Which is these Quadro's?

[ulp]

Buying a second quadro, want the best 3ds max viewport performance mainly, and all round performance etc... (Max 2010 / 2011)

 

FX 4800 - £160

Quadro 2000 - £175

 

Or spending £400 on a quadro 4000, obviously kills the other 2 cards and is my preference but I can't aford it.

 

Can a GTX 680 handle heavy scenes like the quadros, viewport performance is critical for me... CPU will handle rendering via Vray.

 

What would you choose... the 2000 or the 4800?

[Dimitris Tolios]

http://www.nvidia.com/content/PDF/product-comparison/Product_comparison_Oct4.pdf

 

This is an older performance comparison, directly by nVidia.

The FX4800 was a higher-end model - the 4000 equivalent, with the 2000 succeeding the FX1800.

The Fermi architecture in the 2000, allows it to beat the FX4800 on pretty much anything other than the 2009 maya benchmark included in Specviewperf 11.

 

I don't know of any current 3DS benchmark comparing the two, will look into it.

Edited January 21, 2013 by dtolios

[ulp]

Cheers...

 

It out performs it by quite a way! 51.97 to 19.18

 

Maya and Max are similar... Max 09 is similar to 2010, should I overlook this and still go with a 2000?

 

Just wish I could afford a 4000 and it would solved all my problem.

[Dimitris Tolios]

Meh...a card rarely solves all your problems

I think the 2000 is an ok card. Already pricey in my opinion @ retail, but you do get most of the benefits of viewport acceleration.

If budget is tight, you could always seek a used card too...a Quadro 4000 could be found for around the price of a new 2000.

Ebay guarantees your money back, but tbh I never had an issue choosing reputed (near perfect feedback) ebay sellers.

[Francisco Penaloza]

Maya and Max are similar

Max video performance is base in Direct X and the new Nitrus coding, Maya video performance is base on Open GL, more consistent, better performance.

 

I did try the Quadro 2000 for a few days, very poor performance for the price, I compared with a GTX 460 and they perform exactly the same, only in a few very heavy CAD drawings imported in max view port, the Quadro 2000 works a little better, but again not that much for what you pay. I returned and saved money until I bough the Quadro 4000.

With all this I have tested the Quadro 4000 agains a GTX 580, for most of the stuff they perform almost similar, again in a scene with tons of line work imported from CAD, the Quadros move around better, in shade more there is almost no difference.

My opinion, get a decent GTX card for now, something that won't kill your pocket, and save money for the Quadro 4000 or 5000, then is money well spend, nowadays GTX card works as good as low or middle ground Quadros.

[ulp]

[Dimitris Tolios]

 

Well...yes...

And imagine that he is comparing a last generation Fermi GTX 560ti card, with a 64bit RAM GT 3xx level card -> with Quadro BIOS and drivers ofc.

In many of the textured viewports, the difference would be smaller as I know that cards with less than 1.5GB do max out often in Specviewperf 11 (average mem usage with my GTX 670 4GB under 310.9 drivers is around 800-850MB and max reported is around 1350MB, as monitored by CPU-Z while multiple runs of Specviewperf 11). I assume a Quadro 600, being a Fermi card with 1GB 128bit mem, would keep up in heavier texture loads with the GTX, and by average embarrass it.

 

Keep in mind that relative performance with gaming cards is kinda increased in the last 2 versions of 3DS Max and Maya, as they do adapt their engines towards more "game like" engines, but the drivers are still relatively castrated.