Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Quadro FX vs. Geforce FX




  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New England Highlands, Australia
    Posts
    21,907

    Default

    Also if ya get a Quadro then you'd want a bloody good monitor to go with it for the best results (capable of high refresh rates). ;)
    <center>:cheers:</center>

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    442

    Default

    are the Quadro boards similare to an AGP PRO board? I used to run a mobo that had an agp pro slot and i have never seen an agppro card tho I know they are for highend graphics:confused:

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New England Highlands, Australia
    Posts
    21,907

    Default

    Yes these cards are AGP Pro as they require extra power that is pasted thru the extra pins. ;)
    <center>:cheers:</center>

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SamuraiCatJB
    it depends on what you are looking for.... our VIP displays use Quadro-900's(00 list, 50 for us), our Quadro-750's were under a grand, but I never saw the purchase order since it was rushed through so fast I can't tell you how much we paid, under 0 I think.

    if you look on the net you will find Quadro4's still around, the 900 introduced at 00 and the Geforce4 at 0, you can see what both are down to.

    It looks like QuadroFX's will be introduced with two models models 1000 and 2000, chances are the prices will be a couple hundred away from their model numbers. :D

    our draftsmen use Geforce3 & 4's, and my office uses geforce4's, soon GeforceFX if I get my way. :D for myself I would never pay for a Quadro, but we have people who still prefer them. :)
    most of our CAD stations at work are the same ...GF4's - there's such a minor difference in IQ between a Quadro and the corrosponding GF (for what we are doing) that I can't justify the price difference

    although the prices have come down a lot - I can get a 900XGL for a bit over $800cdn now (~$500usd) - but a GF4ti4200 is only $220cdn

    besides if you want the best ...get a Wildcat - the Wildcat 4 7210 w/384mb of ram is ~$3800cdn :D

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    251

    Default

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/story.html?id=1042578447

    At this link they talk about modding a 9500/9700 be unsoldering/resodering resistors. The turn a 9500 into a 9700 and then into a FireGL (the ATI Quadro equivalent)

    At least as far as I understand, by changing the resistors all they are doing is changin the ID code on the chip, and thus load different drivers.

    Between pro and normal cards there may be a difference in RAMDECs and other components but the chip is the same. From various sources I have gathered that it is not worth the money in general for the slight performance increase one gets from a pro card.

    The big advantage is being able to drive monitors at much high resolutions. I think the Quadro FX's max is something like 3000 x 2000. I doubt anyone here has a monitor that can run that high.

    It would probably actually cost more then the card. ;)

    I have been told by multiple 3D professions on separate occasions that it is better to get a high end consumer card then a low end "pro" card. And also in some guides to building a 3D workstation, I just can’t seem to find ‘em again. So unless you need the very high resolutions, which I am not even sure the low end pro cards support.

    Don't go pro. If you want to spend that much money, get either a FX or a 9700.
    Also, from what I understand of the software patch the turns a 9500 into a 9700 you ought to be able to use a software patch to turn a 9x00 card into a FireGL.

    Again the big difference is the drivers, I think they handle the information differently. Since 3D work is high detail scenes at low frame rates, while games are low detail at very high frame rates.

    Again, remember that pro cards corresponds to consumer part but (I assume) higher resolution RAMDEC's. So if you get a bottom of the line Quadro4, you'll be getting a GeForce4 Ti 4200 with 64 MB of RAM and some nice video chips.

    I think if you go to the lowest end they may even be MX's?!?!?

    Right now that I have beaten this to death and repeated myself countless times...
    I'll shut up

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RDR
    most of our CAD stations at work are the same ...GF4's - there's such a minor difference in IQ between a Quadro and the corrosponding GF (for what we are doing) that I can't justify the price difference

    although the prices have come down a lot - I can get a 900XGL for a bit over 0cdn now (~0usd) - but a GF4ti4200 is only 0cdn

    besides if you want the best ...get a Wildcat - the Wildcat 4 7210 w/384mb of ram is ~00cdn :D
    actually... for some reason, my software runs slower on any Wildcat than on nVidia. I am not deliberately programming for nVidia cards. Yet no other card has ever matched the nVidia line for us. We've tried ATI, Wildcat, FireGL, 3Dlabs and none have ever worked as good as our Geforce line starting at Quadro2Pros and continuing up through Quadro's and Geforce lines.... part of the problem for us is the variety, I think, many full sized textures, display lists, vertex arrays, bitmapped graphics, including logos and text, line drawing (in 3D space), etc. All in one.... it just seems to bog down everyone else (more than nVidia -- even nVidia I am only pulling 78-83fps on a Quadro4-900....

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SamuraiCatJB
    actually... for some reason, my software runs slower on any Wildcat than on nVidia. I am not deliberately programming for nVidia cards. Yet no other card has ever matched the nVidia line for us. We've tried ATI, Wildcat, FireGL, 3Dlabs and none have ever worked as good as our Geforce line starting at Quadro2Pros and continuing up through Quadro's and Geforce lines.... part of the problem for us is the variety, I think, many full sized textures, display lists, vertex arrays, bitmapped graphics, including logos and text, line drawing (in 3D space), etc. All in one.... it just seems to bog down everyone else (more than nVidia -- even nVidia I am only pulling 78-83fps on a Quadro4-900....
    the only CAD stations we use Wildcats on are the one we use to generate (shaded) 3D surface files - IQ is key - the models usually aren't very complex - compared to the what we have on the eng/design boxes so speed isn't a problem...Wildcats are a lot slower than the Geforce series as far as frame rates go. - but you can see things in a shaded model that you just can't with a Geforce or even a Quadro

    I haven't tried any ATi's for Prof Apps. lately - when we first started using gaming cards Ati couldn't match nVidia in openGL & I still think that's the case now.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RDR
    the only CAD stations we use Wildcats on are the one we use to generate (shaded) 3D surface files - IQ is key - the models usually aren't very complex - compared to the what we have on the eng/design boxes so speed isn't a problem...Wildcats are a lot slower than the Geforce series as far as frame rates go. - but you can see things in a shaded model that you just can't with a Geforce or even a Quadro

    I haven't tried any ATi's for Prof Apps. lately - when we first started using gaming cards Ati couldn't match nVidia in openGL & I still think that's the case now.
    Yeah, mine isn't CAD per se. My best description I often say, is something akin to an air-traffic controller environment, but in full 3D, fully annotated, history lines, interactive, and as of the Geforce4/Quadro4, full earth (space to your face) at full frame rate (some systems do drop below 60fps -- why a couple of folks have dropped the money for the Quadro4). I get just under 10% improvement in speed for the price of a Quadro4-900, I believe we have only 2 running my product, most wouldn't pay for that extra 10% speed and couldn't care less about IQ. :) I only care speed myself. :flames:

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •