Need Advice: Quadro (Fermi) or FirePro?

[Dralthi]

Hello,

I’m currently in the market for a graphics card for my new workstation. This will be my first workstation graphics card ever. I’m stuck choosing between 4 different cards:

(Current cost range in parenthesis)

1. Quadro (Fermi) 2000 (~ $450)
2. Quadro (Fermi) 4000 (~ $700)
3. ATI FirePro v5800 (~ $350)
4. ATI FirePro v7800 (~ $650)

I was curious if anyone on here has any experience with either of these cards? It’s for my new, home workstation. I don’t play games on my PC if at all anymore (was thinking of picking up StarCraft 2 and eventually Diablo 3). I’ll mainly be using this workstation to work from home with. I strictly use 3DSMax 2011 for all my 3D modeling, animating, and rendering. I do a lot of pre-rendered 3D stuff, some real-time with Unity 3D, and often some heavy video editing and compositing with After Effects, mostly.

This card will be going in a workstation equipped with an Intel i7-2600K processor, around 12-16GB of RAM, and a 1TB RAID 0 hard drive(s). I’ve got most of the parts already. I’m just waiting for Intel to finish their 6 series chipset recall before buying the motherboard.

Is it REALLY worth the extra costs to go with a workstation card as opposed to a consumer-grade card? I realize consumer-grade cards perform worse in the viewports department. But how significant is it? I don’t think I’ll be working with any large-scale hi-poly scenes any time soon. However, I’d like to start working with Mudbox and Zbrush more. I’ve been using ATI Radeon cards in my older machines.

I've worked on a computer with a Quadro FX 5800 before and while the viewports could handle larger scenes better I didn't really feel like their was any other gain. Am I missing something here?

How different in performance are Nvidia’s 3DSMax Performance drivers to ATI’s?

I’ve been reading the Quadro (Fermi) cards run pretty hot and can turn your case into an easy-bake oven. Is there any truth to these statements? How much different are they noise/temp-wise to the FirePro’s?

Again, input from anyone with similar graphics card experience would be greatly appreciated. Especially if you already own one of these cards.

Thanks,
Dralthi

 

[Idontcare]

Welcome to the forums Dralthi! :thumbsup:

 

[96Firebird]

I have very limited knowledge on workstation GPUs, having only worked with a couple Quadros in 3D CAD modeling. However, what I've read is that the driver support for the Quadro line is much better than that of the FirePro line. Also, I'm not sure if 3DSMax 2011 supports CUDA, but that would also sway me towards the Quadro line if it does. Depending on how much you use 3DSMax 2011 will tell you if a workstation GPU is for you. I only use SolidWorks at home to do quick edits on parts, so I chose a gaming GPU. The parts may not look as nice, and it may be sluggish on huge assemblies, but I game more than work on my home PC. It may be different for you... Just know that the Quadro cards will not be able to play games well at all...

 

[-Slacker-]

The only article I found that included 3dsmax 2011 benchmarks is this one:

http://www.cgchannel.com/2010/12/review-amds-ati-firepro-professional-gpus-2/

The Quadro FX 4800 is not in it, but they do test the 5800, which is faster.

From what I can tell, the 5800 sometimes trades blows with the FirePro v7800, but the 7800 is generally much faster.

I was going to go on about how you should decide to buy depending on the volume of work you do on it (i.e., if you do occasional work, you should go with the best price performance variant, while if you do a LOT of work on it, you should ignore price/performance and pay the premium on what's faster, even if it's only a little, because it will eventually pay off at least several times fold)...

...But, seeing how the the best price/performance card is also the best card in absolute performance, then I'm going to recommend the firepro v7800.

After seeing that review, I honestly don't understand what all the fuss on the quadros is about.

 

[96Firebird]

Slacker, the Quadro FX x800 series from Nvidia is not the same as the Quadro Fermi series (x000). Searching for benchmarks is tough, I can't seem to find any that compare the cards in the OP.

 

[ShadowVVL]

many have askd the question of what is the big differnce between workstation cards and game cards when working in 3d and other professional graphics software. It seems almost no one knows and you will be lucky to find somone who has a vast knowledge of these cards and will provide the answer.

Ive notice game cards seem to slow down 3d view ports at anything over 200k verts. I am going to buy a work station card eventually, to judge for my self.

 

[-Slacker-]

Oh.

 

[Skurge]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firepro-v9800-eyefinity-quadro-5000,2780-7.html

Well, this is only 2010 and its with faster, but they seem close enough to assume the same would be true of slower cards. But I know nothing concerning workstation cards.

 

[Dralthi]

I have very limited knowledge on workstation GPUs, having only worked with a couple Quadros in 3D CAD modeling. However, what I've read is that the driver support for the Quadro line is much better than that of the FirePro line. Also, I'm not sure if 3DSMax 2011 supports CUDA, but that would also sway me towards the Quadro line if it does. Depending on how much you use 3DSMax 2011 will tell you if a workstation GPU is for you. I only use SolidWorks at home to do quick edits on parts, so I chose a gaming GPU. The parts may not look as nice, and it may be sluggish on huge assemblies, but I game more than work on my home PC. It may be different for you... Just know that the Quadro cards will not be able to play games well at all...

Hey, 96Firebird. Thanks for your input. 3DSMax 2011 does support CUDA, but the only feature that seems to take advantage of the CUDA technology right now is the new Mental Ray iRay rendering engine that's included in the Subscription Advantage Pack of 3DSMax.

I've also noticed in my research that most people are favoring Nvidia's 3DSMax Performance Driver over ATI's. However, some people are saying they both have their own issues.

I've used a workstation equipped with a QuadroFX 5800 before using the 3DSMax 2010 Performance Driver and I would occassionaly get some viewport glitches that wouldn't show up on my personal computer with an ATI Radeon 1950 Pro. My Radeon 1950 Pro sometimes had faster viewport performance over the Quadro FX 5800 with some scenes. Which doesn't make sense to me at all.

Also, I'm aware that the Quadro and FirePro cards aren't meant for gaming. I will probably do a little light gaming as I mentioned before, but I'm mostly going to be using this computer for work purposes. Bringing work home, personal art stuff, working on my portfolio...that kind of thing.

 

[Dralthi]

The only article I found that included 3dsmax 2011 benchmarks is this one:

http://www.cgchannel.com/2010/12/review-amds-ati-firepro-professional-gpus-2/

The Quadro FX 4800 is not in it, but they do test the 5800, which is faster.

From what I can tell, the 5800 sometimes trades blows with the FirePro v7800, but the 7800 is generally much faster.

I was going to go on about how you should decide to buy depending on the volume of work you do on it (i.e., if you do occasional work, you should go with the best price performance variant, while if you do a LOT of work on it, you should ignore price/performance and pay the premium on what's faster, even if it's only a little, because it will eventually pay off at least several times fold)...

...But, seeing how the the best price/performance card is also the best card in absolute performance, then I'm going to recommend the firepro v7800.

After seeing that review, I honestly don't understand what all the fuss on the quadros is about.

Hey, Slacker. I read that article the other day. It was very informative about the FirePro cards, but it didn't compare them to the new Quadro (Fermi) cards that Nvidia released shortly after that article was published. According to new benchmarks being published lately the Quadro (Fermi) cards are mopping the floor with the Firepro cards performance-wise. That's why I was considering the Quadro 2000 or 4000. However, I've been reading that the chipset that Quadro 4000 runs on (which is equivalent to a Geforce GTX 460 or 480) can operate at really high temps even when idle. Some people on NewEgg wrote reviews and complained that temps got so hot from the Quadro that it burned out their workstations.

I've been leaning more towards the ATI Firepro v7800 just because it's a little over $100 cheaper than a Quadro 4000. However, with ATI's not so great driver support I'm debating wether that's the best move or not. I want to get the most bang for more buck.

 

[Dralthi]

Slacker, the Quadro FX x800 series from Nvidia is not the same as the Quadro Fermi series (x000). Searching for benchmarks is tough, I can't seem to find any that compare the cards in the OP.

Yeah, there haven't been many articles written that really compare the Quadro Fermis' to the Firepros'. I've found one or two, but the one seemed really biased towards Nvidia. They didn't use the latest ATI drivers at the time of the review which basically meant take it with a grain of salt. I think it was a Tom's Hardware review.

 

[ShadowVVL]

You could try a 1gb 460gtx and see if that works for you.

i used to run 3dsmax 2009 on a 260gtx and it worked great

 

[Dralthi]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firepro-v9800-eyefinity-quadro-5000,2780-7.html

Well, this is only 2010 and its with faster, but they seem close enough to assume the same would be true of slower cards. But I know nothing concerning workstation cards.

That was an interesting review, but they were basically comparing rendering speeds with 3DSMax 2010 and Lightwave 9.6. Rendering speeds aren't very helpful when comparing video cards as rendering relies heavily on the CPU, not the GPU.

It seems the main advantage of workstation graphics cards like the Quadro and the FirePro is that they boost viewport performance, mainly frames per second, when viewing large-scale or high-polygon 3D scenes.

 

[3DVagabond]

The most powerful GPU in that bunch is the 7800. With the group of cards you list it's the one I would choose. That doesn't mean it's the best card for you. I use C4D and PS almost exclusively, not Max and AE.

Some apps. can leverage CUDA, but I don't believe any you've mentioned using do. Adobe Premier does. Possibly more Adobe apps. in the future will.

With most 3D modeling packages, the viewports are the only place the video card is being used. VRay, for Max does use the GPU for rendering too, but as of now, GPU rendering is in it's infancy, and sucks quality wise. Because of driver optimizations though, the viewports are much faster with workstation cards. In Max sometimes 10x as fast.

 

[Dralthi]

Thanks for the input so far guys! I'd still like to hear from someone who actually owns one of these cards hopefully.

 

[3DVagabond]

Thanks for the input so far guys! I'd still like to hear from someone who actually owns one of these cards hopefully.

You'd have a better chance of finding that on Autodesk's forums.

 

[Dralthi]

The most powerful GPU in that bunch is the 7800. With the group of cards you list it's the one I would choose. That doesn't mean it's the best card for you. I use C4D and PS almost exclusively, not Max and AE.

Some apps. can leverage CUDA, but I don't believe any you've mentioned using do. Adobe Premier does. Possibly more Adobe apps. in the future will.

With most 3D modeling packages, the viewports are the only place the video card is being used. VRay, for Max does use the GPU for rendering too, but as of now, GPU rendering is in it's infancy, and sucks quality wise. Because of driver optimizations though, the viewports are much faster with workstation cards. In Max sometimes 10x as fast.

Hey, 3DVagabond. Thanks for the input. Yea, I agree, viewport performance seems to be the only place where workstation cards outperform game-based cards. Especially when it comes to large-scale or high-poly scenes. If I'm going to be messing around with Mudbox or zBrush though, it might be best to go with a workstation card as these are pretty poly-intensive programs. I'd probably benefit more from a workstation card.

I'm aware that Premiere Pro CS5 supports CUDA with the Quadro cards, but I rarely use Premiere for the stuff I do. Also, I heard Adobe might be supporting Open CL soon, which the FirePros' currently have. If that is the case they'll have similar performance with Adobe products that Nvidia has over them right now.

 

[Dralthi]

You'd have a better chance of finding that on Autodesk's forums.

Yea, I posted over there too but haven't gotten as many responses as I have here.

I think I need to re-evaluate how much I really need one of these cards. Paying $600, $700, or more for a graphics card is kind of a hard pill to swallow. The Quadro 2000 and the FirePro V5800, while cheaper, sound a little underpowered for the price they are charging for them.

I'm wondering if sticking with a game-based card is going to be my best option. I'm mainly building this new machine to get faster rendering performance, so perhaps I can get by with a game-based card since rendering is more CPU-oriented.

I'm upgrading from a Pentium 4 3.2Ghz with a Radeon 1950 Pro AGP card. So, I think any current graphics card at this point is going to be a huge performance gain for me.

What do you think?

 

[bryanW1995]

send a pm to ryan smith, if he hasn't used them then at least he should be able to get you in touch with some people who are "in the know" about both brand's offerings.

 

[Dralthi]

send a pm to ryan smith, if he hasn't used them then at least he should be able to get you in touch with some people who are "in the know" about both brand's offerings.

Thanks, I'll do that! :thumbsup:

 

[3DVagabond]

Yea, I posted over there too but haven't gotten as many responses as I have here.

I think I need to re-evaluate how much I really need one of these cards. Paying $600, $700, or more for a graphics card is kind of a hard pill to swallow. The Quadro 2000 and the FirePro V5800, while cheaper, sound a little underpowered for the price they are charging for them.

I'm wondering if sticking with a game-based card is going to be my best option. I'm mainly building this new machine to get faster rendering performance, so perhaps I can get by with a game-based card since rendering is more CPU-oriented.

I'm upgrading from a Pentium 4 3.2Ghz with a Radeon 1950 Pro AGP card. So, I think any current graphics card at this point is going to be a huge performance gain for me.

What do you think?

From what I know with zBrush, it's almost magical how many polies can be rendered on screen. Believe it or not, you might not need as much GPU power for it as you do for apps like Max, C4D, Lightwave, etc. If you are going to be doing high poly work in Max, you really might want to consider a workstation card. Max is a bit of a resource hog. (So is C4D, so I'm not hating on Max.) If I were going to try a desktop graphics card I'd look at something with 2gig of RAM. GTX460 2gig (although I dislike Palit), or a 6950 2gig, if you wanted to spend a bit more. I would hate to spend a lot of money on a card and find out it won't handle the job, though.

Just as an example, here's a couple of graphs that compare desktop graphics to workstation cards. The 5000/6000 are a lot more powerful than the 4000/3000. No Max comparison in these charts, unfortunately. :\

This one benches Max, but with fewer cards. Compares with a 5970. I really doubt that crossfire runs in max Look at the first charts, they run almost identical (5870/5970). So, look at the 5970 as a 5870.

As you can see, the difference is huge!

These graphs are from Hot Hardware. They have a few workstation card reviews, if you want to have a look.

 

[Dralthi]

Yea, that is a pretty big difference. Do you know what feature they were testing for that particular benchmark? Scores are nice to look at but frames per second would be a better statistic to compare.

I'm starting to lean more towards your first suggestion, the V7800. It's a bit cheaper than the Quadro 4000, which is nice, and I'll get almost as comparable performance out of it. I'll search for some reviews on the V7800 when I get home.

The one con about the V7800 is it's size. Particulary length. It's apparently 28cm long! So, I'll have to make sure I'll be able to fit it in my case. Also, the power consumption is pretty high on that thing (75W idle/150+W load), but isn't it just as high on game-based cards as well?

 

[SolMiester]

NV

 

[3DVagabond]

Yea, that is a pretty big difference. Do you know what feature they were testing for that particular benchmark? Scores are nice to look at but frames per second would be a better statistic to compare.

I'm starting to lean more towards your first suggestion, the V7800. It's a bit cheaper than the Quadro 4000, which is nice, and I'll get almost as comparable performance out of it. I'll search for some reviews on the V7800 when I get home.

The one con about the V7800 is it's size. Particulary length. It's apparently 28cm long! So, I'll have to make sure I'll be able to fit it in my case. Also, the power consumption is pretty high on that thing (75W idle/150+W load), but isn't it just as high on game-based cards as well?

ATI cards tend to be longer. I've heard it's because of their power stages, but I'm no engineer. Those idle power figures seem wrong, though? Unless it's because they don't throttle them like desktop cards?

 

[Jovec]

I think I need to re-evaluate how much I really need one of these cards. Paying $600, $700, or more for a graphics card is kind of a hard pill to swallow. The Quadro 2000 and the FirePro V5800, while cheaper, sound a little underpowered for the price they are charging for them.

You aren't paying $600 or $700 for these cards. You'd be paying about a $200-$400 premium over what you would otherwise buy (560/6950 and above).

Reasons to buy one:
1) Sounds like this is primarily for your profession. Spending a few extra hundred to expand your portfolio and/or improve your skills that could land you a better job? Being able to be productive at home and avoid some late nights and weekends at the office? Or even work from home occasionally? Profit

2) The hardware is very similar, but you are paying for the workstation drivers and feature set. I know all about how companies like to charge more for the same product, but generally speaking, there is a reason there is a market for these (even if that reason is only artificial limitations removed in their drivers/bios). While it might be somewhat shady, workstation class cards should give your better performance and should be worth the extra money.