• 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.

Quadro vs Gaming linup

P

Putz

I have a custom title
2FA
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
5,586
I know these are virtually the same card aside from monor tweaks but does anyone have a chart showing which GPU class the Quadro uses?

like say a Quadro FX 3000 is built off a 5900 core etc etc


Trying to prove to work we dont need to spend 4 times the $$ on cards for simple cad

I just put up the following:

p4 3.4 , 4 gig ram, FX 3000 256 vs P4 3.0, 1 gig ram, 6800 GT and the gt beats it in every benchmark thats 3d related, 3dmark, aqua mark etc. and the Solidworks engineers cant see any difference in any of models, even the huge ones

.. I know the 6800 GT is built on newer tech, but the Quadro equivalent is still going to cost more...


thanks!
 
What does your company do? The quadro's and stuff are meant for graphic rendering and like CAD, all that stuff. It's what they excel at. The other, geforce etc are for gaming. It depends on what the company does.
 
There are several "softquadro" threads on the Guru3D "Rivatuner" forum which have GeForce/Quadro gpu equivalents and instructions on how to do the mod.
 
Solidworks drawings is what these are for... i know the Quadro is geared for that

but a 500$ 6800 GT works better than a 2000$ FX 3000

im just looking for a core too core comparison

6800 Ultra 800$ CAD
FX 4400 256 MB 2,999$ US

wtf.... give me a break its the same bloody card :)
 
actually they are NOT the same card

the quadros are made for CAD etc and they have WAY more stable drivers etc.
 
close enough its not worth 5 times the price

Edit: more Stable drives doesnt make it a different card, can flash or softmod an Ultra and do that
 
Indeed, the drivers are not merely more stable, they are optimized for this kind of work. Gaming puts a completely different kind of load on a video card than solidworks. They both "stress" the card, but in very different ways.
 
mattsaccount said:
Indeed, the drivers are not merely more stable, they are optimized for this kind of work. Gaming puts a completely different kind of load on a video card than solidworks. They both "stress" the card, but in very different ways.
Click to expand...

Could you explain the differences, as none of the reviews I've read are very helpful on that issue. Also, what is the difference between one of the Quadro's or Matrox's that's designed for 2D work vs 3D as far as basic architecture?
 
Well I'm no engineer :) But, if you'll read the review linked above, you'll see the performance difference between the consumer cards and their professional equivalents can be extremely high depending on the application. As one might expect, the consumer cards excel at gaming, while the professional cards excel at CAD and so on. The specifics of the optimizations used aren't that important in terms of your experience as a user.
 
my thing is this...

6800 Ultra 256 meg.. 800$ CDN
Quadro 3000 FX 256 meg 2000$ CDN
Quadro FX 4400 512 meg 4000$ CDN

3000 is based on older technology, so i would assume even with optimized drivers the 6800 ultra should make up for the difference with normal drivers being a newer technology

as a test we imported a 600 meg drawing at work (one of our larger assemblies), and the pc specs are this

6800 GT 256
1 gig pc 3200
p4 3.0ghz
Single IDE ata 100 HD


CAD Station
Quadro FX 3000 256
4 gigs of ram
p4 3.4 EE
Raptors 74 gig raid 0


the performance of rotating the assembly and what not is idential, cant tell them apart, we imported a complete assembly thats huge, same deal ( or largest drawing currently on file)... no diff

just hard to justify buying 1 system when i can get 3 for the same price, granted i think 2 gigs of ram would be a good idea and maybe a 3.2 cpu

sent in an email to solidworks today asking if they support, or utilize SLI, or if they will be... 2 Ultras are still cheaper then the older fx3000 platform, not to mention the FOUR THOUSAND dollar Qadro FX 4400 ..granted it has 512meg of ram

an for shit and giggles, the 6800GT system benchmarks 25% faster in 3dmark than the Quadro 3000 card, in 2001se 2003 and 2005
 
its no

we build laser projection sysems ad laser engravers... all their doing is desining parts to make these systems
 
WElllllllllllllllll,

I have had some experience with quadro vs geforce.

I use a program called 3D Studio Max 7, I'm sure you've heard of it. anyways, when rendering a raytraced, high resolution animation, the quadro card (3000) renders the movies at a WAY higher rate than the 5900. Im sure the other cards do to. However, i have used solidworks (though i like inventor a lot better) and i know that the graphics for that program, while demanding, are nothing in comparison to heavy 3D modeling and rendering applications like animation programs.

in conclusion, i think you should try to persuade your boss to let you invest in the geforce series of cards, that way you can buy 4 of them, take one for yourself without them knowing, and use the other 3 to make 3 workstations instead of 1.
 
Its true that quadros are mega expensive for what they are but they're priced that way because companies need the latest and greatest for what they're doing. Thats why server motherboards cost so much, because the companies have to buy them anyway so they may aswell crank the prices. The 6800U's are cheap because of competition in the consumer market, where everything has to be as cheap as possible.

A quadros designed specifically for 3d rendering and high-graphic load enviroments involving modelling and animation, not computer games. The ultra is the other way round. It is true that the ultra has newer tech, but its still not capable of beating the quadro in high-load 3d imagery.

To break it down to real-life style comparison, take this for example. Pretend the 6800u is a top-fuel dragster and the quadro is an R32 GTR. Also pretend that CAD is a curvy twisty road but 3d benchmarks and games are a straight road. The 6800u will own the GTR on a dead-striaght road (games). The GTR is over 15 years old but still wins around the twisty road(CAD). Its all about what they're designed to do, not just they're specs.

If your company only needs 1 computer that needs to be a beef cake then just get a decent quadro and stick it in a machine. If you need multiple computers, then 6800u's should be good enough for what you need. If you don't do any rendering or really stressful stuff then i'd personally just get a 6800u and save some cash cause it'd be overkill and overpriced to get a quadro in this situation :)
 
CanadaOwnsJoo said:
but a 500$ 6800 GT works better than a 2000$ FX 3000
Click to expand...

Can you explain this please? If you are talking about gaming, maybe, yes this is true. But for graphic work, you must be kidding! Ha!
 
If you own or co/own this company, there is a case to be made that the ultra high end G6 series can be better in terms of a cost/performance analysis. (If you read that anandtech review, youll see that in actual CAD applications, the variance isn't enough to justify a 4xprice.)

However, if your're just an employee of the company then,,,

Why the fuck do you care what they are spending on it? Let them blow the money on the Quadro, let them prop up nVidia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top