Nvidia Quadro RTX 4000 review – low-cost professional offshoot with surprising performance | igorsLAB

Autodesk AutoCAD 2018

The 2D test I run in AutoCAD 2018 reveals any weaknesses in IPC (CPU performance). Autodesk's AutoCAD is now almost a standard DirectX application, both in 2D in design and shading in 3D views. If you look at both sub-areas, the cards are so close together in the 2D score that you can almost speak of the same performance, even if the Quadro RTX is quite clearly ahead of a Radeon Vega FE. But not everything that can be measured so clearly must be subjectively noticeable when working. You have to stay that fair.

In the 3D result, Nvidia dominates again and everything is grouped as you would expect with a not exactly dead-optimized computer game and DirectX11. But here, too, the differences can be measured and displayed in the beams, but hardly noticeable in daily use. The image quality of all maps is also roughly the same.

 

Autodesk Maya 2017

I would like to refer in advance to the following SPECviewperf, where parts of Maya 2017 were also implemented. However, the result there differs very clearly from what I was able to measure with the SPECapc workload and the full version of the program. You can see two things very clearly: there is no final optimization for the RTX 4000, which you can still admire in the SPECviewperf (driver) and you can see the slight dominance of the Radeon cards. Only the Radeon VII is excluded from all optimizations as a consumer card. What to prove.

The fact that the Quadro RTX 4000 is so poorly sorted here can really only be attributed to the defective drivers, there is still a lot missing from fine tuning.

It is logical that radeon VII is so weak due to the lack of support for GPGPU implementation. The bad result of the Quadro P5000, on the other hand, can only be explained by a driver bug, because the P4000 runs like a string.

What is interesting is how much the Radeon Vega FE can influence the CPU composite here, for whatever reason. I have reproduced this result several times, so it is not a Lucky Shot.

 

Autodesk 3ds Max 2015

I could have used 3ds Max 2016 with a refrigerates SPECapc, but the result wouldn't really be different. That's why I'm leaving the long-used version as it is, just to stay more comparable. Because over time you also develop a very pronounced feeling for such software packages.

Also for this program I have listed the sub-scores individually, because you can better recognize strengths and weaknesses.