Test Setup And Benchmarks
| Test Hardware | |
|---|---|
| Processors | Intel Core i7-980X (Gulftown) 3.33 GHz, LGA 1366, 6.4 GT/s QPI, 12 MB Shared L3, Hyper-Threading enabled, Power-savings enabled |
| Motherboard | Gigabyte X58A-UD5 (LGA 1366) Intel X58/ICH10R, BIOS FB |
| Memory | Kingston 6 GB (3 x 2 GB) DDR3-2000, KHX2000C8D3T1K3/6GX @ 8-8-8-24 and 1.65 V |
| Hard Drive | Intel SSDSA2M160G2GC 160 GB SATA 3Gb/s |
| Graphics | AMD FirePro V9800 |
| Nvidia Quadro 5000 | |
| Power Supply | Cooler Master UCP-1000 W |
| System Software And Drivers | |
| Operating System | Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit |
| DirectX | DirectX 11 |
| Graphics Driver | AMD Catalyst 8.773 |
| Nvidia Quadro Release 259.57 | |
Although AMD positions its FirePro V9800 against Nvidia's Quadro 6000, it doesn't take a 6000 to offer up competitive performance, we've found. If you're more interested in a comparison to the 6000, know that it includes more shader processors (448 vs. 352), more memory (6 GB vs. 2.5 GB), more memory bandwidth, and consumes more power. With an MSRP of $5000, it's like the FirePro V9800 in that it appeals to a very tiny sliver of the market who can put its massively large frame buffer to use.
Benchmarks and Settings | |
|---|---|
Video Encoding | |
Blender | Custom Workload; cd blender-2.54-beta-windows64, bench_blender.bat, rem blender -b thg.blend -o testset -f 1 |
Applications | |
Adobe After Effects | CS5; Custom Workload, SD project with three picture-in-picture frames, source video at 720p |
Adobe Photoshop | CS5; Custom Workload, Radial Blur, Shape Blur, Median, Polar Coordinates filters |
Adobe Premiere Pro | CS5; Custom Workload, 1280x720p, 59.94 FPS video, Panasonic DVCPro100, HVX-200 camcorder on P2 media, Render to Work Area; Adobe Paladin workload (with hardware Mercury Playback Engine support on Quadro) |
| Adobe Media Encoder | Custom Workload, Encode Premiere Pro project to h.264 for Blu-ray |
| e-on Software Vue 8 PLE | 1920x1080 landscape render, Global Illumination enabled |
| NewTek LightWave 3D 9.6 | Custom Workload, high-poly Tom's Hardware logo; clone surface detail across logo (Modeler, script); OpenGL preview of 600-frame animation of Tom's Hardware logo (Layout); 1.68 million polygon render of four captured frames using motion blur, ray-traced shadows, global illumination. |
| Autodesk 3ds Max 2010 | Default Scanline Renderer and Mental Ray Renderer, both test scenes from 3dspeedmachine.com |
| Autodesk MatchMover 2011 | Custom workload, 720p camera footage tracked in 3D space |
Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings | |
SPECapc LightWave 9.6 | LightWave 3D Discovery Edition, Render and MT benchmark scores |
SPECviewperf 11 | Default GUI options, 2560x1600; Workloads: CATIA, EnSight, LightWave, Maya, Pro/E, SolidWorks, Teamcenter Visualization Mockup, NX |
SPECapc Maya 2009 | Default run, composite score generated through SPEC Excel template |
| SPECapc 3ds Max 9 | Default run, composite score generated through SPEC Excel template |
Related Stories :
- AMD FirePro V9800 4 GB: Eyefinity Meets Professional Graphics
- AMD FirePro V9800 Has Eyefinity 6, Costs $3,499
- Workstation Shootout: Nvidia Quadro 5000 Vs. ATI FirePro V8800
- AMD Releases FirePro R5000 Remote Graphics Card
- AMD Demos Eyefinity on FirePro W9000 Workstation GPU
- Tweaker Turns GeForce GTX 690 Into a Quadro K5000
Nvidia shines in the industrial/commercial/scientific market, with their driver team and CUDA/GPGPU tech. Too bad the V9800 fell short of expectations. Also, Nividia cards are obviously going to have better results in Adobe Mercury since both companies worked together on hardware optimization. AMD needs to be more aggressive in working together with software makers, (including games!) to have a stronger hold on both the CPU and GPU markets. Overall, a good read.
It would actually make sense if they compared with the V8800 and the Quadro 6000. We also need a review of the Quadro 4000, 2000 and the 800, along with the lower Firepro 3D series.
It would actually make sense if they compared with the V8800 and the Quadro 6000. We also need a review of the Quadro 4000, 2000 and the 600, along with the lower Firepro 3D series.
1. Definetly, a review of the "lower end" cards would be nice.
2. Plus, it would be nice to see how well the SLi cards scale.
3. Also, with the updated (e)nVidia desktop cards (GF100 to GF110), will the Quadro ones see a revision too - if so, when?
Benchmark with gpu base render engin like mental images IRay or Chaos Group V-Ray RT
1. Definetly, a review of the "lower end" cards would be nice.2. Plus, it would be nice to see how well the SLi cards scale.3. Also, with the updated (e)nVidia desktop cards (GF100 to GF110), will the Quadro ones see a revision too - if so, when?
Good question (3), I'll ask!
Cheers,
Chris
This was a rather underwhelming test suit. I think the fundamental problem you have is that most of the tests you ran were CPU based.
What most of these production apps use the GPU for is on the fly rendering. For example, sculpting in blender can tax the GPU quite nicely given enough vectors. Another good blender one would be playing back a super resolution baked fluid simulation in real time. For example, take the tom's hardware logo you had before, turn it into water and let the water fall onto a flat surface. Bake the simulation with a ridiculous resolution (as much as you can before blender crashes) and then play the simulation back in real time while watching 5 high definition videos at the same time.
What a disappointment, hopefully next firepro will be aa winner.
The FirePro has still the long way to go to catch up with the Quadro. I hope ATI makes good progress in the workstation models soon like they have come a long way in the desktop market.
cool...
Lol, someone really went wild with photoshop on the thumbnail picture for this article on the front page.
In this article's conclusion appeared this statement:
"If you’re a creative professional working with Adobe’s CS5 suite, then the Quadro is hands-down a no-brainer."
Benchmarks indicate that the lower priced GTX 480 is a far better choice (cost effective)for those taking advantage of the Mercury Playback Engine running Premiere Pro CS5.
http://ppbm5.com/Benchmark5.html
At the top of this page, click on the "MPE Performance Chart" to get a comparison between the different Nvidia Cards with Premiere Pro CS5.
I use a 2gb palit 460 and it is amazingly fast. the main problem is the heat, so I took an old heatsink that was short, dremeled it into 9 pieces (3x3) and then used xtreme tuner HD to keep the fan at 70-90% while cuda or dx11 gaming. the hacks for cuda in premiere and other programs work without faking it into a quadro.
now at intense 1920x1200 gaming i reach 65-72*C instead of average gaming up to 85*C.
to keep the heatsinks on i used some gap filler 2 part paste from berquist. worked wonders to transfer heat and keep it on.
get a 3 sli mobo and boom you're off to the races with 2 of these nicely spaced apart. $3500 is overkill unless you need that 5-6th monitor. 4 is great for me.
i will stick with me water cooled 480sli set up for a while, lol
Is the show in the demo trailer a real one? if not it should be, looks cool.
I agree that you really need to find a benchmark that measures viewport performance in common 3D DCC applications, and sculpting programs like zBrush or Mudbox.
There's absolutely no need to include rendering in mentalray, which does not use a GPU at all. At this point in time, there are few GPU renderers that are widely used or as flexible as the established CPU renderers. In the future the GPU will likely make a big difference in rendering times, but for now, most professionals are much more interested in the speed improvements one can get while working in the viewport (i.e. how many polygons / textures can the card display on screen and how quickly.)
Maybe set up a turntable of an ultra high poly scene (once with and once without textures) and measure the framerate?
Why are you comparing the top end AMD workstation card to the middrange nvidia Quadro 5000. You did the same thing last time you wrote a workstation review. Nothing like throwing some major slant into the review by not comparing apples to apples (e.g. Quadro 6000). Was it a deliberate slant or just a major error?
Working station is another thing. nVidia makes the rules and the industries follow that rules, Quadro is the best GPU for workstations.
Now, I have the same question: Why that performance aren't in Fermi?
Look at the shrunk picture in the article link. It makes the card seem so puny!
The benchmark suite is not very good for comparing Professional cards. Nearly every benchmark was CPU dependant. No shocker in Adobe, AMD gets trounced showing AMD's lack of nVidia's Proprietary GPGPU language.
Obviously Viewperf is the only real benchmark in the suite and that does not show any trends that are surprising. AMD excels at Maya.