily and that is VERY slow compared to any speed of memory nowadays.

As far as video card, I would wait. nVidia will be coming out with the rest of their 8000 series cards soon enough, and they will be a lot more affordable and still support DX10. That's just how nVidia does their cards, they always introduce their biggest and best first, and then "defeature" them to be more affordable later on. I think just one of those cards would suit you just fine, but if you don't want to wait then dual 256 MB 7950GT's would be more than enough.

What kind of system do you have? Is it prebuilt or did you build it yourself. You don't see alot of systems with more than 2 gig's of ram like Dell and Compaq and such because they're not in the business of building top of the line systems. They want to build the systems as quick and cheaply as possible and offer the least amount of customizations especially when it comes to crossfire and sli. It's not until you get into companies like alienware that build systems specifically for gaming or heavy video acceleration which they offer the ability to fully customize the system but you pay a very pretty penny for it anywhere between 2500 and over 10,000. The only way you can get what you want is to build it yourself which is often times cheaper and better quality than pre-built systems that have comparable specs. I'm currently in the process of designing and building a full sli system with liquid cooling throughout the entire unit. I checked your profile and it says you are in the UK so I'm not sure which computer parts sites are based in the Uk I know tigerdirect offers international shipping but it costs quite a bit, the best thing for your situation is if you built the system yourself check your motherboard to see if it's sli ready and also your power supply. For what you do I'd recommend 2 gig at 800 mhz ddr2 ram and if it's supported dual 7950 gt's with the sli setup and running. That should give you enough power for the video processing but you also need to think about your processor and what speed it is to make sure it's capable of handling everything. If you are already running windows vista the maximum recommended requirements is a 1 gig processor, 1 gig of ram, a video card that is directx9 compatible and supports pixel shader 2.0 technology for windows aero with at least 128 mb video ram. So if you have a 2.5-3 gig processor and 2 gig 800mhz ram and dual 512mb video cards then it'll be plenty to run vista and the drafting programs you use. Let me know the details about your system and I can recommend upgrades for the best sli or crossfire setup and performance.

ahhh.... that explains a lot.
I always figured that you don't see 4GB@900 was because of power issues. Guess it makes sense that when you are talking about that much ram at that speed, the person wanting it should enough to sort it all out themselves.
To be honest, I'm not even certain if i really do need that much RAM. It's just that I've had enough bad experiences with pcs freezing, apparently not responding to anything whilst it was actually rendering a 2 minute scene in Max and that was while I was in University. Now when I'm getting paid by other people to do things, I can't afford to have things go wrong, especially if things potentially can take anything up to 2 hours to render.
I'm hoping that overkill on the graphics would mean that objects no longer disappear when I 3d rotate my display and whatnot when building.

i know a small company that essentially builds to spec so I have to choose most of the major components.
as it is I've settled on

550W PSU
asus sli 650i motherboard
E6600 dual core
2GB@900 (still dithering about 4GB though)
640MB geforce 8800gts (can't justify getting the 768MB GTX card)

whoa.....lets take a break here guys. We are talking about professional modeling software not gaming.


First of all it depends on what software you are running. Numerous versions of pro software will only take advantage of the professional series from ATI/Nvidia such as Quaddro or FireGL. Not, mind you, that those cards are much different architecturally (although sometimes they do differ a bit) but because of vendor lock in.


Second if you'll go with a multiple GPU configuration check if the software you are using does support it otherwise you'll waste your money.


About the ram, it depends on the software if those models you are running are gigantic and will page to the hard drive then a memory upgrade will make a gigantic difference.

If you will run more that 2 gigs of ram do make sure to purchase the 64bit version of windows xp/vista the 32 bit its very finicky over 2GB (it will often only recognize 3.2GB out of the 4). So check for compatibility between your software and the 64 bit versions. Might also consider switching to a 64 bit version of your software (if available) to take advantage of larger memory addressing.

Btw the reason you were having problems finding systems on the market with the proper specs is because you need to look for workstations not regular computers.

So in summary find out from the software manufacturer the list of compatible vid cards, ask them about how large of a page file it creates and about 64 bit OS compatibility.

ok, i've had a look at 64bit related areas.
3D studio max is available in a 64bit version so i can upgrade to that happily with a 64 bit OS.
however, for my drafting programs, Autocad is slightly worrying.
According to the website:

AutoCAD 2007 does not support 64-bit Windows. However, it does support running on an Intel EM64T processor using Window XP. AutoCAD 2007 runs as a 32-bit application on 64-bit processor in what Intel refers to as Legacy mode.
In case you missed it, i'm not that techincally savvy when it comes to the guts of a pc. What does that all mean?
How does the Intel EM64T processor relate to my intended Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E6600 Dual Core Processor?

ok, i've had a look at 64bit related areas.
3D studio max is available in a 64bit version so i can upgrade to that happily with a 64 bit OS.
however, for my drafting programs, Autocad is slightly worrying.
According to the website:


In case you missed it, i'm not that techincally savvy when it comes to the guts of a pc. What does that all mean?
How does the Intel EM64T processor relate to my intended Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E6600 Dual Core Processor?

Basicly that is just saying it will run fine on a 64 bit processor, but not under a 64 bit environment (a.k.a. operating system). I believe the "Intel EM64T" is simply an instruction set built into the processor, of say, the Core 2 Duo E6600 you were referring to that lets it run in the 64 bit environment. Make sense?

ok, i've had a look at 64bit related areas.
3D studio max is available in a 64bit version so i can upgrade to that happily with a 64 bit OS.
however, for my drafting programs, Autocad is slightly worrying.
According to the website:


In case you missed it, i'm not that techincally savvy when it comes to the guts of a pc. What does that all mean?
How does the Intel EM64T processor relate to my intended Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E6600 Dual Core Processor?



If that 3D max is a memory intensive application it should benefit quite a bit by running its 64 bit version under windows 64 bit.

About autocad, i would be quite surprised if it did not run at all under windows 64 bit even if its a 32 bit application. It just won't take full advantage of its capabilities. Most 32 bit software (except the very old ones with 16bit installers) runs very well under win 64bit using the very efficient wow (windows on windows) emulation layer.

But if you would like to be 100% sure that everything runs perfectly under 64bit windows I recommend using this trial offer from microsoft: http://www.microsoft.com/products/info/default.aspx?view=22&pcid=9d273393-92c9-4807-be9c-515a0d152415

That way you can try it out and find out for sure if it will work.

As far as the EM64T don't worry, that is just the name of the 64 bit extensions implemented in new Intel CPUs that they licensed from AMD. Regardless of terminology all P4, Core, AMD64 series of processors from both companies will run 32 bit software natively.

And again check up on those video cards to see if you need the professional quaddro/firegl series or if the software you use support consumer grade stuff.

regarding graphics/video cards.
most people I know that run Autocad and 3D Max on home machines do so with regular off the shelf graphics cards with no real problems.
I do know though, that even with a mid/high end quadro, you will be getting more than 100% improvement in performance.There are even dedicated drivers for these two programs that will again, get you more than 100% improvement in performance over the same graphics card on the standard drivers but a quadro card looks to cost the same as the rest of the PC put together....
alas, also this brings into another set of questions; most tests I see involving autocad and 3dMax are done with core duo xeons (major money) and people have also tested the latest 3D max on the new "regular" quad core chips as well with rendering times with the QX6700 being half of those of the E6600.
It's looking like a spec'd for Autocad+3D Max pc is going to cost a hell of a lot more than I thought.
Being realistic (not easy when it comes to building to desire/spec) I don't really need it to be a dedicated 3D Max machine and being able to run it at a decent pace is just a nice bonus. That's not to mention that of the things I use ONLY 3D Max is capable of using a "full spec" machine.


the latest list of ticked boxes so far:

ASUS P5N-E SLI nForce 650i SLI (although the 680i is mighty tempting for future proofing)
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Dual Core Processor (fuck me, the QX6700 is bloody expensive)
4096MB DDR2 533MHz Memory (4x1GB)
320MB nVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS (cheapest option in the options list that performs on par with the 512MB 7950GT apparently - I can get the 640MB or 768MB card later if I need or for a similar cost 2x512MB 7950GT)

and it seems to me that XP Pro x64 is the better OS for now until next year when Autocad goes 64 bit as well.

regarding graphics/video cards.
most people I know that run Autocad and 3D Max on home machines do so with regular off the shelf graphics cards with no real problems.
I do know though, that even with a mid/high end quadro, you will be getting more than 100% improvement in performance.There are even dedicated drivers for these two programs that will again, get you more than 100% improvement in performance over the same graphics card on the standard drivers but a quadro card looks to cost the same as the rest of the PC put together....
alas, also this brings into another set of questions; most tests I see involving autocad and 3dMax are done with core duo xeons (major money) and people have also tested the latest 3D max on the new "regular" quad core chips as well with rendering times with the QX6700 being half of those of the E6600.
It's looking like a spec'd for Autocad+3D Max pc is going to cost a hell of a lot more than I thought.
Being realistic (not easy when it comes to building to desire/spec) I don't really need it to be a dedicated 3D Max machine and being able to run it at a decent pace is just a nice bonus. That's not to mention that of the things I use ONLY 3D Max is capable of using a "full spec" machine.


the latest list of ticked boxes so far:

ASUS P5N-E SLI nForce 650i SLI (although the 680i is mighty tempting for future proofing)
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Dual Core Processor (fuck me, the QX6700 is bloody expensive)
4096MB DDR2 533MHz Memory (4x1GB)
320MB nVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS (cheapest option in the options list that performs on par with the 512MB 7950GT apparently - I can get the 640MB or 768MB card later if I need or for a similar cost 2x512MB 7950GT)

and it seems to me that XP Pro x64 is the better OS for now until next year when Autocad goes 64 bit as well.



Well of course what it all comes down to is how much is how much time saved rendering is worth to you. If a 8800 + E6600 will perform adequately then go that route, or if you think in the long run the quaddro + quadcore's saved time will pay for itself in saved time then go that route. In the end only you can make the decision if its worth it for you or not. :)

I'm certainly not surprised that autocad and other such software sees huge gains on multiple cores. Most pro software is heavily multi threaded to take advantage of multi core workstations.

Btw the great thing about building a custom comp like this is the upgrade path due to using standard components. If you have the money and the desire later you can always drop in a quaddro or QX in there.

Heck you can even go the amd route with an AM2 socket if you would like to gamble a bit that the new upcoming K10 quad core architecture from AMD will be as fast as it looks like on paper.

As far as the OS goes yes as long as everything is compatible (and its very likely that it is) the WinXP 64 is the best OS for you, especially with large amount of memory. XP 64 is a full blown 64 bit OS and its based on the mature server 2003 kernel making it superior to the older regular win Xp kernel and of course its lacks the potential early bugs problems Vista might have. I've just checked in with nvidia and they have drivers for it too:http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp64_97.92.html.


Anyway overall looking at the specs you posted are quite good. The only thing I would change however is a speed bump on the memory from DDR2 533MHz to DDR2667

looking at rough numbers.

the QX6700 is approx. twice as fast as the E6600.
the Quadro 4500 is approx. 2x faster than the 512 7950GT AND is a dedicated opengl card which as far as I can tell, the "standard" cards are not (good for work, not so good for games considering the cost and lets be honest here, I will be playing games when not working...).
the Quadro 4500 on the dedicated drivers for autocad and 3d max is approx. 60-70% faster than the standard drivers.

that's quite a performance gain; potentially 12x faster if the maths works like that at maybe twice the initial cost.