Attentive readers probably know already that there's little difference between the graphics processors you find in workstation graphics cards versus what you'll find in consumer graphics cards for gaming, especially in the high-end segment. The major differences that separate these two hardware categories come from their drivers and the level of technical support offered.
When it comes to the Quadro FX 4800, in fact, there really is no completely comparable mainstream equivalent model. We picked the GeForce GTX 260 and the GTX 280 as our points of comparison, simply because the Quadro FX 4800 falls somewhere in between these two models.
The GPU Nvidia chose for this product is the GT200 D10U-20, built using 65 nanometer technology. With 1.4 billion transistors, this is one of the biggest and densest chips around. It also includes 192 parallel, CUDA-capable stream processors, just like the GTX 260 offers.
When it comes to graphics memory, however, Nvidia decided to up the ante for this card. With 1,536 MB of GDDR3 on-board, this card includes 512 MB more than the GTX 280 does. The board's memory ICs communicate across a 384-bit-wide memory interface. In contrast, Nvidia set clock rates for shaders and memory somewhat lower than the GTX 280, although core clock rates for both devices are exactly the same. Nvidia explains these conservative settings with a longer warranty period for the Quadro models as compared to the GeForce cards. Expect better stability from the Quadros as well, for much the same reason.
You can also see some visible differences in the various connectors that adorn these cards' double-wide slots: DVI, stereo, and DisplayPort connectors. This newer graphics interface delivers higher video bandwidth than comparable DVI-D interfaces, and supports higher resolutions and greater color depths (so-called 30-bit "Deep Color" with more than one billion colors and 10-bit grayscale rendering). At five meters (16.4 feet), maximum DisplayPort cable length also exceeds that of real-world DVI. Nevertheless, the number of monitors with DisplayPort connectors remains meager, as this list of all the qualified items we could identify shows:
- HP DreamColor LP2480zx
- HP LP2275w
- Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP
- Dell UltraSharp 2709W
- Dell UltraSharp 3008WFP
- Eizo FlexScan S2432W-H
- Eizo CG242W
In addition, we view a hurried move to DisplayPort with some skepticism. The old analog VGA connector still shows up on many graphics cards. DVI is the most common standard now, with HDMI coming on strong. There's a very good reason for this phenomenon: HDMI combines video and audio signals on a single cable, while typical DisplayPort mini-adapters deliver only video (the DisplayPort specification offers optional support for audio, but is seldom implemented). Furthermore, HDMI and DVI are both based on a common use of the TMDS signaling protocol, which explains why crossover adapters are both cheap and readily available. On the other hand, signaling protocols between DVI and DisplayPort are completely different. This makes adapter solutions expensive, because they require the use of active switching electronics for conversion. There is one upside to DisplayPort, however: its use requires no special licensing from the entertainment industry (primarily, the Motion Picture Association of America), which is not the case with HDMI.
Throughout our tests of the Quadro FX 4800, we were struck by its relatively low noise output and quiet operation. Its active cooling integrates fans, heatpipes, and radiators more effectively than older Nvidia models do. Nvidia rates the maximum power consumption of the Quadro FX 4800 at 146 W. We measured its power draw in a complete workstation system at idle and under heavy load. We were able to confirm our suspicions that the ATI FirePro 8700 generally draws more power. This was amply confirmed by the ATI card's requirement of two six-pin power connector, while the Nvidia card draws all its power from one auxiliary power plug.
Complete System Power Draw
Nvidia Quadro FX 4800
ATI FirePro V8700
At idle, the Quadro FX consumes 42 W less than the FirePro V8700 does. At heavy load, however, the difference drops dramatically to 12 W. Smaller fab technology isn't the only factor involved here. In fact, the V8700 uses a 55 nm technology (the FX 4800 uses 65 nm), but this doesn't seem to work in the V8700's favor.
- Quadro FX 4800 Hardware Details
- Software Driver Features
- Test Configuration
- Benchmark Results: Maya
- Benchmark Results: 3ds Max
- Benchmark Results: Solidworks
- Benchmark Results: Viewperf I
- Benchmark Results: Viewperf II
- Performance Gaming Vs. Workstation: GeForce GTX 280 And Quadro FX 4800
- Conclusion: Editor's Recommendation