nVidia Quadro vs ATI Firepro

[thilanliyan]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl.../quadrofx-firepro.html

One more thing for us to argue about.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: thilan29
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl.../quadrofx-firepro.html

One more thing for us to argue about.

But argue about what?

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
But argue about what?

Performance and any little tiny detail about these Pro cards of course.

 

[reallyscrued]

What's there to argue about?

The benchmarks are clearly biased in favor of nVIDIA.

 

[Denithor]

Why won't any of the reputable review sites include a pair of the top-end gaming cards in their benchmarks? Throw in a 4890 and a GTX 285 and let them duke it out with the others. Especially now that it seems the CAD companies are migrating in the DX direction from OpenGL.

I mean, Autodesk even has approved drivers for use with their software on gaming cards now. These cards cost hundreds or even thousands less than the "professional" level cards - let's see what you get for all that cash.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Denithor
Especially now that it seems the CAD companies are migrating in the DX direction from OpenGL.

Careful, Modelworks is still in denial about that one

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Denithor
Especially now that it seems the CAD companies are migrating in the DX direction from OpenGL.

Careful, Modelworks is still in denial about that one

And will remain so until I see directx on linux and Mac.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Denithor
Why won't any of the reputable review sites include a pair of the top-end gaming cards in their benchmarks? Throw in a 4890 and a GTX 285 and let them duke it out with the others. Especially now that it seems the CAD companies are migrating in the DX direction from OpenGL.

I mean, Autodesk even has approved drivers for use with their software on gaming cards now. These cards cost hundreds or even thousands less than the "professional" level cards - let's see what you get for all that cash.

Autodesk does not approve of gaming cards used with the software. If you have a video display issue and go to autodesk for support they will try to help suggesting things you can try on your end. They will not patch the software to fix gaming card problems. They will refer you to the qualified hardware list.

That really is the only issue with gaming cards and professional applications. They work 95% of the time without issue, but if you need support you can sometimes be out of luck.

Benchmarks are out there for the popular pro app suites that show the difference between pro cards and gaming cards. Some use tweaked drivers released for specific pro cards so you have to take that into account.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Denithor
Especially now that it seems the CAD companies are migrating in the DX direction from OpenGL.

Careful, Modelworks is still in denial about that one

And will remain so until I see directx on linux and Mac.

http://www.macdx.com

And I suppose you're familiar with WineX(/TransGaming/Cedega) already

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Denithor
Especially now that it seems the CAD companies are migrating in the DX direction from OpenGL.

Careful, Modelworks is still in denial about that one

And will remain so until I see directx on linux and Mac.

Don't worry, it's coming. It will happen in the near future around the time AutoCAD runs on Mac OS and Duke Nukem Forever hits the shelves.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Denithor
Especially now that it seems the CAD companies are migrating in the DX direction from OpenGL.

Careful, Modelworks is still in denial about that one

And will remain so until I see directx on linux and Mac.

http://www.macdx.com

And I suppose you're familiar with WineX(/TransGaming/Cedega) already

Why bother when there are native Linux and OSX applications ?

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1


Don't worry, it's coming. It will happen in the near future around the time AutoCAD runs on Mac OS and Duke Nukem Forever hits the shelves.

AutoCAD on OSX could be very likely.
Autodesk has been porting many of their applications to OSX over the past two years. So far they have Maya & Mudbox with native OSX versions and xsi in the works.
Then about two months ago autocad team put up a page asking autocad users what they think of an OSX version. They got 20,000 replies. Much more than the demand to port mudbox or Maya.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Autodesk does not approve of gaming cards used with the software. If you have a video display issue and go to autodesk for support they will try to help suggesting things you can try on your end. They will not patch the software to fix gaming card problems. They will refer you to the qualified hardware list.

That really is the only issue with gaming cards and professional applications. They work 95% of the time without issue, but if you need support you can sometimes be out of luck.

Benchmarks are out there for the popular pro app suites that show the difference between pro cards and gaming cards. Some use tweaked drivers released for specific pro cards so you have to take that into account.

The Autodesk site actually states that NVIDIA does not support anything but Quadro cards for use with their software. And then they happily provide whql certified drivers for the GeForce card of your choice (notably lacking are the GT200 level cards from the list - wonder why?). Now, I can understand NVIDIA not wanting you to use a gaming card for pro level graphics - there is basically a magnitude 10 difference in price between gaming cards and the professional equivalents. But couldn't Autodesk just as easily test the gaming cards for functionality and recommend them as well?

Got any links to such sites? I'm normally pretty adept with finding the right keywords to make google give me what I'm looking for but I've had tough times with this one in the past. Plus in the professional world I'm not really sure which are the good review sites.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Denithor

The Autodesk site actually states that NVIDIA does not support anything but Quadro cards for use with their software. And then they happily provide whql certified drivers for the GeForce card of your choice (notably lacking are the GT200 level cards from the list - wonder why?). Now, I can understand NVIDIA not wanting you to use a gaming card for pro level graphics - there is basically a magnitude 10 difference in price between gaming cards and the professional equivalents. But couldn't Autodesk just as easily test the gaming cards for functionality and recommend them as well?

Part of the cost of pro cards is the testing process. I am not defending the price at all. I stopped using pro cards about two years ago because it just wasn't worth it for work anymore. Autodesk could test gaming cards, but I think it has more to do with history than it does with what is cheaper for the user. In the past the way Autodesk got problems solved was working close with card developers and most of those were companies that only had pro graphics divisions. Not many did both consumer and pro cards. So when they go to someone like nvidia with an issue, they expect it to be handled by the people who have used the applications and understand their needs. They don't want to talk to the people in charge of gaming or entertainment issues. I do think that is changing and eventually we will see just one division inside each card maker but it takes time to change old habits.

Got any links to such sites? I'm normally pretty adept with finding the right keywords to make google give me what I'm looking for but I've had tough times with this one in the past. Plus in the professional world I'm not really sure which are the good review sites.

They can be hard to find mainly because the pro sites really want to appear professional so they target what hardware will keep them with that image. Sometimes you have to find reviews that have run the pro benchmarks and look back at the confirmed results and do your own comparisons.


Specview is the one benchmark most used in the industry.
http://www.spec.org/gwpg/gpc.static/vp10info.html

Some test:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...-hd-2900-games_19.html
http://area.autodesk.com/forum...ual-tests41/post-0/#p0


The test are out there it just takes some searching .

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Denithor
Especially now that it seems the CAD companies are migrating in the DX direction from OpenGL.

Careful, Modelworks is still in denial about that one

And will remain so until I see directx on linux and Mac.

http://www.macdx.com

And I suppose you're familiar with WineX(/TransGaming/Cedega) already

Why bother when there are native Linux and OSX applications ?

What are you talking about?
These libraries ARE for native Linux and OS X applications. It's what they use to port games to linux/OS X. You end up with a native application using the DirectX API.

As the frontpage says:
"Simply compile your product source with your choice of Mac OS development environment, link in the MacDX - now you have your Mac OS version. "

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Denithor
Especially now that it seems the CAD companies are migrating in the DX direction from OpenGL.

Careful, Modelworks is still in denial about that one

And will remain so until I see directx on linux and Mac.

http://www.macdx.com

And I suppose you're familiar with WineX(/TransGaming/Cedega) already

Why bother when there are native Linux and OSX applications ?

What are you talking about?
These libraries ARE for native Linux and OS X applications. It's what they use to port games to linux/OS X. You end up with a native application using the DirectX API.

As the frontpage says:
"Simply compile your product source with your choice of Mac OS development environment, link in the MacDX - now you have your Mac OS version. "

Most of the applications being ported to other OS already support OpenGL so there is no need for programs like wine or things like MacDX.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Most of the applications being ported to other OS already support OpenGL so there is no need for programs like wine or things like MacDX.

Well, you said "And will remain so until I see directx on linux and Mac.", so I pointed out that DirectX does exist on linux and Mac. You lose

By your logic, most of the applications already exist on Windows, so there's no need for linux or OS X. We can do this all day.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Most of the applications being ported to other OS already support OpenGL so there is no need for programs like wine or things like MacDX.

Well, you said "And will remain so until I see directx on linux and Mac.", so I pointed out that DirectX does exist on linux and Mac. You lose

By your logic, most of the applications already exist on Windows, so there's no need for linux or OS X. We can do this all day.

Problem is, you're both right, fight two sides of a positive argument. You both win because you each have your own view on how things are, or could be done. Lets please not turn this into another Modelworks vs. Scali thread.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Most of the applications being ported to other OS already support OpenGL so there is no need for programs like wine or things like MacDX.

Well, you said "And will remain so until I see directx on linux and Mac.", so I pointed out that DirectX does exist on linux and Mac. You lose

By your logic, most of the applications already exist on Windows, so there's no need for linux or OS X. We can do this all day.

Problem is, you're both right, fight two sides of a positive argument. You both win because you each have your own view on how things are, or could be done. Lets please not turn this into another Modelworks vs. Scali thread.

I don't have a 'view', I'm simply pointing out facts which Modelworks consistently chooses to ignore.
It's not my 'view' that Autodesk recommends Direct3D over OpenGL, it's on their own website.
It's not my 'view' that there are DirectX implementations for linux and OS X, I've pointed to a few companies working on them.
It's Modelworks who just refuses to acknowledge these facts, and continues to drag down conversations.

If you want my 'view'... I don't care one bit about Autocad, OpenGL, OS X or linux. I was just getting involved because misinformation was being spread.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Most of the applications being ported to other OS already support OpenGL so there is no need for programs like wine or things like MacDX.

Well, you said "And will remain so until I see directx on linux and Mac.", so I pointed out that DirectX does exist on linux and Mac. You lose

By your logic, most of the applications already exist on Windows, so there's no need for linux or OS X. We can do this all day.

Problem is, you're both right, fight two sides of a positive argument. You both win because you each have your own view on how things are, or could be done. Lets please not turn this into another Modelworks vs. Scali thread.

I don't have a 'view', I'm simply pointing out facts which Modelworks consistently chooses to ignore.
It's not my 'view' that Autodesk recommends Direct3D over OpenGL, it's on their own website.
It's not my 'view' that there are DirectX implementations for linux and OS X, I've pointed to a few companies working on them.
It's Modelworks who just refuses to acknowledge these facts, and continues to drag down conversations.

If you want my 'view'... I don't care one bit about Autocad, OpenGL, OS X or linux. I was just getting involved because misinformation was being spread.

And ultimately, none of it really matters. Modelworks can happily continue his work as things are, and so could you. Pretty much done.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
And ultimately, none of it really matters. Modelworks can happily continue his work as things are, and so could you. Pretty much done.

I think spreading misinformation matters.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
And ultimately, none of it really matters. Modelworks can happily continue his work as things are, and so could you. Pretty much done.

I think spreading misinformation matters.

I wonder.

"Simply compile your product source with your choice of Mac OS development environment, link in the MacDX - now you have your Mac OS version."

If apps have to be compiled, are they actually "native" Linux and OSX apps?

And it only takes a few days, not weeks. hehe.

And besides, I'm pretty sure Modelwork's quote here, "And will remain so until I see directx on linux and Mac." meant that the operating systems themselves (OSX and Linux) support DirectX natively. As of now, they do not.

Modelworks, did I correctly interpret your quote? Or did I not?

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
I wonder.

"Simply compile your product source with your choice of Mac OS development environment, link in the MacDX - now you have your Mac OS version."

If apps have to be compiled, are they actually "native" Linux and OSX apps?

Well obviously...
If you would use an emulation layer, such as with the complete Wine package, you won't need to recompile your code, because a different environment is simulated. So the application isn't native to the OS it's running on.

However, with MacDX, you simply get a DirectX API library, just like the one on Windows. So you compile your application natively for Mac OS, using the library.
You can also use the DirectX code from the WineX/Cedega/Transgaming project in a similar way. Therefore, Mac games are usually ported to Mac OS, and recompiled, but still using DirectX.

So yes, you NEED to compile your applications for a specific OS in order to get a 'native' application.

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
And besides, I'm pretty sure Modelwork's quote here, "And will remain so until I see directx on linux and Mac." meant that the operating systems themselves (OSX and Linux) support DirectX natively. As of now, they do not.

Well, firstly, he didn't specifically use the word 'native'.
Secondly, by what measure is DirectX 'native' to an OS?
Does it even matter? I mean, OpenGL is pretty much an add-on included in the display driver. And DirectX 10 may be 'native' to Vista, since it is bundled with a standard installation, but DirectX 10.1 and 11 are updates to the OS. So how would that be different from adding MacDX to an OS X installation?

Thirdly, I think the word 'native' is the most overused, hyped, and misunderstood term of the past few years... I still shudder at the thought of AMD's 'native quadcore', and the masses of people that fell for it.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
I wonder.

"Simply compile your product source with your choice of Mac OS development environment, link in the MacDX - now you have your Mac OS version."

If apps have to be compiled, are they actually "native" Linux and OSX apps?

Well obviously...
If you would use an emulation layer, such as with the complete Wine package, you won't need to recompile your code, because a different environment is simulated. So the application isn't native to the OS it's running on.

However, with MacDX, you simply get a DirectX API library, just like the one on Windows. So you compile your application natively for Mac OS, using the library.
You can also use the DirectX code from the WineX/Cedega/Transgaming project in a similar way. Therefore, Mac games are usually ported to Mac OS, and recompiled, but still using DirectX.

So yes, you NEED to compile your applications for a specific OS in order to get a 'native' application.

To me, "native" means something was designed, written, debugged, and packaged for retail sale and operates fully on the intended target operating system. Nothing has to be done to it (emulate, compile etc.) to run natively on a given OS.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
I wonder.

"Simply compile your product source with your choice of Mac OS development environment, link in the MacDX - now you have your Mac OS version."

If apps have to be compiled, are they actually "native" Linux and OSX apps?

Well obviously...
If you would use an emulation layer, such as with the complete Wine package, you won't need to recompile your code, because a different environment is simulated. So the application isn't native to the OS it's running on.

However, with MacDX, you simply get a DirectX API library, just like the one on Windows. So you compile your application natively for Mac OS, using the library.
You can also use the DirectX code from the WineX/Cedega/Transgaming project in a similar way. Therefore, Mac games are usually ported to Mac OS, and recompiled, but still using DirectX.

So yes, you NEED to compile your applications for a specific OS in order to get a 'native' application.

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
And besides, I'm pretty sure Modelwork's quote here, "And will remain so until I see directx on linux and Mac." meant that the operating systems themselves (OSX and Linux) support DirectX natively. As of now, they do not.

Well, firstly, he didn't specifically use the word 'native'.
Secondly, by what measure is DirectX 'native' to an OS?
Does it even matter? I mean, OpenGL is pretty much an add-on included in the display driver. And DirectX 10 may be 'native' to Vista, since it is bundled with a standard installation, but DirectX 10.1 and 11 are updates to the OS. So how would that be different from adding MacDX to an OS X installation?

Thirdly, I think the word 'native' is the most overused, hyped, and misunderstood term of the past few years... I still shudder at the thought of AMD's 'native quadcore', and the masses of people that fell for it.

Yes. Yes he did.

"Why bother when there are native Linux and OSX applications ?"