The GeForce and Radeon cards are only included for comparison purposes; but the Radeon R9 290X sure looks to be a strong performer. More interesting is that the cards with lots of graphics memory excel. This is expected, since boards with less than 4 GB automatically fail two of the seven sub-tests.
Overall, AMD's FirePro cards lead by a substantial margin. The W7000 competes with Nvidia's much more costly Quadro K5000 (instead of the Quadro K4000 closer to its price class). Meanwhile, the FirePro W5000 dominates the Quadro K2000.
This specific benchmark is more or less synthetic. But it’s still based on very realistic tasks that geologists, doctors, and engineers perform out in the field. Consequently, it does provide a pretty good picture of how a given workstation-oriented card scales based on its hardware and configuration.
When AMD releases the mighty 16GB FirePro 9100 based on Radeon R9-290X core will be competitive to the Quadro K6000 in performance.
I find that internal benchmarking the only way to really understand the value of workstation cards. W7000 for example - it was awesome in our internal testing. While good, the cards is much better than these benchmark results suggest. Not sure why I would look at another SPEC benchmark when I will still need to test the cards in-house to really know how good they are for our applications and models.
Unfortunately, testing in the real applications (using something like APCapc) requires actual licenses of the software apps. Many of these vendors (CATIA, NX, etc) simply don't make temp licenses available for reviewers/journalists or other non-users.
VP12 should be quite good enough to help make informed evaluations of GPU hardware. If you are concerned about seeing in-application performance measurements for particular apps, you can ususually find the data with a bit of googling, although take results you find posted on the internet by "regular Joe's" with a grain of salt.
tsk tsk tsk
About CPU Scaling: "In the second set of our scaling results, only SolidWorks responds to CPU frequency. Core and thread count don't make a difference.¨
This is not entirely true. It goes as far as 10% at 4.5 GHz.