Just came across this strange thing at work.
We have a specialist app that does some lightweight 3D stuff. However, we have 2 configurations of workstation.
Primary workstations were equipped with 4k monitors; but lower-use workstations got dual 1440p monitors. Because of differences in connectivity between monitor configs, different cards were needed - the 4k monitors use dual DL-DVI connections. Whereas the 1440p monitors connect via DP.
For reasons of availability - the DL-DVI cards are nV Quadro FX380, and the DP cards are AMD Firepro V4900.
While I'm normally very happy with my FX380 card, I was testing a Firepro V4900, and I couldn't believe how slow it was in comparison - it was literally unusably laggy in comparison.
The application supplier said they were graphics card agnostic and just used openGL.
What surprised me is that the FX380 should completely outclass the Firepro 4900, when the AMD card is literally 2 GPU generations ahead in terms of "raw" performance.
We have a specialist app that does some lightweight 3D stuff. However, we have 2 configurations of workstation.
Primary workstations were equipped with 4k monitors; but lower-use workstations got dual 1440p monitors. Because of differences in connectivity between monitor configs, different cards were needed - the 4k monitors use dual DL-DVI connections. Whereas the 1440p monitors connect via DP.
For reasons of availability - the DL-DVI cards are nV Quadro FX380, and the DP cards are AMD Firepro V4900.
While I'm normally very happy with my FX380 card, I was testing a Firepro V4900, and I couldn't believe how slow it was in comparison - it was literally unusably laggy in comparison.
The application supplier said they were graphics card agnostic and just used openGL.
What surprised me is that the FX380 should completely outclass the Firepro 4900, when the AMD card is literally 2 GPU generations ahead in terms of "raw" performance.