Gaming Versus Workstation Performance : Radeon HD 4870 Versus FirePro V8700
After our latest round of OpenGL workstation articles, we received numerous questions about why we didn't include a gaming series in our testing. It seems that not all of our readers were ready to accept our claims that gaming cards run more slowly than workstation graphics cards, especially where professional applications are concerned. That's why we include a comparison with hard numbers instead of vague generalizations in this story.
| Performance Comparison: Viewperf 10 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Graphics adapter | Radeon HD 4870 | FirePro V8700 |
| Chip | RV770 | RV770 |
| Memory bus | 1024 MHz | 1024 MHz |
| Core Takt | 750 MHz | 750 MHz |
| Memory clock | 900 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Driver | Catalyst 9.1 | FirePro 8.543 |
| 3dsmax-04 (3D Studio Max) | 23.35 | 44.23 |
| Catia-02 | 17.9 | 44.95 |
| Ensight-03 | 27.58 | 46.96 |
| Maya-02 | 40.12 | 240.2 |
| Proe-04 (Pro/Engineer) | 13.82 | 45.39 |
| SW-01 (Solidworks) | 30.75 | 103.33 |
| Tcvis-01 (UGS Teamcenter Visualization) | 8.15 | 37.78 |
| Ugnx-01 (UGS NX) | 16.64 | 56.93 |
As you can clearly see, the ATI driver programmers have done an amazing job. The two models' hardware is 99% identical, and yet the FirePro adapter completely outclasses the cheaper Radeon gaming card. The most extreme case in point is Maya, where the FirePro V8700 is six times faster than the Radeon HD 4870.
We also decided to investigate if there were visible differences in picture quality between the two models. On a basic Windows desktop we discovered no discrepancies, but as soon as you load a professional graphics application such as Maya or 3ds Max and import a complex 3D model, things change completely. When using the Radeon, you simply have to accept that wire frames will peek out of shaded surfaces all over the place, and that significant clipping occurs as numerous objects are viewed or animated. These phenomena simply don't occur when using the FirePro. Bottom line: those who seek to be frugal with expensive workstation applications should not fall prey to false economies.
Here is something I've always wondered. How does a workstation graphics card handle everyday gaming?
I imagine that its much more effective to purchase multiple gaming GPU's for preformance, but I still wonder.
Om another question, can you load the FirePro drivers for the Radeon, and if so how does it perform with workstation graphics then ??
Having given up on racing for the latest and greatest card for gaming a couple of years ago due to many disappointments and a firm conspiracy theory that game manufacturers are in cohoots with the graphics card industry in order to extract as much cash as they can out of the gaming populace, I’m no surprised to read now that Gaming cards are inferior to professional workstation cards.
However, I do also remember reading somewhere, also a couple of years ago that workstation cards could not handle game graphics!
Why doesn’t somebody just create a decent all round card instead of all this smoke and mirrors?
Firstly, thank you very much for finally putting some hard figures to the difference between the Pro and gaming cards - very interesting. Are these improvements also seen in more specialist and less common application (for example I use EASE acoustic simulation software for work) or are the massive performance gains only for applications where targeted optimisation has occured?
Secondly, I also would be really interested to know how these Pro cards handle gaming.
Guys, the reason for the discrepancies between the mainstream and enterprise adaptors is DRIVERS. Not because a HD4870 (which incidentally is a quarter of the price) is magically "more shit" than the FirePro. And to answer the other query; The FirePro may very well SUCK at gaming. Why? Re-read first sentence. The FirePro drivers are specifically optimised for their intended purpose, and there would be no or minimal attempt to maintain compatibility with, much less optimise performance for, any gaming. It might work, it might work great, it might not, it might not work at all; the driver programmers don't really care as its just not their job.
You only pay extra for the Driver enhancements, there is very little difference between the gaming and workstation cards. Both nVidia and Ati handicap the gaming/desktop drivers so that they can sell the Workstation card at a higher price.
Just goes to show how much performance is being kept from consumers, you spend and spend and all you get is a purposely crippled hardware. Makes you wonder why they even bothering making new cards when they don't even give the full speed of the existing cards.
Therefore would it be possible to flash a HD4870 with the firmware from a FirePro V8700 since it is possible to do so for say a Nvidia 8800GTX too a 8800Ultra (all that changes are the frequencies it tries to run at and its product identity). Therefore the drivers could be fooled into thinking its a pro card
.
Anybody with a HD4870 they are prepared to loose?... (should be fixable if it doesnt work)
Therefore would it be possible to flash a HD4870 with the firmware from a FirePro V8700 since it is possible to do so for say a Nvidia 8800GTX too a 8800Ultra (all that changes are the frequencies it tries to run at and its product identity). Therefore the drivers could be fooled into thinking its a pro card
.
Anybody with a HD4870 they are prepared to loose?... (should be fixable if it doesnt work)
Why do people keep on comparing the "Workstation" to the "Gaming" cards?
How about calling them by their *real* names, the cards with proper OpenGL support, and the cards with just DirectX/3D support...
The *real* pity in all of this is that some games and applications actually use OpenGL so that they can be cross platform, and then get nerfed by ATI/nVidia's drivers (or to be correct, lack of correct OpenGL drivers) for the "Gaming" cards.