Maya & Geforce 2 GTS

[cyclesh]

anyone here knows the prob of speed slow down if you switch from single view to 4 view with the gts cards ??
its really mess , i run at a res of 1600 x 1200 on 22 -monitor
plz I need help !

[dzynestudio]

Hi, I have a GTS at 1600x1200 with no problems. Perhaps it is your driver. I'm using NVidia's 7.03 driver which seems to work just fine.

Cheers,
Paul

[djfluid]

i used to have that exact same prob on a 19in, until i tried the GTU utility available at Guru3d.com. what it does is to let u play with your OGL settings in real time. also check out to see if u have the 7.xx drivers.

hope this helps

[flate]

That's interesting since at Tom's Hardware the exact benchmark the Quadro 2 Pro got eaten alive by the Fire GL2 was in 4-port view. Wonder if he had the right drivers for a fair comparison...

[cyclesh]

hmm ,i just downloaded the nvidia drivers "detonator 3" !
is this the correct driver ? or what is meaned by 7,03 ?
cause the detonator driver wont fix the prob !
thx for help

[tzaunie]

dzynestudio --

Just out of curiostiy, what version of DirectX are you running? I read that the 7.xx drivers were optimized for DirectX8 (not that this would necessarily effect Maya.)

m-guru --

The official "Detonator 3" drivers are driver release 6.31. Since these drivers were released, there have been quite a few fixes. The official Maya web site used to actually say to NOT use the 6.31's due to some problems they caused. These problems have been solved with newer driver releases, and the Maya site now simply lists a newer, beta driver as the "correct" one to use.

The new drivers, typically referred to as "leaked" or "beta" drivers, are available at lots of different download sites. Don't let the word "beta" scare you -- there isn't a single manufacturer of Geforce family cards that isn't currently using a "beta" driver release as their "official" drivers.

Go to www.geforcefaq.com and look for the "what drivers should I use" section. This site has links to the sites that have all the latest drivers. I'm currently using the 6.67 drivers which don't seem to have any problems. I've read that the 7.xx drivers are optimized for DirectX8 and that overall the 7 series drivers don't work as well as the 6 series, but then again dzynestudio is using the 7 series without problems. You may want to try the 6.67's first and see how well they work. Check the geforcefaq page for instructions.

FLATE --

Thanks for mentioning the article on Tomshardware -- I hadn't seen that. He was using the 6.47 drivers -- I don't know whether or not these could have caused any slowdowns. However, what I found interesting about the article was how well the GF2 stood up to the MUCH more expensive Quadro 2. It was fairly close in most benchmarks, and even beat it in a couple. I wonder how well the GF Ultra would have done with it's extra speed and twice the memory.

Larry

[tzaunie]

By the way, I meant to mention that I am not having any speed problems when switching between single and 4 view. I'm using a Geforce 2 Ultra on a dual P3 850 machine with Maya3.0.

Larry

[jerry-hnk]

I'm using a gladiac, its PERFECT, using detonator 6.73

[tzaunie]

Are you sure you're using "6.73" drivers? As far as I can tell, the latest 6.xx series drivers that have been leaked are 6.72 for win9x, and 6.67 for W2K and NT.

The Nvidia newsgroups are usually very quick to start talking about the newest drivers, and there is so far no mention of a "6.73" release.

Larry

[blk]

well they have a new 7 series and the latest ones for those for windows 2k are 7.17

[tzaunie]

I was specifically referring to the latest "6.xx" series drivers. Technically, the 6.67 drivers actually ARE the latest drivers to be released for W2K even though they are a low number than the 7.xx series. 6.67's actually came out after the 7.17's. This is because Nvidia has continued to develope the 6.xx series at the same time they are developing the 7.xx series. The 7.xx series are optimized for Directx8, but since DX8 is still quite new and has some bugs, many people are still using DX7, which the 6.xx series are specifically designed for.

Larry

[cyclesh]

ok guys , i get the main problem ...
like i said before i run at 1600x1200 / 32bit on a 22 monitor
and noticed if i switch to 16bit collor mode the bug disappears
but can this be the final answer!?
i already downloaded the 7.xx drivers and it helped nothing...
i repeat the prob: ( switching from single view to 4 view and then !!! back to single view , causes maya to be very very slow)
i hope someone canteach me a better way
thx guys for your attention

[jack-lemmon]

While I don't have a fix for you, I experience the same slow down and I'm using an older geforce card. Instead of switching to a single view from the 4 view, resize the 4 view to approximate a single view and the screen won't slow quite as dramatically. In other words, while in the 4 view, grab the center of the screen where the 4 corners meet and drag the size of the windows to get the specific view sized up. Not perfect but you shouldn't have the lag that you get with switching over to the single view.

[-coj]

I had the exact same problem when running maya on a 32 mbit GeForce2, I then upgraded to a 64mbit Geforce and the problem was gone, soo my guess is that it is a memory issue

[skelter]

I've got the same problem with my GF2gts 64mb and I'm running MAYA @12801024 true color so it's not a memory issue.
This problem was sytematic with my GF1 and happens sometimes with the GF2.
I've another problem: things run slower when some windows are opened(such as hypershade).
This make me laugh 'cause i've read a lots of posts where Nvidia's chips are presented as marvelous gfx for Highend apps, GF familly card are kick ass gaming boards that all.

[tzaunie]

What GF drivers are you using? 6.31's and below don't work properly with Maya. I'm using 6.67's and don't have problems, and I've read about somebody using one of the 7.xx series without problems as well. As of yesterday, the "offical" drivers are now 6.50. I'm unclear whether or not these are any different from the previous "leaked" 6.50's, but since the 6.67's seem to be working fine for me, I probably won't switch back to them.

Larry

[skelter]

I'm runnin' the 6.62's but i don't think that's only a drivers issue.
My opinion is that GFs have high perfomances with HI polycount but this only help for tumbling and dollying viewports but 3d is not only about that, and the GFs don't support all pro OPENGL features in Hardware so some tasks are slow as an example Nurbs texture placement tool due to lack of Overlayplanes support.
GFs get also poor wireframe performances, etc...
So whatever the driver i'm running a GF is designed for GAME, Maya is not Quake so...
but I'm ok to say that for the price it's ok 'cause for now it's the only thing i could afford.

[skelter]

I'd like to add that i also had the switching views problem with MAX .

[ozz-2005]

umm..skelter..gf has poor wireframe performance?..since when?..its one of the best poly pushers out there
ofcourse the firegl2 is better..but its also newer...
now people can say that the quadro2 ( a game card as you like to reffer it as) is just as old as the fire gl2..but the quadro is based on the nv15 chip which is significantly older than the firegl..

man..im getting sick of this name calling..( game card, pro card)
the way i like to think of it is..each card can be used for a different job ( in areas that each card exels at.).
ie. firegl for modelling/ animation
geforce for modelling/ texturing
wildcat for just about everything
its been said a million times before.....use whats right for the job.

also..maya is not quake...but the geforce was not made to play only quake..but it was designed handle opengl applications..( games are just fun applications ) and those applications require hardware that has strengths in some areas more than in others..( fill rates/ poly pushing..etc..)

i have used lots of different "pro" hardware and i must say that most of it doesnt do any better than the "gaming" hardware

( pro cards have their faults as well )
____________
-M-K-
ambient-whisper

[skelter]

Pro or Game are not only titles for gfx card.
Quake and Maya use both OpenGL but not the same features so pro cards are designed to use all OpenGL features and to speed things in 3d apps, regardless of pricing.
Game cards are designed to accelarate games which don't use all the features Maya needs so to keep the price acceptable these features are not wired.
i'm not defending pro cards against gaming ones but i've two GF and i've seen their limits, things were cool for studying but for production purpose i think that a gfx with lack of overlayplanes (which are used intensively by Maya) will slows things a lot.
Wireframe perfomance is not the same as poly performance 'cause the GF is slower when wire are displayed(in both MAX and MAYA) specially when objects are highlighted.

To illustrate what i've said 'bout pro and gaming card let's take some examples:
-with my GF1 i had to disable dual planes to use MAX properly because with even a simple fuckin' cube it was unworkable.
-If U display hidden edges in MAX perfomances suddently drop.
-Houdini is unworkable with all Nvidia's chips including Quadros.

Whatever U think about the names people calls cards there are cards designed for Games and cards for apps. U could play games with a wildcat as well U could use Maya with a GF but that's not their primary tasks.

The good point for Nvidia is that their OpenGL is excelent 'cause part of Nvidia's staff was formers SGI's emplyees, this explain why Nvidia's chips have good perfomances for 3d apps over others gaming brands and certains pro cards, at this point U're right.

I mean that's is a question of likes, some people prefers pespi than coca, but both are good.