Opteron and Quadro

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Is there any gaming advantage to having an Opteron processor and nVidia
Quadro graphics card as opposed to Athlon 64 and a GeForce FX graphics
card?

What about the same comparison as related to image editing?

Thanks,
Damaeus

 

[teqguy]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Damaeus wrote:

> Is there any gaming advantage to having an Opteron processor and
> nVidia Quadro graphics card as opposed to Athlon 64 and a GeForce FX
> graphics card?
>
> What about the same comparison as related to image editing?
>
> Thanks,
> Damaeus




Opterons are not workstation processors, neither are the Athlon64's.


If you want a workstation processor, Intel is the way to go.



The Quadro was designed for legacy rendering, not realtime rendering...

So although it will perform equally with it's equally speced sister,
the Geforce, it won't shine until you let it do it's stuff rendering
frame by frame in CAD, 3DSMax, Bryce, Softimage, ect.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

teqguy wrote:
> Opterons are not workstation processors, neither are the Athlon64's.
>
>
> If you want a workstation processor, Intel is the way to go.

pfft.. troll. AMD-64 beats Intel in most real-world workstation
applications.

.... to the original potser there really won't be a lot of difference for
image editing, but the best price/performance CPU in that situation is
the Athlon64. the troll is right in one thing and that's the only real
benefit of the quadros is with CAD applications.

 

[teqguy]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Paul Gunson wrote:

> teqguy wrote:
> > Opterons are not workstation processors, neither are the Athlon64's.
> >
> >
> > If you want a workstation processor, Intel is the way to go.
>
> pfft.. troll. AMD-64 beats Intel in most real-world workstation
> applications.
>
> ... to the original potser there really won't be a lot of difference
> for image editing, but the best price/performance CPU in that
> situation is the Athlon64. the troll is right in one thing and that's
> the only real benefit of the quadros is with CAD applications.




Troll?



The Athlon 64 offers no 64-bit performance increases because no 64-bit
workstation applications exist!



Most 64bit applications are for servers.



Just because a processor is 64bit doesn't mean it adds any additional
performance increases in 32bit mode...


The instruction sets for 32bit are seperate from the 64bit instruction
sets, and vice versa.


You can't use 64-bit optimizations on a 32bit application or os, it
just won't work.



If you want to compare clock for clock, the Xeon wins.

If you want to compare peformance, the Xeon still wins.



The only way the Athlon 64 can win is if you find a multiprocessor
system, which doesn't exist for the Athlon...


All of the multiprocessor boards and chipsets are for the Opterons,
which cost twice as much as a Xeon and still can't compare.



You can have a multiprocessor system of up to 8 processors with the
Xeon. Not to mention you can use RDRAM or DDRAM.

The Opterons only offer 2 or 4 processor boards, and they require DDR
ECC memory... which is insanely expensive if you're looking at 4GB
DIMMS, and even then it doesn't run in Dual Channel mode.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

In news:alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia, "teqguy" <teqguy@techie.com>
posted on Sun, 11 Apr 2004 01:48:36 GMT:

> You can have a multiprocessor system of up to 8 processors with the
> Xeon. Not to mention you can use RDRAM or DDRAM.

But don't you need applications that take advantage of multiple
processors, as well as an OS that will use them all?

 

[teqguy]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Damaeus wrote:

> In news:alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia, "teqguy"
> <teqguy@techie.com> posted on Sun, 11 Apr 2004 01:48:36 GMT:
>
> > You can have a multiprocessor system of up to 8 processors with the
> > Xeon. Not to mention you can use RDRAM or DDRAM.
>
> But don't you need applications that take advantage of multiple
> processors, as well as an OS that will use them all?




There are applications that take advantage of them... multiprocessor
support means multiprocessor support.



Most common setups are 2 or 4 processors... but that doesn't mean there
can't be more.



ACPI and MPS support up to as many processors as installed... so the os
will utilize them even if they don't acknowledge it.

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Paul Gunson wrote:
> teqguy wrote:
>
>> Opterons are not workstation processors, neither are the Athlon64's.
>>
>>
>> If you want a workstation processor, Intel is the way to go.
>
>
> pfft.. troll. AMD-64 beats Intel in most real-world workstation
> applications.
>
> ... to the original potser there really won't be a lot of difference for
> image editing, but the best price/performance CPU in that situation is
> the Athlon64. the troll is right in one thing and that's the only real
> benefit of the quadros is with CAD applications.
>

I get 3-400% faster performance on my 2GHz Athlon64 over a 3GHz Intel..
lot of it has to do simply with 64 bit paths for the doubles.

However, I'm trying to use the nvidia sdk / Cg compiler for Linux, but
it looks like nvidia is only releasing 32 bit binary libs, which I can't
link into my 64 bit code (ld says incompatible). Anybody know if nvidia
is going to support the x86_64 arch as well?