Overclock.net banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,430 Posts
Well a graphics card is a "GPU" Graphics Processing Unit. It has its very own processors memory(ram) and power, it's own little computer in itself. So a workstation card will have its processors ready to multi task vs. just putting all its power to one spot.

So your gaming card doesn't have the power to multi task aswell and your workstation card cant produce alot of power to one application it spreads itself thin.

Workstation Card
-Pros: Workstation Multi Task
-Cons: It can't play games, not what its intended for. Extremely expensive

Gaming Card
-Pros: Can deliver alot of power
-Cons: Not a multi tasker...

http://www.avadirect.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=946

hope that helps
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,252 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Oupavoc
View Post

Well a graphics card is a "GPU" Graphics Processing Unit. It has its very own processors memory(ram) and power, it's own little computer in itself. So a workstation card will have its processors ready to multi task vs. just putting all its power to one spot.

So your gaming card doesn't have the power to multi task aswell and your workstation card cant produce alot of power to one application it spreads itself thin.

Workstation Card
-Pros: Workstation Multi Task
-Cons: It can't play games, not what its intended for. Extremely expensive

Gaming Card
-Pros: Can deliver alot of power
-Cons: Not a multi tasker...

http://www.avadirect.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=946

hope that helps

Your link is spot on, however neither card is a multi-tasker or not. Modern GPU's are made up of lots of processors of sorts, so they are great for very parallel calculations.

Workstation cards are built to last, and have great support. Their drivers are optimized for workstation stuff like Maya, etc..

Gaming cards sacrifice reliability and support for price. Their drivers are made for accelerating 3d applications.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,748 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Oupavoc
View Post

Well a graphics card is a "GPU" Graphics Processing Unit. It has its very own processors memory(ram) and power, it's own little computer in itself. So a workstation card will have its processors ready to multi task vs. just putting all its power to one spot.

So your gaming card doesn't have the power to multi task aswell and your workstation card cant produce alot of power to one application it spreads itself thin.

Workstation Card
-Pros: Workstation Multi Task
-Cons: It can't play games, not what its intended for. Extremely expensive

Gaming Card
-Pros: Can deliver alot of power
-Cons: Not a multi tasker...

http://www.avadirect.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=946

hope that helps

Sorry, but this is wrong.

The ONLY differences between Quadros/Geforce and FireGL/Radeon is the drivers, and some very slight hardware changes. They make BIOS differences between them so they are detected as the proper line of card, and the GeForce lineup is able to be soft-modded into comparable Quadros.

With the Quadro/FireGL drivers comes support of some otherwise-disabled features in CAD programs like SolidWorks, as well as improved performance in said applications.

The hardware differences (if any at all, I've yet to see proof) only have to do with rendering high quality images (i.e. a SolidWorks model). If you use a soft-modded Quadro instead of a real Quadro, the only difference you would see between the renders is quality in the far distance - the Quadro would give more detail (more AF). I have yet to see this myself, but I remember reading this from one of the articles regarding soft-modding Quadro's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Hey guys,

Im the guy that wrote the article, hopefully it answered everyone's questions. You are right in the fact that most of the differences are in the drivers, but there are 4 MAJOR differences which really add to the cost:

1. Memory - Workstation cards usually have more memory. Memory is not cheap, esp the kind used in these cards.

2. Support - If you buy a workstation card, you get quick phone support pretty much 24/7. Gaming card support is limited to email and trouble tickets most of the time.

3. Testing - Workstation cards used higher binned components (think Xeon vs Core chips) that have been tested to operate with higher reliability. Also, these cards are tested much more than normal gaming cards.

4. Warranty - These cards usually have a longer warranty and also provide for advanced replacement rather than repair.

So while the performance is pretty much the same, you are not paying simply for different drivers. You are paying for the support and the assurance that you have bought a quality product. All of this costs money and you do pay for it. But for a business that must operate 24/7 with minimal downtime, it is completely worth it.

For the average consumer, the value may not be there. But with 500% more performance in certain apps, it just may be. Click here for benchmark: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...0,2258-10.html
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,748 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by AVADirect_Matt View Post
Hey guys,

Im the guy that wrote the article, hopefully it answered everyone's questions. You are right in the fact that most of the differences are in the drivers, but there are 4 MAJOR differences which really add to the cost:

1. Memory - Workstation cards usually have more memory. Memory is not cheap, esp the kind used in these cards.

2. Support - If you buy a workstation card, you get quick phone support pretty much 24/7. Gaming card support is limited to email and trouble tickets most of the time.

3. Testing - Workstation cards used higher binned components (think Xeon vs Core chips) that have been tested to operate with higher reliability. Also, these cards are tested much more than normal gaming cards.

4. Warranty - These cards usually have a longer warranty and also provide for advanced replacement rather than repair.

So while the performance is pretty much the same, you are not paying simply for different drivers. You are paying for the support and the assurance that you have bought a quality product. All of this costs money and you do pay for it. But for a business that must operate 24/7 with minimal downtime, it is completely worth it.

For the average consumer, the value may not be there. But with 500% more performance in certain apps, it just may be. Click here for benchmark: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...0,2258-10.html
Wow, you made it here quick! I've seen multiple articles with regards to Quadro Softmodding, and the one I was thinking of was on Tech ARP: http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=539 . Was this article yours, or a different one?

Anyway, thanks for the input. I definitely agree on the last three counts, which can pretty much be summed up in Quadro's being "more reliable" than your average GeForce card. The first one though, I'm not sure I agree on, except perhaps on very top-end workstation cards. Every Quadro with a GeForce equivalent that I've seen has comparable memory selections for both lines. I definitely could be wrong, that's just from my own observations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Spike,

Regarding #1, just look at the GTX 280 (1GB) vs the Quadro FX 5800 (4GB). While most of the time this is true on the mid to high end, the low-end may not see this difference.

And as a rep from a system integrator, I cannot recommend soft modding a Geforce to a Quadro. Yes it may increase performance in a few apps, but you are limited by less memory and a possible less reliable card.

Spike, no that wasnt me that posted that article. All of my articles are posted on AVADirect's forum.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,748 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by AVADirect_Matt
View Post

Spike,

Regarding #1, just look at the GTX 280 (1GB) vs the Quadro FX 5800 (4GB). While most of the time this is true on the mid to high end, the low-end may not see this difference.

Ok, I concede on this argument.
It's been a couple of years since I really looked at high-end Quadros, and they've definitely pulled away from the mainstream cards in terms of memory.

Quote:


And as a rep from a system integrator, I cannot recommend soft modding a Geforce to a Quadro. Yes it may increase performance in a few apps, but you are limited by less memory and a possible less reliable card.

But I can.
For home/casual/school/gamer users, when it comes to the choice between, say, a GTX 280 softmodded to a Quadro FX 5800 for $200, versus a Quadro FX580 for $189 (which is essentially the same hardware as a 9500GT), the choice is pretty clear. Even if the GTX 280 does have some reliability problems when using it as a Quadro, there's always the option to turn down the clockspeeds a bit. While that will hurt performance a little, it will still have many times the power of the lowly FX580.

I am not trying to entirely discount your argument here - it is entirely valid, and I wouldn't recommend anyone using a Quadro in a professional environment should instead use a softmodded GeForce. But for the home/school guy who is trying to save a couple [thousand] bucks and doesn't mind fiddling around a bit to keep things running, softmodding is the way to go.

Quote:


Spike, no that wasnt me that posted that article. All of my articles are posted on AVADirect's forum.

Ah - I had forgotten about the link posted earlier in this thread. And now that I read through it, it's a very nice summarization of the differences. I'll have to tuck that away for future questions people have regarding this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,392 Posts
I like what everyone has said. From my experience, I have been on both sides of the fence. I trade stocks and options and must use two cards with four monitors (moving to six soon and yes there will be pics
) I had highend workstation cards for about a year and although I only run in 2D they leave a lot to be desired in terms of multi-monitors and drivers. I then switched to two Nvidia cards (XFX 7600gt, back when they were fast...) and drivers from nvidia are updated all the time. Way better support overall, even phone support for my old workstation cards was bad. Now I have two 9600gt dual slot cards with big coolers (palit 9600gt sonic, the orange one) and for a hundred a piece they are nearly disposable. Personally if you have the choice get gaming cards, they are inexpensive and the drivers have better support (at least nvidia cards do).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,748 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by aleiro
View Post

I like what everyone has said. From my experience, I have been on both sides of the fence. I trade stocks and options and must use two cards with four monitors (moving to six soon and yes there will be pics
) I had highend workstation cards for about a year and although I only run in 2D they leave a lot to be desired in terms of multi-monitors and drivers. I then switched to two Nvidia cards (XFX 7600gt, back when they were fast...) and drivers from nvidia are updated all the time. Way better support overall, even phone support for my old workstation cards was bad. Now I have two 9600gt dual slot cards with big coolers (palit 9600gt sonic, the orange one) and for a hundred a piece they are nearly disposable. Personally if you have the choice get gaming cards, they are inexpensive and the drivers have better support (at least nvidia cards do).

I know NVIDIA now has a new series of Quadros out made specifically for many-monitor support and 2D acceleration, I'd be curious how those compare to your 9600GT's. I agree with your choices though - and if the 9600's do what you need them to do, why spend more?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,493 Posts
I think ava pretty presicely covered the jist of it about as concisely as could be done.

From a user perspective, I think you'll only really get much benefit from these cards if you get extra features out of it. If you look at the primary application you're using, and see a "quadro/firegl" feature that you think you can't live without, then one of these might be fore you.

Outside of that, yeah it's pretty much reliability / bow down to your feet support (then certainly should when you pay 4k a piece for some gpu's) that you're paying for. Outside of very, very specific circumstances the actual performance gains usually aren't anything to write home about.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top