• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

GTX 295 vs. Quadro CX

I

inphluence

n00b
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
13
Hi Everyone-

For a quick background info I just built a i7 920, EVGA X58, 12GB 1600mhz system oc'd to 4.0 stable. Now I'm on the hunt for a good vid card. Let me first tell you unfortunately I don't game on the PC and I understand that this is a gamer's forum. I'm trying to get both sides of opinions. I built my rig specifically for design / motion graphics / video production. I have read the Quadro CX -> http://www.nvidia.com/object/builtforadobepros.html is amazing for what I want to do. After talking to a friends they said the GTX 295 can do just about what the Q-CX can do at 1/3 the price. But then again my buddy's have no experience with a video encoding workstation.

So I turn to you guys, I want the to see if the GTX 295 can compare to the Quadro CX, or am I comparing apples to oranges here? One specifically built for workstations and one for gaming?

Thanks in advanced guys,
-kevin.
 
I'm also curious about this. Can you softmod it? It's essentially the same card, right? It just lacks the extra software protocol?
 
kev

they are both extremely powerful cards, essentially the same yet different. the only thing limiting them from being exactly the same are the drivers for each card. the gtx295 has a set of gaming drivers, and the CX has the encoding drivers or whatever the other terminology is. like anything, it is a ploy for nvidia to make money. nothing new there.
 
Attean said:
I'm also curious about this. Can you softmod it? It's essentially the same card, right? It just lacks the extra software protocol?
Click to expand...

from what ive read here, and around google you can't softmod.
 
Well, I know for a fact the quadros at work push xsi far better than my geforce at home so may be worth it if you're working/rendering a lot from home.

edit: I just saw your home studio in another thread, go with the quadro.
 
Go with the Quadro. They will it will not be very good for gaming, but it will perform extremely well for all your graphics needs. Yes, they are essentially the same hardware, but the Quadro's are made specifically for those types of applications, and will do much better with them. I don't believe a softmod is possible. If you do any gaming with it, don't expect it to perform very well compared to what it will do with your 3d needs :)
 
From the looks of it the Quadro CX is lacking compared to the GTX 295. The Quadro CX looks to be a cut back GTX 260 original

CX Specs:
192 SPs
384-bit memory interface
76.8 gb/sec memory banwidth

GTX 295 specs:
2 * 240 SPs
448-bit memory interface
2 * 110 gb/sec memory bandwidth
(its x2 due to it being two GPUs in SLI)

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the sheer power of the 295 over the CX would far overcome the unoptimized drivers. That is, after all, one of only two differences between Quadro's and GeForce's. Amount of VRAM and drivers. Hell, a GTX 260 or 280 would likely perform similarly and/or faster unless you need more than 896mb or 1GB of VRAM.
 
This may help you

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=660

You can search quadro cx review on google and find more.

IMO the 295 will be faster overall and a better buy considering the price, but afaik some effects are only accelerated on a Quadro and if HD encoding is a must then take into account that RapiHD (a gpu accelerated encoder) is only available with the purchase of the quadro CX.
 
Hmmph, thanks for the help guys, seems like this might be one of those situation where I'll need to do myself to figure out for sure.
 
Only get the CX if you are encoding HD video into an H.264 codec, otherwise it doesnt matter.

NVIDIA is supposed to be adding more codec options in the future for this.
 
There's other reasons. If he's into 3d animation I know for a fact real-time preview is way choppier on standard graphics cards and that's huge. Not to mention the video buffer. You can't look at shader units sand say one card is better than the other.
 
If your using Adobe Premiere, its GPU acceleration is only enabled on Quadro Cuda supported cards not GeForce cards.
 
I won't be doing any 3d but I'll be doing alot of motion graphics / video work.

I've never heard of softmodding before, I guess I'll have to look into that.
 
I understand that softmodding was possible with earlier Quadro/Geforce cards, but at some point nVidia made that impossible. It seems quite reasonable to me that they didn't like people modding a $500 card into a $2000 card.
 
Well in any case the programs you use are going to be pretty much cpu intensive aren't they? Unless your using CUDA accelerated programs.
 
I doubt it's something you couldn't solve with a soldering iron and a little know-how. :) I'd go with the cheaper card if I were you. Video is mostly cpu-limited.
 
Zuriick said:
kev

they are both extremely powerful cards, essentially the same yet different. the only thing limiting them from being exactly the same are the drivers for each card. the gtx295 has a set of gaming drivers, and the CX has the encoding drivers or whatever the other terminology is. like anything, it is a ploy for nvidia to make money. nothing new there.
Click to expand...

Drivers cost money, they dont make themselves. The market for these workstation cards are much smaller than for the desktop cards.
 
Attean said:
Video is mostly cpu-limited.
Click to expand...
After Effects' performance seems to be dramatically enhanced with the CX. I originally thought it was CPU-limited as well but CS4 seems to take advantage of GPU power as well. And the video posted on OP definitely shows it.
 
inphluence said:
After Effects' performance seems to be dramatically enhanced with the CX. I originally thought it was CPU-limited as well but CS4 seems to take advantage of GPU power as well. And the video posted on OP definitely shows it.
Click to expand...

the real question is, how well will a gtx295/285/280 do in CS4 Vs a Quadro CX
 
Have you looked into a second, dedicated, Physix card along side a GTX285? I believe that CS4 supports cuda...

Drivers cost money, they dont make themselves. The market for these workstation cards are much smaller than for the desktop cards.
Click to expand...

Drivers are free to download; the cards are not the same. I use a FireGL V7700 on one system and a softmodded HD3870 on another, - speed wise they are very close, but the soff-fire card crashes often and, worse yet, has some strange anomolies that I don't get on the real deal.

If you are a hobbiest or just futzing around at home once in a while then, sure, go softmod something and have fun. If you are makeing a living then just save yourself the trouble and buy the real card.. usually you can get a good deal on a new or very lightly used one over on flea-bay.
 
CS4 supports CUDA only with a Quadro.

The only app in CS4 that doesn't require a Quadro is Photoshop.
 
that sucks!!

looks like I'm going to have to do a fake softmod

although, I did enable open gl in after effects, it ran a fair bit faster(GTX280) but it crashed often
 
inphluence said:
After Effects' performance seems to be dramatically enhanced with the CX. I originally thought it was CPU-limited as well but CS4 seems to take advantage of GPU power as well. And the video posted on OP definitely shows it.
Click to expand...

That's fantastic news. My next card might be a quadro. <3 cs4's 3d paint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top