Nvidia Quadro (e.g. new Quado600)

[mm827]

Your latest graphics card roundup lists key benchmarks for the number of shaders, texture units, ROPs, etc. But the Nvidia Quadro cards, touted as serious, specialized workstation cards, list *different* major differentiators, such as memory bandwidth, number of cuda cores, etc.

So how can we compare the performance? Especially interested in video hd rendering and editing.

I bought a Quadro 600 (with 96 cuda cores) and it seems to be low end performer, not my expected hot, new econo ($150) card.

So, how to compare the performance of these two series of cards.

For example, a GeForce 560, HD 6970, etc., vs. a Quardo card, such as a 600, 2000 or 4000 ???

Thanks,
MM

 

[szbxa]

comparing workstation cards with gaming cards is like comparing computers with cars. they are made for different purposes, why would you compare them?

 

[mm827]

comparing workstation cards with gaming cards is like comparing computers with cars. they are made for different purposes, why would you compare them?

... thanks for the reply. I would be glad to know your view of their differences, which seem so black and white to you. While I am very familiar with some networking, etc., I am ignorant of these differences that are so obvious to others.

For example, gaming demands the highest level of video processing -- and drives the market, I would guess -- but the Quardo cards also claim to address serious video processing.

How are they different? Which do you use and why?

Thanks again,
mm827

 

[szbxa]

as for the exact difference, a simple google gives you all the answers.
Workstation cards are physically similar to gaming cards, but certain modifications and driver differences prevent them from playing games effectively. Few of them are sold when compared to gaming cards, and all costs in designing, driver coding has to be distributed to each card, which is why they are so expensive. An $200 workstation card can be on the same tier as a $60 gaming card.

 

[mm827]

as for the exact difference, a simple google gives you all the answers.
Workstation cards are physically similar to gaming cards, but certain modifications and driver differences prevent them from playing games effectively. Few of them are sold when compared to gaming cards, and all costs in designing, driver coding has to be distributed to each card, which is why they are so expensive. An $200 workstation card can be on the same tier as a $60 gaming card.

Thanks again for your comments. Are you saying that the gaming version, with its greater bang for the buck, not only displays better for gaming but also would render video better as well?

The googling I have done seems to have tons of detail on the gaming cards and there is also info on the workstation family. But little, even in the specs, that compare them to each other. That is, the gaming cards talk about frame rates, which the workstation cards don't, and likewise the workstation cards talk about ... (quote)

"...up to 5x faster 3D performance and 8x faster computational simulation across a broad range of design, animation and video applications. Built on the innovative NVIDIA Fermi architecture, the latest Quadro offerings are the first professional-class GPUs to integrate high performance computing capabilities with advanced visualization techniques."

So workstations seem to focus on visualization and gaming focuses on frame rates. How exactly is the hardware or software different?

Do you do video rendering on your card and which one do you use?

thanks,
mm827