Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Workstation vs gaming

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Gaming
  • Workstations
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics Cards
July 31, 2010 5:21:10 AM

So i have searched and read through the site, yet i still really haven't located the answer i was looking for. So here it is!

I am in the process of building a new rig and the primary app i am using is CS4 and Adobe Premier and working with the h.264 HD video.

Can someone please help me understand if i can use a GTX 285, fermi 470, a quadro 4800, quadro cx, etc?

I have done some reseach and there seems to be comflicting info out there. Just looking fo a little advice.

More about : workstation gaming

a c 153 U Graphics card
July 31, 2010 5:27:12 AM

As long as you use a Nvidia card you should be fine, I work CS5 and Adobe Premier and Sony Vegas on my cards just fine.

Realistically you want a Quadro preferably 6000 or 5000, FX 5800 or FX 4800 however as these are made to tackle those programs..

Quadro 4000 and FX 3800 are decent as well.
m
0
l
July 31, 2010 5:43:28 AM

Thanks,

So your call is to go with quadro if I have the cash. Right now I am running a Core 2 Duo, 4gb ram and 8600 gts card and when lightroom prepares to burn the cpu and the ram are running 90% to max.

Why is the quadro better than the new fermi cards? I ask because on the surface when you compare the fermi's put up better stats. Just trying to understand a little more.

I just want to ensure i build the next one right!
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
July 31, 2010 5:55:32 AM

The Quadro FX 5800 is really just a GTX 285 with drivers optimised for workstation programs such as Maya and CAD like programs.

I'm not sure if Quadro FX cards are optimised for CS4, but the Quadro CX card is optimised for CS4 as said on nVidia's site.
m
0
l
July 31, 2010 3:23:23 PM

yes i also read that on the nvidia site. but for $1700 i am try to figure out if the new line of Fermi's would accomplish the same tasks?
m
0
l
July 31, 2010 4:14:34 PM

hockey15 said:
yes i also read that on the nvidia site. but for $1700 i am try to figure out if the new line of Fermi's would accomplish the same tasks?


Workstation cards have optimized drivers, so they perform better in 3D rendering and work programs compared to their mainstream counterparts.

For cheap yet effective workstation cards, there's always ATi. Just saying. If you have the cash, hey, its your call.
m
0
l
July 31, 2010 8:15:50 PM

Thanks for the link!

Once again this is close to the infomation I am trying to obtain, but what i would really like to know is there a review out there that talks about CS4 and Premier? This is all very good info, that has brought me closer to a decision, but it just seems ther in no definitive info to really put one card type in front of the other.

m
0
l
July 31, 2010 8:20:42 PM

johnxfire said:
Workstation cards have optimized drivers, so they perform better in 3D rendering and work programs compared to their mainstream counterparts.

For cheap yet effective workstation cards, there's always ATi. Just saying. If you have the cash, hey, its your call.


So the drivers really run the card and all the spec that i have been using to compare the cards don't really matter as much?

Like the FX4800 has 192 stream processors and the GTX 480 has 448, these are not the important specs that i should be looking at.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
July 31, 2010 8:37:54 PM

The GTX 480 is based on the Fermi architecture while the FX 4800, a Quadro version of the GTX 260 Core 192, also having 1536 MB instead of 896 MB, is based on the previous generation, the GT200 series.

If they used the same drivers, the GTX 480 would be much faster, but with workstation level drivers the Quadro's performance in CAD programs are sped up quite considerably.
m
0
l
August 1, 2010 2:18:32 AM

hockey15 said:
So the drivers really run the card and all the spec that i have been using to compare the cards don't really matter as much?

Like the FX4800 has 192 stream processors and the GTX 480 has 448, these are not the important specs that i should be looking at.


Since you are looking at workstation cards, yes.

However, if you're considering the FX4800, the FirePro V7800 is considerably faster if I recall properly.
m
0
l
August 4, 2010 1:13:29 PM

here you go, some benchmarks:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/workstation-graphics...
Doesn't have any comparison to the new Firepro cards (V5800, V7800, V8800) though. The Firepro cards are considerably cheaper at every price point and support DX11 and Shader model 5.

More benchmarks:
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=926&type=expert&pi...
http://tech.icrontic.com/articles/ati-takes-the-worksta...
http://fireuser.com/blog/category/benchmarks/


http://fireuser.com/blog/pc_perspecitve_and_phoronix_re...
Quote:
The V5800, coming in at $469, paints the Quadro FX 3800 in a pretty damning light. After all the NVIDA option will sell for about 1.8x the price (~$800) of the V5800 but more often than not is the slower card. The V3800 isn’t going to win any performance benchmarks but with the $109 price tag it is easily the lowest cost pro-level offering from either company with a modern feature set.


If you have concern about acceleration:
http://fireuser.com/blog/how_did_i_miss_this_photoshop_...

Testing in CS5
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/831/cpsid_83117.html
Quote:
NVIDIA Quadro FX x500, x700, x800, FX370, FX380, FX580 series, Quadro CX cards
(The x represents the initial version number of the card. For example, x500 represents all card lines that end in 500: the 4500, the 3500, and the 1500 ines of cards.)

ATI FirePro (R700 family GPUs X7xx series): V3700 ,V3750, V5700, V7750, V8700, V8750
FirePro (R800 family GPUs x8xx series): V3800, V3850, V5800, V7800, V8800
m
0
l