Where does 3dLabs Oxygen line fit in professional graphics.

[Jaylllo]

 

[ctk1981]

Im wondering the same thing. Im getting ready to slap together a dual processor machine for multimedia/cad and was wondering which was better. FireGL 8700/8800 or the 3DLabs Oxygen line of cards. Seen ENPC has the Oxygen GVX420 for 228 (not in stock yet). Hmm..come to think about it, not to many people have the cards in stock at all.

From what little Ive been able to gather, the 3Dlabs card have better dual processor optimization than the FireGL line. They have sligthly better drivers also? However the FireGL line also has DirectX capabilities where the 3Dlabs i think is strictly OpenGL? At anyrate, hopefully someone more knowledgeable will drop by and fill us in.

Input Input please!

 

[Jaylllo]

Lol, I accidentally posted this 2x.


I was wondering how the Wildcat 6ks compare to the New Wildcat VP

Basically Im seaching for a comprehensive workstation video card review.


Kinda like Toms Hardwares Video card comparison (from TNTs to Geforce 4s I think).

 

[Rand]

The 3DLabs Oxygen line is pretty much dead and buried, their out-dated and easily outperformed in most respects by any modern solution from ATi/nVidia or 3DLabs.
The Oxygen line almost dates back to the days when Evans & Sutherland was still big in the Pro3D market and 3DLabs was taking the Permedia into the mainstream.


Fantastic boards in their time- but their now out-dated and relatively slow.

Great drivers, and they handle multiple light sources very efficiently in hardware so they half some uses still... and up until recently they were the only way to get a true Pro3D board with halfway decent polygonal throughput at a "mainstream" price so they survived long past their intended life-span.

Basically Im seaching for a comprehensive workstation video card review.

Good luck.
The best recent reviews I've seen are the following....
WildCat VP at THG

FireGL 8X00 vs. Quadro4 XGL at THG

FireGL 8X00 vs. Quadro 3 XGL vs. WildCat III


Unfortunately every one of them leaves a LOT to be desired.
They all heavily stress Spec ViewPerf synthetic subtests, it's not exctly unknown that Spec ViewPerf tends to equate poorly to real world application performance however.... even the subtests drawn from the actual applications don't reflect very well upon the real applications performance.
They've totalled wireframe, shading, texture + shading, and shading + vertex coloring results together, and give us little indication of relative performance in each individual field. They make little differentiation between tests that use smooth or flat gourad shading versus those that use more complicated forms of shading such as smooth blinn shading or phong shading.
Few if any comments on rendering quality or sub-pixel accuracy issues.

In some areas they go so far as to completely ignore entire market segments rendering needs as though they don't exist.
Anyone that's read my previous posts can tell that I don't exactly have a very high opinion of the so-called reviews done by the mainstream tech sites.
Even AcesHardware, a site that I have nothing but positive things to say of left us with a severely lacking review...
NOT one of Johan De Gelas (the author of the piece) best articles at all.


In real world application performance the FireGL 8800 tends to compare very well to the Quadro 4 900XGL in most applications in my experience. Both boards have certain areas in which they have a clear advantage however. I wouldnt say either is truly a significant advantage better then the other overall.


FireGL 8XXX does well in complex shading tests, and performs extremely well in rendering 5+ light sources, as a result it performs very well in 3D-animation apps and holds its own in most CAD tests.
It's weak in both raw fillrate and basic texturing, and wireframe performance leaves a lot to be desired. Sub-pixel accuracy is a definite issue compared to the Q4/3DLabs but it's price/performance ratio is incredible with the FireGL 8800 under $300 and the FireGL 8700 even cheaper.


The Quadro4 series lacks a bit in pure polygon throughput, but otherwise holds up well. It's sub-pixel accuracy is also a string point in it's price range, comparing well with 3DLabs high end WildCat III series.
It's texturing fillrate is extremely impressive and is bar none the best cards available if you want textured previews of 3D scenes in a window, this fact has always made the Quadro4 a popular board for 3DSM due to it's easily coping with rendering textured scenes in real time in a window, while allowing the artist to continue adjusting the scene in the main application view area.
The traditional flaw with the Quadro series has been driver support, and relatively lagging period of time before attaining ISV certified drivers.
Rendering issues with smooth blinn shading, and poorly optimized rendering of multiple light sources hurts it also.

The recently released WildCat VP has to huge weaknesses to speak-of. It generally outperforms both the competing FireGL 8X00, and Quadro 4 boards by a small degree in almost every area.
And 3DLabs traditionally fantastic driver support, and market clout has pushed them to into a strong position.
There isnt much to say beyond that they do everything well, but nothing outstanding.

The WildCat III is basically the king of the Pro3D rendering market, and they virtually own the entire high end Pro 3D market. Performance is outstanding, and it does well regardless of your needs. Wire-frame, shaded, or light or complex texturing, single or multiple-light sources. Unmatched image quality, and rendering accuracy, along with an AA implementation that has drawn no shortage of accolades from software developers.

It's based on an architecture that is bound to age poorly however, and is severely lacking in features. You also pay a huge pric-premium for a product that doesnt exactly blow away cheaper alternatives.
It's the best- but at a hefty premium and can't keep up with advancing rendering features needed in software.

From what little Ive been able to gather, the 3Dlabs card have better dual processor optimization than the FireGL line. They have sligthly better drivers also?

If not for it's relatively poor multiprocessor optimizations, high processor utilization and slight underperformance on low end processors I would say FireGL is solidly better then 3DLabs. Those small few weaknesses mean 3DLabs get the nod however at least IMHO.

nVidia's relatives little experience in the Pro3D market has hurt their driver support, as has the comparatively troublesome ISV certification issues.
They initially relied heavily upon Elsa's developers for assistance with the first Quadro drivers, and while they've since acquired many of those developers after Elsa's financial troubles they still havent proven they can match the quality offered by FireGL or 3DLabs.

Unfortunately for nVidia their excellent reputation for consumer drivers hasnt translated well into the Pro3D market, and with little history in the Pro 3D industry they've seen mild issues becoming accepted in a conservative industry.

However the FireGL line also has DirectX capabilities where the 3Dlabs i think is strictly OpenGL?

3DLabs now fully supports DirectX..... though support is still a bit weak with the WildCat III. Neddless to say, 3DLabs drives the development of OpenGL and as such their almost always a bit ahead of the game in that respect. Older 3DLabs products that are no longer manufactured only have very basic DirectX support however.

FireGL has solid DirectX support, but it's not comparable to the driver team that works with the regular Radeon series.

nVidia's set on one driver team for Quadro development now, and past experience in the mainstream has lead to stellar DirectX support that is still clearly better then FireGL (ATi)/3DLabs alternatives.

 

[Jaylllo]

WHOA, thank you Rand for the insights.


I haven't found any review site which does a lot of workstation reviews (and usage).



I think I'll probably upgrade my aging i840 system first then get a new video card.


Thanks again.