Nvidia Quadro FX 4800: Workstation Graphics At Its Finest?

Introduction

Nvidia's gaming graphics cards have been slowly moving away from the old-faithful G80 chip. Now, in fact, Nvidia's latest workstation offerings are outfitted with derivatives of Nvidia's GT200 GPUs, which many have come to know through their inclusion in the cheaper mainstream GeForce GTX 260 and 280 cards.

The first entrants in this product line are the Quadro FX 5800 at the extreme high-end, with its 4 GB frame buffer, and the more "reasonably priced" Quadro FX 4800, with its 1.5 GB of graphics memory. That latter board found its way into our test labs, so that we could put it through its paces. In a few weeks, we expect to get our hands on other models in this series as well.

The FX 4800 commands a price premium of over $300 compared to the equivalent FirePro V8700 from AMD's ATI division, which online resellers retail for about $1,250. Can buyers expect a boost in features and performance for this extra outlay? First, let's take a look at the comparable cards and their speeds and feeds from both companies in the tables that follow, then we'll get around to answering this burning question.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Workstation Graphics Cards and their Mainstream Equivalents
Workstation ModelDerivative GPUFabMainstream-EquivalentGraphics RAM3-Pin StereoDisplayPort
Nvidia Quadro FX 5600G8090 nmGeForce 88001,536 MB GDDR3yesno
Nvidia Quadro FX 4800GT20065  nmGeForce GTX 260 (280)1,536 MB GDDR3yesyes
Nvidia Quadro FX 4600G8090 nmGeForce 8800768 MB GDDR3yesno
Nvidia Quadro FX 1700G8480 nmGeForce 8600512 MB DDR2yesno
ATI FirePro V8700RV77055 nmRadeon HD 48701,024 MB GDDR5yesyes
ATI FireGL V7700RV67055 nmRadeon HD 3850512 MB GDDR4yesyes
ATI FireGL V5600RV63065 nmRadeon HD 2600 XT512 MB GDDR4nono
ATI FireGL V3600RV63065 nmRadeon HD 2600 Pro256 MB DDR2nono
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Workstation ModelMemory (RAM) BandwidthDirectXOpenGLShader ModelCore ClockMemory ClockPixel & Vertex Processing
Nvidia Quadro FX 560076.8 GB/s102.14.0600 MHz800 MHz112 SPUs
Nvidia Quadro FX 480076.8 GB/s103.04.0600 MHz800 MHz192 SPUs
Nvidia Quadro FX 460067.2 GB/s102.14.0500 MHz700 MHz112 SPUs
Nvidia Quadro FX 170012.8 GB/s102.14.0460 MHz400 MHz32 SPUs
ATI FirePro V8700115.2 GB/s10.12.14.0750 MHz900 MHz800 SPUs
ATI FireGL V770072.0 GB/s10.12.14.0775 MHz1,125 MHz320 SPUs
ATI FireGL V560035.1 GB/s102.14.0800 MHz1,100 MHz120 SPUs
ATI FireGL V360015.8 GB/s102.14.0600 MHz500 MHz120 SPUs
Uwe Scheffel
  • why do i feel like when everyone compares workstation cards to gaming ones they get it wrong. a 4800 Fx will performs 99% like a 260GTX and if you softmod it to a Quadro than you have the same effect the other way around. really you are paying for driver support. i much rather just pay for the card.
    Reply
  • ankolistoflower
    They really mean it when they say great support. I once got a custom driver made specificly for my system overnight for a glitch I had. It saved me from loosing a client and a few thousand dollars for that one specific gig...
    Reply
  • cangelini
    bob49574why do i feel like when everyone compares workstation cards to gaming ones they get it wrong. a 4800 Fx will performs 99% like a 260GTX and if you softmod it to a Quadro than you have the same effect the other way around. really you are paying for driver support. i much rather just pay for the card.
    I think the comparison to the gaming card came from readers in past workstation card stories requesting such comparisons.
    Reply
  • ph3412b07
    Great article, I appreciate the benches comparing the GTX 280 on workstation apps. I'll spend my money on gaming cards and leave it to corporations to purchase workstations...
    Reply
  • ohim
    cangeliniI think the comparison to the gaming card came from readers in past workstation card stories requesting such comparisons.this is challanging the consumers intelect with all things on the table ... actulay is the same GPU chip but performs so differently because of few modifications ... wonder how much this thing will keep up from nvidia and amd ... makeing their customers stupid so obvious ... i mean it is the same fukin engine at heart why sell it so overpriced ?
    Reply
  • Looking at the results, I cannot understand how you can wholeheartedly recommend FX 4800 over cheaper FirePro V8700. Quadro benchmark results do not seem "convincing" to me since differences are quite small in most cases. The recommendation has to be based on type of work/application someone is using.
    Reply
  • Spathi
    The naming is getting confusing again... FX4800 HD4650 HD4850 ...
    Reply
  • tacoslave
    that nvs 295 sounds interesting...
    Reply
  • armistitiu
    I'm getting tired of NVIDIA's crap: "....but our cards have CUDA support". Enough marketing! I think someone who's willing to buy a card because they want to program on the GPU MUST know that both vendors have a SDK for stream programming and it's actually the SAME thing. I've tried them both (FireStream and CUDA) and there are very little differences between them. If they wanna brag about 3rd party apps...well how many are they? 2? 3? Just wait until OpenCL (sdk and cl) is finally released and maybe then we'll see more applications in this GPGPU area and maybe they'll stop with this "oh but we have CUDA" thing.
    Reply
  • fayskittles
    I would like to see them use riva tuner and to tell the drivers it is not a geforce and see what kind of bench marking they get then. Or the other way around. Turn the workstation card into a gaming card. How about throwing a game on a workstaion card. See how it handles it.
    Reply