Updated: Tom's Hardware's Workstation Charts

As you already know, Tom's Hardware has updated its reference test platform for 2009 with Asus' P6T X58-based motherboard and Intel's Core i7-965 Extreme processor.

As such, we're running through and updating as many of our reference charts as possible. Most recently, our workstation graphics chart was brought up to speed using all of ATI's latest FirePro cards and three of the newest Nvidia Quadro FX boards. Because we couldn't get the entire lineup, you'll also find a pair of previous-generation Quadros as well.

Additionally, we've taken the opportunity to update the workstation benchmark suite. Brand new is the SPECapc for Newtek Lightwave 3D 9.6 metric, replacing the aged Maya 6.5 test, which just wasn't relevant any more (there have been four updates to the application since that 6.5 release).

The new charts include:

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Quadro FX 4800 (GT200)FirePro V8700 (RV770)
Quadro FX 3800 (GT200)FirePro V7750 (RV730)
Quadro FX 1700 (G84)FirePro V5700 (RV730)
Quadro FX 580 (G96)FirePro V3750 (RV730)
Quadro FX 570 (G84)FirePro V3700 (RV620

We used the following benchmarks:

  • SPECopc Viewperf 10
  • SPECapc Newtek Lightwave 3D
  • SPECapc Solidworks
  • SPECapc 3ds Max

The updated test platform proves beneficial to all of the cards in play here. For complete results check out the Workstation Graphics Charts landing page.

Chris Angelini
Chris Angelini is an Editor Emeritus at Tom's Hardware US. He edits hardware reviews and covers high-profile CPU and GPU launches.
  • sot010174
    Cool! when you're going to update the desktop cpu charts? I miss those badly...
  • cangelini
    They've been "on the way" for several weeks now. Hopefully we'll be seeing them very soon. *fingers crossed*
  • duckmanx88
    yeah i want those benchmarks too. i dont even want to think about how exhausting those tests are.
  • computabug
    One boot and one shut down in a crappily written OS for every cpu... plus the usual benchmarks and swapping of hardware...

    Imagine all the thermal paste... I could take a bath in it :)
  • baracubra
    Sweet, but more pressing is the issue with the old cpu charts. For anyone who wants to build a new custom rig, those and the now thankfully updated gpu charts are the most important on the whole of Tom's. I know it must be extremely exhausting to update a whole chart with current info, but its a feature that made Tom's so good.

    Anyway I recently checked the GPU charts, and its true that there are a lot more cards to compare so I congratulate you guys,

    ...but if its possible, could we see some SLI results in there too?? Maybe you guys could even copy your results from other reviews in there...Even if they aren't the most most current results, they're better than nothing and it saves many readers from having to tediously browse through the search function..

    Anyway keep up the great reviews, and we can't w8 for the extended cpu + SLI charts to apear :D
  • computabug
    The only reason there is to SLI imho is if you can afford 2 or more of the best cards out there, or if you have an sli mobo already and can afford a 295 so you want to get 2x275's.
  • jeep11
    computabugThe only reason there is to SLI imho is if you can afford 2 or more of the best cards out there, or if you have an sli mobo already and can afford a 295 so you want to get 2x275's.If I really wanted too I could SLI two 9500GTs
  • computabug
    jeep11If I really wanted too I could SLI two 9500GTsIf you really wanted to you could waste your money
  • neapolis
    The tests leave me wondering - a lot. How is it possible, that there is so little gain (often one would not be able to tell the difference!) from the high-high-end pro cards as compared to the entry level ones - although - if compared - they are technologically in the stone age.

    Example: SPECapc Solidworks 2007 Graphics, graphics intensive, (1600 x 1200 @ 75 Hz), Score in Score: Nvidia Quadro FX 4800 $1449.99 Score 5.65 AND Nvidia Quadro FX 570 $234.20 Score 5.40 ...

    That's a difference of a few percent which is almost impossible to "feel" in human perception. Still you can get about 6 (six!!!) FX570 for the price of one FX4800.

    As I own a FX570 and I feel it could be a bit faster by now, the score of the FX4800 is no argument for me to upgrade anytime soon. It would be great for TH to investigate a bit deeper in those problems. Maybe a dedicated article, maybe comments from the makers of those cards? Would be a great help.
  • Thanks for your efforts - I'd like to see Autodesk Inventor included in the graphic card comparisson chart.