FireGL V8650 Vs. NVIDIA QuadroFX 5600 Review

[First of One]

The hardware probably don't mean much unless you are a workstation user. I
just read the article for the pictures. Nothing quite like two massive video
cards that don't require a kickstand... ATi even went as far as putting a
gusset in the heatsink plate, making it a semi-stressed structural member.

http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/Ultra_HighEnd_Workstation_Graphics_Card_Shootout/

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* First of One:

The hardware probably don't mean much unless you are a workstation user. I
just read the article for the pictures. Nothing quite like two massive video
cards that don't require a kickstand... ATi even went as far as putting a
gusset in the heatsink plate, making it a semi-stressed structural member.

http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/Ultra_HighEnd_Workstation_Graphics_Card_Shootout/

Thanks for the link. Having upgraded from Quadro FX 4600 to the Quadro
FX 5600 recently I found that a very interesting read. IMHO they should
have used a dual processor system as a single CPU system probably can't
bring any of these GPUs to their limits.

Benjamin

 

[RF]

* First of One:

Thanks for the link. Having upgraded from Quadro FX 4600 to the Quadro FX
5600 recently I found that a very interesting read. IMHO they should have
used a dual processor system as a single CPU system probably can't bring
any of these GPUs to their limits.

Benjamin

There was a quad core CPU in their test bed. I think all of the programs
they used to test are multi-core/processor aware, so if a quad-core
processor can't remove any sort of CPU limitations from the equation, I
don't think adding a second processor would.

RF.

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* RF:

There was a quad core CPU in their test bed. I think all of the programs
they used to test are multi-core/processor aware, so if a quad-core
processor can't remove any sort of CPU limitations from the equation, I
don't think adding a second processor would.

No matter how much cores you have a single CPU system (at least if it
uses intel processors) *always* is limited by the bus system (FSB). A
dual processor system has two independent FSBs, raising the FSB
bottleneck by a a noticeable amount.

I'd always take a dual dual-core system over a single quad-core system.

Benjamin

 

[RF]

* RF:


No matter how much cores you have a single CPU system (at least if it uses
intel processors) *always* is limited by the bus system (FSB). A dual
processor system has two independent FSBs, raising the FSB bottleneck by a
a noticeable amount.

I'd always take a dual dual-core system over a single quad-core system.

Benjamin

Ah yes, that's true. I hadn't thought of that. Be interested to see a
benchmark between the two systems. Would there actually be enough data
going through the FSB to saturate it?

RF.

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* RF:

Ah yes, that's true. I hadn't thought of that. Be interested to see a
benchmark between the two systems.

I can't remember any benchmarks on the web but at work we did several
application benchmarks between dual dual-core systems and single
quad-core systems. The dual dual-core system always performed better,
sometimes just a tad (<5%, so barely measureable and not noticeable),
often very noticeably (>20%).

Would there actually be enough data
going through the FSB to saturate it?

With two FSB1333 processors, yes. Definitely.

But even with a single CPU system the test is very interesting and shows
that (unlike for games) in the professional market there simply is not
the fastest gfx card for all purposes. ATI/AMD for example always was
strong in Maya, and if you do Maya you'd be stupid to spend the money
for a Quadro FX 5600 when a much cheaper FireGL brings you more
performance. I don't use Maya so I'm better of with the Quadro.

Benjamin