Quadro FX 4800 Hardware Details
Attentive readers probably know already that there's little difference between the graphics processors you find in workstation graphics cards versus what you'll find in consumer graphics cards for gaming, especially in the high-end segment. The major differences that separate these two hardware categories come from their drivers and the level of technical support offered.
When it comes to the Quadro FX 4800, in fact, there really is no completely comparable mainstream equivalent model. We picked the GeForce GTX 260 and the GTX 280 as our points of comparison, simply because the Quadro FX 4800 falls somewhere in between these two models.
The GPU Nvidia chose for this product is the GT200 D10U-20, built using 65 nanometer technology. With 1.4 billion transistors, this is one of the biggest and densest chips around. It also includes 192 parallel, CUDA-capable stream processors, just like the GTX 260 offers.
When it comes to graphics memory, however, Nvidia decided to up the ante for this card. With 1,536 MB of GDDR3 on-board, this card includes 512 MB more than the GTX 280 does. The board's memory ICs communicate across a 384-bit-wide memory interface. In contrast, Nvidia set clock rates for shaders and memory somewhat lower than the GTX 280, although core clock rates for both devices are exactly the same. Nvidia explains these conservative settings with a longer warranty period for the Quadro models as compared to the GeForce cards. Expect better stability from the Quadros as well, for much the same reason.
You can also see some visible differences in the various connectors that adorn these cards' double-wide slots: DVI, stereo, and DisplayPort connectors. This newer graphics interface delivers higher video bandwidth than comparable DVI-D interfaces, and supports higher resolutions and greater color depths (so-called 30-bit "Deep Color" with more than one billion colors and 10-bit grayscale rendering). At five meters (16.4 feet), maximum DisplayPort cable length also exceeds that of real-world DVI. Nevertheless, the number of monitors with DisplayPort connectors remains meager, as this list of all the qualified items we could identify shows:
- HP DreamColor LP2480zx
- HP LP2275w
- Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP
- Dell UltraSharp 2709W
- Dell UltraSharp 3008WFP
- Eizo FlexScan S2432W-H
- Eizo CG242W
In addition, we view a hurried move to DisplayPort with some skepticism. The old analog VGA connector still shows up on many graphics cards. DVI is the most common standard now, with HDMI coming on strong. There's a very good reason for this phenomenon: HDMI combines video and audio signals on a single cable, while typical DisplayPort mini-adapters deliver only video (the DisplayPort specification offers optional support for audio, but is seldom implemented). Furthermore, HDMI and DVI are both based on a common use of the TMDS signaling protocol, which explains why crossover adapters are both cheap and readily available. On the other hand, signaling protocols between DVI and DisplayPort are completely different. This makes adapter solutions expensive, because they require the use of active switching electronics for conversion. There is one upside to DisplayPort, however: its use requires no special licensing from the entertainment industry (primarily, the Motion Picture Association of America), which is not the case with HDMI.
Throughout our tests of the Quadro FX 4800, we were struck by its relatively low noise output and quiet operation. Its active cooling integrates fans, heatpipes, and radiators more effectively than older Nvidia models do. Nvidia rates the maximum power consumption of the Quadro FX 4800 at 146 W. We measured its power draw in a complete workstation system at idle and under heavy load. We were able to confirm our suspicions that the ATI FirePro 8700 generally draws more power. This was amply confirmed by the ATI card's requirement of a six-pin power connector, while the Nvidia card draws all its power from the PCI Express (PCIe) bus.
Complete System Power Draw | Nvidia Quadro FX 4800 | ATI FirePro V8700 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
Idle | 160 W | 202 W | 42 W |
Heavy Load | 320 W | 332 W | 12 W |
At idle, the Quadro FX consumes 42 W less than the FirePro V8700 does. At heavy load, however, the difference drops dramatically to 12 W. Smaller fab technology isn't the only factor involved here. In fact, the V8700 uses a 55 nm technology (the FX 4800 uses 65 nm), but this doesn't seem to work in the V8700's favor.
And you can SLI them as well - saw Creative Suite CS4 run with 2 Quadro CXs at an event last year and it was sick
How does the performance differ in applications like Flight Simulator X, does the Quadro have better performance ?
leqiscatton, Flight Simulator X is a GAME that is meant to be played on GeForces and Radeons, not Quadros and FireGLs. If you want to but a Quadro/FireGL for playing games, you are wasting money...
Deary me, the number of people who post before they even read the article is just awful....
To make a blanket statement that gaming cards can and should not be used for workstation applications is pure nonsense, pretty typical of a reviewer who does not use these applications on a daily basis methinks.
More and more applications are using DirectX as their main graphics API, yes Quadros will out preform GeForce cards using OpenGL (that is what they have been histiruically designbed to do) but DirectX performnce is another story. For 3DS Max, Autodesk Inventor, AutoCAD users to name a few, there is no compelling reason to spend big bucks on a Quadro
To make a blanket statement that gaming cards can and should not be used for workstation applications is pure nonsense, pretty typical of a reviewer who does not use these applications on a daily basis methinks.
More and more applications are using DirectX as their main graphics API, yes Quadros will out preform GeForce cards using OpenGL (that is what they have been histiruically designbed to do) but DirectX performnce is another story. For 3DS Max, Autodesk Inventor, AutoCAD users to name a few, there is no compelling reason to spend big bucks on a Quadro
I totally agree with the above statement, The other comments about not being able to use the same drivers are also untrue, there are a few very simple applications to hack drivers to allow all the features of a Quadro to run on the equivalent Geforce.
The entire review sounded like it was paid and edited for by Nvidia.
I work with Maya, Modo, Zbrush and Mudbox on a daily basis as part of my work and i also have trial versions at home for testing, and there is no practicle difference between the gaming card and the workstation. And most notably you dont need the Quadro driver hack, using normal Geforce drivers are plenty quick enough.
There are occasionally the odd driver issue when using games orientated drivers but these are normaly fixed with newer versions or going back a driver version.
It would be nice, when reviewing workstation graphics cards if you could post images of whats being rendered. As these cards handle totaly different depending on circumstance and type of render irrelevant to whether they are gaming or workstation cards.
I always wanted to know what these workstation class cards are good for. I build custom PCs and one of my friends wanted a workstation for 3Ds Max. I installed a high-end gaming card, a Raid0, 8GB RAM, XP x64. From what I have gathered, 3Ds Max is optimized for DirectX rather than OpenGL. And rendering is done 100% on the cpu anyways. So what is it for? My friend says he has no performance issues while modelling large objects with many polygons and textures applied. What do those benchmark tests measure then? Time how fast a model is displayed? Do those workstation cards help rendering the finale image? (I think not) Who has a final answer to that?
Do they accellerate V-Ray rendertime in 3Ds Max? AFAIK this is done in CPU. Viewport? Think this is GPU intensive, but in 3Ds Max optimized for DirectX, i.e. a gamer card is probably even faster?
Some really high-end CAD and FEA software like Unigraphics etc. use OpenGL exclusively. They are typically used by companies in the aeronautical, automotive and oil and gas services sectors.
You can run still them on non open_gl optimised drivers but they are incredibly flaky and performance is a joke.
3Ds Max while a powerful 3d design tool is closer to being a consumer level tool when compared against some of the bigger Product Lifecycle Management suites used in those industries.
Like the reviewer mentioned the drivers are written and optimised specifically around these applications and the application writers specify which version of the driver is supported and ratified stable.
This gives companies the peace of mind that their expensive CAD users are not going to lose 3 days work on a huge assembly because of a driver crashing.
Some of the models used in these apps are nothing short of huge. In the company I work for it can take over an 30 mins to check out and load a complex assembly and that's with best of breed PLM solution, great network architecture and extremely fast twin xeon workstations.
Decent review I thought.
Ed.
My points were related to the fact that the reviewer dimisses gaming cards for workstation use, the Quadro-GeForce comparison is based on the Spec Viewperf10 benchmark which is an archaic OpenGL benchmark, hence this review only gives half the story... especially when most of the banchmarked applications that are considered in the review are 'consumer' level appplications which run fine under DirectX on a gaming card.
I totally agree that Workstation class cards are the only option for some high end CAD/PLM products that *still* run exclusively under OpenGL. After all you would not like to think the Airbus you just strapped yourelf into, was designed by some Catia monkey using a £200 GeForce card now would you?
Do they accellerate V-Ray rendertime in 3Ds Max? AFAIK this is done in CPU. Viewport? Think this is GPU intensive, but in 3Ds Max optimized for DirectX, i.e. a gamer card is probably even faster?
No the only GPU acclerated rendering system at the moment is nVidias 'Gelato' which is frankly pants. I'm still waiting for Autodesk to get their head out of thei rears and launch a GPU rendering solution.
If there's little that seperates a worstation card and a commercial card, from a hardware perspective, then it's clear it's not the hardware that's holding the commerical side back..
01, 02, 03, 04??? What the heck is this? we live in 09, Come on get with the latest software, I don't wan't to know how fast software was 5+ years ago... it might as well be 50 years in computer years... totally useless.
There is a fundamental difference in how gaming and workstation class cards handle graphics. Gaming cards are optimised for speed at the expense of accuracy whilst workstation cards are optimised for accuracy. If you run a complicated 3d model in something like Autocad or 3D studio on both types of cards at the same time, you would likely find the workstation card to produce solid, accurate images whilst the gaming card will have numerous artifacts and glitches.
How much of this is down to physical architecture rather than drivers is another matter. (It would be interesting to see a comparison of games/applications on high-end gaming & workstation cards with original and hacked drivers (gaming to workstation, etc).