GPU for my new mobile workstation: Quadro RTX 5000 vs. Quadro RTX 4000?

I'm getting ready to purchase my next-generation mobile workstation, with the upgrade driven by these primary factors:

• Screen changing from 4K @ 15.6" to 4K @ 17.3" (for readability of small fonts in Unity & elsewhere)
• CPU core count increasing from 4 cores to either 6 or 8 (Unity is becoming better at multi-core use, and I also use virtual machines heavily which benefits greatly from higher core count)
• Transition from a high-end "gaming" system to a true mobile workstation build (for reliability and field-serviceable components)

My applications are archviz, data visualization (not always graphical or even involving Unity, but still done on my same computer), education/training, and similar engineering/programming work. Tools in use are Unity, Blender, GIMP, the Substance suite, and a few others. Graphically I'm typically working with 2K or 4K PBR materials, and almost 100% of my work is 3D rather than 2D.

Other than the CPU cores, I'm not specifically targeting faster performance as a primary objective -- I'm basically happy with my existing system's performance and am content with "equal or incrementally better".

My current machine has a GTX 1080 GPU with 8 GB VRAM (2560 CUDAs). The workstation-class systems I'm considering (with the Dell Precision 7740 being my front-runner right now) come with Quadro RTX GPUs (RTX 3000, 4000, or 5000).

I'm well aware that for apps that aren't specifically Quadro-targeted (e.g., Solid Works), there's little or no gain of a Quadro over a GeForce, but Dell doesn't offer an equivalent to the 7740 but with a non-Quadro GPU.

In considering the RTX 5000 vs. the RTX 4000, I'm seeing a lot of benchmarks online suggesting that in the 110W power envelope (which applies to all the machines I'm considering), there is only about a 5% difference in real-world performance between these two GPUs, but there is about a US$1200 price difference. For that money, the hardware difference is 3072 CUDAs vs. 2560, and 16 GB VRAM vs. 8 GB.

My question to the Unity community is, will the 16 GB VRAM give me any significant productivity gain in the Unity editor, for either GPU lightmap baking or for running my apps in the editor prior to deployment build? Likewise, will the 20% increase in CUDA count be significant during development, given that the platform's 110W power limit seems to be the performance limit (in other words, will I be better off with more CUDAs that are down-clocked to stay within the TDP limit)?

I'm curious to hear from anyone else who's running Unity on the Quadro RTX series and a 4K screen, if you'd care to share your experiences and impressions. Thanks!

 

Which GTX 1080? Depending on which mobile variant you have, it could be slower or faster than the RTX 4000. You definitely don’t want the RTX 3000 since even the desktop version is almost half the speed of the slowest laptop GTX 1080.

I think you’re probably right that you shouldn’t get an RTX 5000. The mobile version likely isn’t appreciably faster than the 4000 as you said. It’s too bad there don’t seem like any gaming laptops out there with 17” UHD displays since a mobile RTX 2080 (potentially even Max-Q) would be faster and cheaper than the RTX 4000 or RTX 5000.

 

My GTX 1080 is the standard version (that is, not Max Q or Ti, etc.). Of the mobile versions, it's the one with the highest TDP limit (but I don't recall offhand the specific TDP wattage). I have hit FireStrike benchmarks in the 18000 range, if that helps put it in perspective.

I'm not considering the RTX 3000 at all. There is a huge price delta between the RTX 4000 and the RTX 5000, but my budget is okay for either of those. This is simply a case of "even if I can afford the RTX 5000, it's pointless to spend money for no benefit." I agree with you (based on my research) that the RTX 3000 would be a step backward from where I am right now.

There are gaming laptops with 17" UHD and a mobile RTX 2080. The problem is that they are gaming laptops and not mobile workstations. I don't have any specific requirement for Quadro over GeForce (that is, I don't need ISV certification of my GPU), but I want the extra durability and (even more importantly) the field serviceability and support that come with an engineering-grade machine.

In the gaming laptop area, there are systems from MSI, Clevo, and Alienware that have GTX 2080 and 4K available. You just have to choose the customization path when ordering rather than getting a stock config. Or you can do what I did for my current 15" 4K machine, and buy from a specialty VAR. (Mine came from HID Evolution, located in California, and I am spectacularly happy with them as a company.)

One really elegant machine in that category is the Razer Blade Pro, which has a GTX 2080 and a 4K IGZO touch screen. I actually owned a 2016 RBP (with the GTX 1080 onboard), and I fell in love with the system. The screen was amazing, there was a true mechanical keyboard (I'm quite fast as a touch-typist, but only on a good keyboard), and their thermal design is innovative enough to perform surprisingly well given the slim form factor of the machine (it's basically a 17" Macbook Pro competitor). I say "owned" because I had to return the system for a refund within the 30 day eval period. On the 27th day, the system SSD failed. Razer gave me no trouble about warranty replacement, but I was going to have to send the machine back to them, and they'd have it for about 2 weeks -- with no option for a premium business-grade support upgrade to get faster turnaround on repairs. The downside of that slender Macbook-like profile is that the machines are less field repairable. I decided I just couldn't go that way with my work computer.

 

Well, I can tell you that basically no one in the games industry uses anything but gaming laptops. The choice between thin and lite vs desktop replacement usually comes down to personal preference more than anything else. Bad SSDs / RAM are fairly unusual problems, it’s usually something else that goes wrong like the motherboard or GPU, and that means it doesn’t matter how “field repairable” a laptop is it requires shipping the laptop back and waiting a long time. At that point people usually just buy a new laptop and sell the old one once it comes back from repair (assuming the repair is cheap/free).

The constant argument is between just getting a MacBook which have significantly better durability and relatively fast service, so people hold onto them for nearly a decade, but have terrible GPUs, and getting the cheapest MSI you can get and replacing it every 2 years. Price wise it’s that not much different.