Nvidia Quadro FX 3000 vs Radeon X1950

[thuser]

Hi, I need to replace my Nvidia Quadro FX 1000 AGP and I narrowed down to these two.

PNY Nvidia Quadro FX 3000: 256 MB, GPU Clock@400MHz, Memory Clock @425MHz, DDR, AGP, Max. Resolution at 2048 x 1536 @ 85 hz

Visiontek Radeon X1950 Pro Xtreme Gamer Edition: 256 MB, GPU Clock@575MHZz, Memory Clock@1.38GHz, GDDR3 SDRAM, AGP, Max. Resolution at 2560 x 1600


It seems that the Radeon spec is much better but the Nvidia is more expensive and I am thinking that there is a reason for it. Can someone let me know what makes FX 3000 more expensive? My PC is Dell Precision 360 and I use Autocad with rendering and photoshop a lot. Thanks in advance.

 

[brockh]

I don't know anything about workstation cards, but I do know that Radeon you chose is not one. Based on that, it would seem for your purposes a dedicated workstation card would be preferable. Have you not looked into ATi's FireGL series?

 

[thuser]

Brockh, Is there supposed to be any any difference for workstation card, except that it require good performance card? My budget is limited-under $270 and I do not know much about graphics cards so I decided to go with either what Dell recommended (Radeon) or upgraded version of my existing card(Nvidia).

 

[brockh]

Like I said I do not know much about workstation cards, but your current card is optimized for graphic work (as well as the Quado FX you chose), such as AutoCAD and Photoshop. How much of a performance increase that will provide over a regular "gaming" card like the Radeon you chose I am unsure of. Workstation cards tend to be higher in price because somehow are optimized (in hardware) for rendering environments and are catering to a specific set of needs.

NVidia Quadro is akin to ATi's FireGL series as they are both workstation cards. Comparing a workstation and non-workstation card like you're doing I think is a bit unnecessary if you're serious about it. I am not sure why Dell would recommend that card, it's really bad. How much are they trying to charge you for it -- or did they just direct you to the name?

Here is a list of workstation cards from $100-200 which will probably provide better performance than either of the cards you chose, because I believe they're both very old.

 

[nforce4max]

Build your self a new box that has pci-e and track down a cheap 6800gt/ultra and use riva tuner to enable quadro features then you will see a nice boost.

 

[thuser]

Guys, please. I just want to pick one of two cards with reasonable reasons. I do not want to shop around any more and my budget is $270. Therefore, anyone who knows answers to my question, please answer. Thanks.

 

[thuser]

I am also removing my last post because Brochkh's post has been removed and my last post was a response to his post. Thank you, Administration team for managing this board.

 

[nforce4max]

The computer that I am using now was built for less then $270. Crap crt free (trash picked, amd 3500+ (am2) free, Gigabyte ga-ma790x-ds4 $61, 640gb wd blue $51, Antec neopower 550 $45, and last a x1900xt for $57 unused. Oh I forgot a $8 heatsink. The case is a late 90s rust bucket with room for even the longest cards (trash picked no shame here. Total cost $212 after ship and that is before the crap I sold off while I am going to be ditching a 42in plasma that I don't want any more.

 

[paperfox]

well first off you should tell us what you use the computer for, is it:
a) gaming, surfing the net or
b) rendering, using photoshop, cad and such

comparing gaming and workstation cards are like comparing apple to oranges. the x1950 will give you better gaming fps than the fx3000 and the fx3000 will give better fps and render times in auto cad than the x1950, regardless of the price between them. why? workstation cards are optimised to run rendering tasks through software (which is why you pay so much more) even thouth, for example, the fx3000 is 99.9% similar in hardware to its gtx/geforce gaming card equivilant.