Jump to content

GeForce GTX Titan Vs. Quadro 6000


Recommended Posts

I've been looking at these two cards, there's a massive difference in price and after looking at the specks it looks like the cheaper Titan is a much better deal. Can someone confirm the Titan is better than the 6000 in virtually every way and is 1/3 the price?

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121724

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133347&Tpk=quadro%206000&IsVirtualParent=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first thing I would note about the two is that the titan is considered a gaming-class gpu, and the quadro is a professional-class gpu. Although nvidia may have changed things around a bit in the last couple years, the only difference between the two classes of GPU's was the driver. Back before the GTX 300 series came out, you used to be able to "hack" nvidia's gaming gpus to use the professional drivers (which were obtainable online).. so you'd essentially get the professional card for a third of the price. Unfortunately, nvidia caught onto this and that's no longer the case.

 

Sorry for that bit of a tangent; I guess the point I'm getting at is that the biggest difference between the gaming and pro cards is that the drivers are optimized differently to better accommodate the card's intended application. The specs of the gaming card may seem better on paper than the pro card, but that doesn't necessarily mean it'll perform as good / better.

 

I wish I had experience with either of those cards to be able to give you some actual numbers to help with your decision; maybe try seeing if tomshardware has any benchmark tests?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the eternal question and we as stubborn as we are still trying to get a better deal for less money, nothing wrong with that I am always for pay less but as Alexander mentioned the big difference is in the drivers and internal architecture, that will make any high end Quadro perform better in a CAD or 3D application when they are required, also the components of Quadros are meant to last longer (so they say) and the power consumption is less, low heat also.

Yes gaming card will perform better on real time applications and render faster in with GPU software, but they will use way more energy and generate more heat and at the end heat mean lower life spam, although for the price that you pay it may be worth spend a few hundred from time to time.

I have tested different Quadros and GTX and is always the same result, on 3d MAX in polygon heavy scene, Quadro will perform better, in CAD software, hundred of lines will spin faster with Quadros. Now Sometimes the price difference will make worth that small slow performance but if you are all about performance, you need to pay the price.

As long NVidia make the trick of locked drivers this will repeat with every new release if not there is not business for them right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why even consider the Quadro 6000? Cause it has massive VRam that you probably won't use anywhere?

A Quadro K5000 will offer you all the benefits of a "very fast" Quadro, decent buffer that probably be less of a bottleneck than any software package itself, and ofc increased performance over both the Quadro 5000 and ANY GTX in viewport....

 

Also the price difference is much more subtle.

 

The a GK110 based Quadro would be great(er) - yet probably there is not need for it.

 

The GTX Titan itself has nothing to offer over any other GTX outside gaming and GPU accelerated rendering.

It was and it is still in the drivers. The Titan cannot work any "raw performance magic", just like no other GTX can due to the "gaming drivers" holding them back.

 

Personally I would expect even the K2000 would rape the Titan in almost everything where it matters, and probably the K600 would match it.

More money doesn't mean all around better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have two Titans here and ever worked with Gaming-GPUs. I never had one failed.

 

It is quite easy:

If you need advanced support, and double precision calculation plus error checked vram then go with a Quadro.

 

Otherwise gaming-gpus will be your choise. I do a lot of long rendering with GPU and never had a hardware fail. And even if I had there are things like warranty and you could get a new card overnight making "advanced" support from Nvidia obsolete.

Also the Titan chip is based on K110 but with 14 instead of 15 clusters activated. Basically Nvidia used the "good" chips for the pro-series and farms. And the ones with a faulty on for Titan. Other vendors doing the same to maximize revenue. Like Intel, if a core or two didn't make it through QA they are used as a quadcore or something like that.

 

Display performance in 3dsmax is very fast with a gaming gpu too since Nitrous. While back in Max2010 a Quadro really gave you lots of viewport speed but this changed. I work with DWG plans, multi-million tris meshes and many materials. All fine and smooth using Nitrous.

 

Last thing: You get a great gaming-rig using gaming-gpus. ;) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking to replace the Quadro 6000 I've already got, my expectations for this card were very high when I got it and I've been consistently let down. I understand the need for good drivers, to this day I still have to use the Direct 3D display drivers in Max because Nitrous performance is so bad. I want to replace it with something better but there isn't anything better in Nvidia's lineup, I've always used Quadro's but it sounds like Michael has had good experience with the GeForce cards. Speck wise the Titan is superior to the 6000 in every way, I can't imagine the performance would be worse but that all depends on drivers so I'm not sure what to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I wanted to post this therad but I find this one :)

quadro cards are going on my nerves... the only thing they are good at is viewport... if you want gpu render GTX is faster, if you want realtime render againg GTX is faster, so why do you need quality viewport when you have milions of proxyes of grass in your scene and they are like small boxes or cross, dots, whatever, when you can use lets say vray active shade and see whole scene? I was hooked to quadro, but my logic doesnt give me space to buy it, numbers dont lie, I am going all way for GTX, my next one is TITAN!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I'm a Maya user, and made such a bad graphics card choice about 3 years ago (not even worth the mention), It's upgrade time again and worried that I won't get the performance on a Titan for viewport as on a Quadro, my main focus is dynamic simulation, nHair and particles. My Maya viewport is very slow, I don't/can't do GPU rendering as the only real GPU renderer for Maya is furryball which I don't have, so I rely on Mental Ray. If I remember, Vray's RT GPU rendering is only supported on Max. Does anyone own a Titan here and uses Maya?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit I did not rig my SPECapc for Maya to v2014 yet, as I have some family issues that keep me away from personal projects.

But as far as Maya 2012 viewport performance goes, the Titan is as unimpressive as any other GTX before it...

 

http://pcfoo.com/specapc-maya-2012-gpu-scores/

 

I own a Titan, but mostly as a GPGPU tool and ofc games.

If you have to have a GK110 card, the new price drops make 780s a decent deal. Used 780s an even better one, but don't expect wonders.

Edited by dtolios
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Dimitris, I guess something then like the PNY QFX4000 2GB nVidia Quadro 4000 would be sufficient for a good Maya viewport?

It is the fastest card I've worked with for OpenGL, yes.

K2000 comes close and is far more power efficient and cooler though, and K4000 should easily outperform it - again, being less demanding in power, having a bit more memory, but requiring to drop some cash that few users will see a return of investment from.

 

Quadro 4000s are still relevant, especially if you can find them in good prices - either used, or new through retailers that prefer pushing their stock instead of hanging on irrelevant prices.

 

i.e. I would probably get a new Quadro 4000, only if it was in the price range of the K2000 or less, otherwise I would go for used.

Edited by dtolios
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen those charts, but honestly, who uses Maya in OpenGl now when Viewport 2.0 in DX11 is there since they rebuilt the whole app in qT (2013+?) It's true that Quadro might still give great performance, but I have problem with suggesting it on base of OpenGl tests in outdated version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
the ignorance in this thread kills me. You guys seriously work with tech and think the only difference between a professional workstation card and a gaming gpu is the drivers? uggh /facepalm

 

LOL your first post here, did you create account just for that :D Your ignorance is killing us here it is

http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/hacking-nvidia-cards-into-their-professional-counterparts/

So now go facepalm/kill yourself :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...