Nvidia Launches Fermi-based Quadro GPUs

[Guest]

Fermi for serious business.

Nvidia Launches Fermi-based Quadro GPUs : Read more

 

[SchizoFrog]

Without actual data and benchmarks it is hard to tell if it will be a success or not. But it will be interesting to learn if the original GF100 chips are better on the workstation front or if the GF104 will once again prove to be the chip to go for (although I have to admit I am not sure which chips will be used or not).

 

[wishmaster12]

just rember if you use a nvidia card your eyes will go cross eyed, and they will have to pull your eyes, out before you get brain damage from using the card, and hope for the best that your brain doesent explode

 

[mgoblue3296]

[citation][nom]wishmaster12[/nom]just rember if you use a nvidia card your eyes will go cross eyed, and they will have to pull your eyes, out before you get brain damage from using the card, and hope for the best that your brain doesent explode[/citation]

what

 

[SchizoFrog]

@wishmaster12

If you are going to make a pun or joke, you have to reference it against something... otherwise you end up sounding... well, like you.

 

[Guest]

test GPUs with new 3ds max Quicksilver render engine

 

[digitalrazoe]

and how much are we gonna get soaked for these Quadros ? eh ?

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Quadro Plex 7000 - 896 processing cores. Clearly a dual GPU board. Looks like a dual 480 board will be appearing really quite soon. Well they'll probably keep that one in the bag until a week after ATI's 6xxx series is released.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Actually, looking at the 7000 - it's not on a board. It's in one massive rack mount thing and is actually two 6000s together. Very strange.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-quadroplex-7000-us.html

 

[Draven35]

Yes, the "Plex" models are external boxes.

 

[rohitbaran]

Finally, Fermi put to its primary intended use: Workstation computing. Let's see how it fends in this area.

 

[saint19]

@rohitbaran: nVidia don't need fends in this area since don't exist any other series (nVidia or ATI) that can against that amazing performance and technology

 

[one-shot]

[citation][nom]digitalrazoe[/nom]and how much are we gonna get soaked for these Quadros ? eh ?[/citation]

The Quadro 6000 is $5000 and the 5000 is around $2500. It's like a shower that never ends.

 

[Guest]

@spanky Deluxe

looks like the old tesla number crunching expansion boxes

 

[cinergy]

Hey, you forgot to put price tags. Quadro 7000 is $14500. Nvidia wants you to sell your Porsche and buy one of these before Rambus gets their business down.

 

[dEAne]

Memory at 6Ghz wow.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

" Quadro 7000 is $14500. Nvidia wants you to sell your Porsche and buy one of these before Rambus gets their business down."

lmao

 

[wittermark]

i really want to know the performance difference between lets say, one quadro 5000 vs 4x GTX480 quad SLI, considering they are in similar price range.

 

[one-shot]

[citation][nom]Wittermark[/nom]i really want to know the performance difference between lets say, one quadro 5000 vs 4x GTX480 quad SLI, considering they are in similar price range.[/citation]

I'm not sure you understand what a workstation card is. A Quadro 5000 is similar to a GTX 470 but drivers for CAD and other professional apps. I don't think it would be fair to compare 4 GTX 480s to 1 card similar to a GTX 470, do you?

 

[Learn_w_Graffix]

Re: comparing workstation (Quadro 5000) and desktop (GTX 480) video cards, the question is valid, IMO. If the WS card is 4x the price, then that price chooses what it is competing against. Consider:
2 x GTX 460 with 1 GB each = $460
1 x GTX 480 with 1.5 GB = $490
1 x Quadro 5000 with 2.5 GB = $1900
I do have a couple of questions. Does the 3 GB offered by two 480s compare to the 2.5 GB of a Quadro in 3D graphics use, or does the configuration still limit video memory effective for such purposes to 1.5 GB? Similarly, what about the 2 GB offered by two 460s? I'm trying to set up a graphics workstation for a hobbyist, and $1900 for a video card is out of the question.

 

[aznplayer213]

You really can't compare performance between a workstation card and a gamin card because of usage. Quadros are specifically built for rendering graphics on such programs as AutoCad. While consumer graphic cards are used for rendering in-game graphics. Each has its own functionality and is therefore in separate categories. Comparing each card would be a waste since neither one is optimized to be used in both areas.

 

[kingnoobe]

And they actaully have compared them, stock, and with hacked drivers. The bottom line is the cards are simply better at what each does no matter what you do to them.

 

[johnxfire]

[citation][nom]Learn_w_Graffix[/nom]Re: comparing workstation (Quadro 5000) and desktop (GTX 480) video cards, the question is valid, IMO. If the WS card is 4x the price, then that price chooses what it is competing against. Consider:2 x GTX 460 with 1 GB each = $4601 x GTX 480 with 1.5 GB = $4901 x Quadro 5000 with 2.5 GB = $1900I do have a couple of questions. Does the 3 GB offered by two 480s compare to the 2.5 GB of a Quadro in 3D graphics use, or does the configuration still limit video memory effective for such purposes to 1.5 GB? Similarly, what about the 2 GB offered by two 460s? I'm trying to set up a graphics workstation for a hobbyist, and $1900 for a video card is out of the question.[/citation]

Comparing workstation cards to a gaming card is like comparing helicopters to tanks. Both vehicles have a specific function and perform better in different situations. Workstation cards have drivers tailored to improve performance in AutoCAD, AutoDesk Maya and other graphics intensive work programs. Gaming cards can be used for these functions, but not as effectively.

 

[eodeo]

But it will be interesting to learn if the original GF100 chips are better on the workstation front or if the GF104 will once again prove to be the chip to go for (although I have to admit I am not sure which chips will be used or not).

gf104 has physically disabled CUDA double precision units. 2/3 of them actually. So while gtx 460 performs similarly compared to gtx 465, the gtx 465 is over 3 times faster when it comes to raytracing- for instance.

physical gf104 core isnt going to be used in any quadro/tesla cards. It was designed from ground up as a gamer card, one meant to do games, while gf100 was designed for quadro/tesla tasks in mind, but came out as a gaming card to beta test the chip on gamers- like always. Quadro announcement means that beta phase for gf 100 has ended and that its a solid design ready to get 10x price tag with a different name. Since highest quadro is the gtx 470, you can easily tell which fermi card failed the beta test.

 

[eodeo]

Comparing workstation cards to a gaming card is like comparing helicopters to tanks. Both vehicles have a specific function and perform better in different situations. Workstation cards have drivers tailored to improve performance in AutoCAD, AutoDesk Maya and other graphics intensive work programs. Gaming cards can be used for these functions, but not as effectively.

That sounds like nvida quadro commercial page. Truth is, quadro cards only have drivers that don't artificially limit their speed in windowed OpenGL, while having identical physical cores as their gforce counterparts.

Quadro cards are great for two things- OpenGL and wasting extra money. 3DS Max, for instance, has been using directx as primary api for over 10 years now. There are still programs that use OpenGL that benefit from quadro non limited drivers. Maya, while OGL app, isnt one of them.