- Jul 1, 2008
- 4,491
- 0
- 22,780
Nvidia Takes Fermi to Entry-Level Professionals
- Thread starter Marcus Yam
- Start date
- Status
megamanx00
Splendid
- Sep 3, 2008
- 8,216
- 2
- 31,465
So we see a Quadro version of the GTS 430 before a retail one. The specs just give a big "meh" especially since competing Firepro products have been out for a while now.
[citation][nom]afrobacon[/nom]I wouldn't expect the comparrison to go in Nvidia's favor. Otherwise this advertisement article would have made sure to point that out.[/citation]
I agree this article is an advertisement. That said, in the professional graphics arena, drivers are king. I would not be surprised to see AMD parts with much better theoretical performance get beaten in the real world by these nvidia parts. It may be purely for historical reasons, but give credit where credit is due: nvidia generally has good driver optimizations for many applications, and these optimized drivers often best AMD's offerings.
I agree this article is an advertisement. That said, in the professional graphics arena, drivers are king. I would not be surprised to see AMD parts with much better theoretical performance get beaten in the real world by these nvidia parts. It may be purely for historical reasons, but give credit where credit is due: nvidia generally has good driver optimizations for many applications, and these optimized drivers often best AMD's offerings.
mrmotion
Distinguished
- Dec 8, 2009
- 313
- 0
- 18,810
[citation][nom]jomofro39[/nom]Yes! Please let's get some benchmarks between these and AMD workstation graphics cards, that would be oh so helpful in getting my IT dept. to get the card I need for Solidworks. THG to the rescue?[/citation]
I would also like to see a solidworks shoot out. If you dont have a test maybe something like this one: http://www.solidmuse.com/solidworks-benchmark-scoobydoo-surface-model.html
Help us poor people stuck with IT built rigs who think any run of the mill card can handle solidworks!!! Let alone the p4 im still forced to use... Damn IT dept.
I would also like to see a solidworks shoot out. If you dont have a test maybe something like this one: http://www.solidmuse.com/solidworks-benchmark-scoobydoo-surface-model.html
Help us poor people stuck with IT built rigs who think any run of the mill card can handle solidworks!!! Let alone the p4 im still forced to use... Damn IT dept.
[citation][nom]mrmotion[/nom]I would also like to see a solidworks shoot out. If you dont have a test maybe something like this one: http://www.solidmuse.com/solidwork [...] model.htmlHelp us poor people stuck with IT built rigs who think any run of the mill card can handle solidworks!!! Let alone the p4 im still forced to use... Damn IT dept.[/citation]
Yeah, at least I managed to salvage a rig with a dual-core. Boo to the bad small-business IT deptartments!
Yeah, at least I managed to salvage a rig with a dual-core. Boo to the bad small-business IT deptartments!
[citation][nom]jomofro39[/nom]Yes! Please let's get some benchmarks between these and AMD workstation graphics cards, that would be oh so helpful in getting my IT dept. to get the card I need for Solidworks. THG to the rescue?[/citation]
Tom's hasn't done a Workstation Chart since 2007, if their search engine is working right. Back then, the FX 570 were beating out top of the line FireGl cards costing 10 times as much in Solidworks benchmarks. As Anna and everyone else on the Solidworks forums says, it's all about CPU. Get the fastest processor you can get, which is Core i7, fast memory, and a good hard drive. Don't blow more than 500 on the video card, and 200 is really enough unless you do a lot of rendering and presentation stuff. I'm using a Dell M6400 notebook. About two years old, Core 2 extreme worth every penny, and FX2700m graphics card. My co-worker opted for the quad core and the 3700m, and his is considerably slower than mine in everything solidworks. He is a modeling and sim guy so he got the right combo for what he normally does with it. I know a lot has changed, and AMD has done some catching up, but Nvidia still leads in drivers.
Tom's hasn't done a Workstation Chart since 2007, if their search engine is working right. Back then, the FX 570 were beating out top of the line FireGl cards costing 10 times as much in Solidworks benchmarks. As Anna and everyone else on the Solidworks forums says, it's all about CPU. Get the fastest processor you can get, which is Core i7, fast memory, and a good hard drive. Don't blow more than 500 on the video card, and 200 is really enough unless you do a lot of rendering and presentation stuff. I'm using a Dell M6400 notebook. About two years old, Core 2 extreme worth every penny, and FX2700m graphics card. My co-worker opted for the quad core and the 3700m, and his is considerably slower than mine in everything solidworks. He is a modeling and sim guy so he got the right combo for what he normally does with it. I know a lot has changed, and AMD has done some catching up, but Nvidia still leads in drivers.
LORD_ORION
Distinguished
- Sep 12, 2007
- 814
- 0
- 18,980
Alot of popular software is CUDA only in this space, so no comparrison can be made.
Regardless, ATI stream blows. Go look at folding at home, Nvidia crushes AMD when it comes to parallel performance.
Regardless, ATI stream blows. Go look at folding at home, Nvidia crushes AMD when it comes to parallel performance.
scrumworks
Distinguished
- May 22, 2009
- 361
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]LORD_ORION[/nom]Alot of popular software is CUDA only in this space, so no comparrison can be made.Regardless, ATI stream blows. Go look at folding at home, Nvidia crushes AMD when it comes to parallel performance.[/citation]
I bet you work for nvidia.
I bet you work for nvidia.
How about some benchmarks for Autodesk Inventor 2011 instead of AutoCAD. AutoCAD is for drawing pretty lines. Inventor is for solid modeling, which needs a higher end machine much more than AutoCAD.
Of course there still remains the problem that except for UG (as far as I know) no solid modelers are multithreaded for the core modeling and assembly environments. This makes the software very CPU limited. So I'd like to see benchmarks with an i5-680 and workstation versus gaming cards. Inventor uses Direct3D, but I've seen mixed results. For example with an E8400 these cards provide identical performance: 8800GTS 640MB, HD5850 1GB,m HD5870 2GB. Although with the 5850 and 5870 in CF, there was a performance improvement. My benchmarking assembly has 7000 parts.
Of course there still remains the problem that except for UG (as far as I know) no solid modelers are multithreaded for the core modeling and assembly environments. This makes the software very CPU limited. So I'd like to see benchmarks with an i5-680 and workstation versus gaming cards. Inventor uses Direct3D, but I've seen mixed results. For example with an E8400 these cards provide identical performance: 8800GTS 640MB, HD5850 1GB,m HD5870 2GB. Although with the 5850 and 5870 in CF, there was a performance improvement. My benchmarking assembly has 7000 parts.
jetbruceli
Distinguished
- May 16, 2010
- 23
- 0
- 18,520
[citation][nom]jetbruceli[/nom]I know I am noob or just only play games but what makes these better than, lets a gtx 480?[/citation]
Drivers/small hardware change. Still have not found a GREAT article or anything that explains it, but in general, it is the drivers, and a small hardware change that some people can imitate by "soft-modding" a gaming GPU. All in all, gaming GPUS do not do well in applications that workstation GPUs excel at, and vice versa. Different beasts. high rpm-low torque vs. low rpm-high torque (possible analogy?)
Drivers/small hardware change. Still have not found a GREAT article or anything that explains it, but in general, it is the drivers, and a small hardware change that some people can imitate by "soft-modding" a gaming GPU. All in all, gaming GPUS do not do well in applications that workstation GPUs excel at, and vice versa. Different beasts. high rpm-low torque vs. low rpm-high torque (possible analogy?)
Well considering how much cheaper AMDs offerings are, they would not compare well. You are looking at comparing the entry-level Quaddro 2000 to a mid-range part from AMD. Considering AMDs most expensive Professional card is 1/3rd the price of nVidia's, in most cases when comparing dollar per dollar AMD will win by a notable margin despite any driver or optimization issues.
However, when weighing the cards to use for a workstation you should always do research. The best card will flip flop depending on application. For instance if you are going to use Autodesk Maya, you will be using an AMD. AMDs just do significantly better here and you would be wasting money using nVidia. For more entry-level applications, chances are you will want the lower watt card over the cheaper card. You would just hope the better card is also the cheaper card.
However, when weighing the cards to use for a workstation you should always do research. The best card will flip flop depending on application. For instance if you are going to use Autodesk Maya, you will be using an AMD. AMDs just do significantly better here and you would be wasting money using nVidia. For more entry-level applications, chances are you will want the lower watt card over the cheaper card. You would just hope the better card is also the cheaper card.
notty22
Distinguished
- Oct 8, 2009
- 2,958
- 0
- 21,160
Are the amd fanboys not aware this is a tech site, and this is news that every other tech site is covering. So jealous of Nvidia that your always worrying about some slight to ati(amd) whatever you call them. Its pathetic drama.
http://www.slashgear.com/nvidia-quadro-2000-and-quadro-600-fermi-pro-video-cards-unveiled-05106033/
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3961/nvidia-launches-quadro-2000-600
http://www.slashgear.com/nvidia-quadro-2000-and-quadro-600-fermi-pro-video-cards-unveiled-05106033/
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3961/nvidia-launches-quadro-2000-600
hellwig
Distinguished
- May 29, 2008
- 1,743
- 0
- 19,860
Nvidia never released a GT200-based Quadro if I'm not mistaken (after all, they couldn't scale the architecture at all). I'm surprised they only get 1.5x performance with a jump from G92 to Fermi.
EDIT: Nevermind, I guess they did (FX4800 and FX5800).
EDIT: Nevermind, I guess they did (FX4800 and FX5800).
Sounds great. I think they should make more cards like the Quadro 600 that can work in hotter and more cramped environments.
Since the last 2 releases Nvidia is outperforming AMD on price and performance even on Autodesk Maya 2009 and 2010 and most professional applications, not a fan appreciation but pure facts. I did my research a year ago and went to Nvidia for an entry level Quadro 580. At that time Nvidia Quadro 580 was better on performance than the AMD near price option and offered 512 MB of memory, twice what AMD did. As a reference the new Quadro 600 is slightly better than the 580 in Maya (12.20 Vs 10.82) in Nvidia's own current Performance numbers. But I also read every other review and Nvidia was almost always better on every price. Is not obvious but there are specific scenarios and apps that work better on AMD professional cards so if you are planning to buy a professional card do a specific research and ask real users for the specific combination of software and hardware you want to get.
And finally on real use for almost a year I can say the Q580 works really well and stable with Maya on Windows 7 and XP too. The new Maya version "2011" has a new and improved Rendering engine and this year more powerful graphic card options offer real advantages over less advanced and cheaper cards. But on this latest version I haven't read any performance review, just users comments.
And finally on real use for almost a year I can say the Q580 works really well and stable with Maya on Windows 7 and XP too. The new Maya version "2011" has a new and improved Rendering engine and this year more powerful graphic card options offer real advantages over less advanced and cheaper cards. But on this latest version I haven't read any performance review, just users comments.
- Status
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram