PDA

View Full Version : Quadro vs Geforce explained...


Ckerr812
07-22-2005, 07:09 PM
I found this link that explains a lot about why quadro should be used instead of a geforce card for DCC applications. It actually explains hardware overlay, and windowed acceleration with multiple screens and windows open vs full screen acceleration. It even touches on the Geforce hacks to Quadro (all be it hardware), notice it dosen't mention software hacks ...hmmm...

Thought it would help a lot of the people here:

http://www.leadtek.com.tw/eng/support/faq.asp?faqlineid=44

lots
07-22-2005, 07:55 PM
The real test would be to put the two side by side (Modded Geforce vs real Quadro). Then we can see the differences insted of just "hearing" about them :)

I'm sure Leadtek is somewhat bias though. I believe they produce a range of Quadros. Indeed the quadro does have some hardware functions that the Geforce does not, but alot of differences are also apaprent in the drivers. While a modded geforce is not the ideal, it is a better bang for your buck than a Quadro 4400 :)

imashination
07-22-2005, 10:32 PM
Half of that article is out of date and the other half is simply wrong. It talks about hardware overlay planes etc, all of these features have been standard in the geforce cards for several years now. Plus theres the fact that this info is from a manufacturer that wants to sell you the expensive quadros.... Show us some unbiased, true and up to date info maybe?

Ckerr812
07-23-2005, 01:02 AM
The article from LeadTek is from 2005 and is very reputable.

lots
07-23-2005, 02:27 AM
Give us evidence that the hardware differences in the Geforce and Quadro lines produces anything significant.

enygma
07-23-2005, 02:33 AM
If you have any examples of benchmarks I should run, I can compare a Quadro FX 3400 to any of these cards: (all PCI Express)

GeForce 6600
GeForce 6600 GT
GeForce 6800 Ultra

I have benchmarks that use SPEC Viewperf 8 that compares the 6800 Ultra to the Quadro FX 3400. Not real world, but the closest I got to comparing workstation performance between the 2.

http://homepage.mac.com/cheier/.movies/SPEC-Mark.jpg

These were done on my dual Opteron system.

EDIT: I just remembered that the 6600GT isn't PCI express. I had purchased them for 2 workstations in the office that ran the Via K8T800 chipset, so they were still on AGP 8x. The 6600 and the 6800 Ultra are PCI Express though.

lots
07-23-2005, 05:57 AM
Is this with normal Geforce drivers or running the Geforce with either a hardware or software mod and the Quadro drivers?

enygma
07-23-2005, 06:08 AM
The same driver version was used with both cards. No software mods involved.

The comparisons were done using an eVGA GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB and a PNY Quadro FX 3400 256MB. Both PCI Express, both in the same machine. I actually pushed better results with the Quadro FX in Linux than Windows.

imashination
07-23-2005, 10:16 AM
SPEC are paid by nvidia and friends. Some framerates from actual scene files measured in the app is what I'd like to see. We never see these tests on hardware sites because nvidia would refuse to ever send them another piece of hardware if they did.

iambic
07-23-2005, 11:10 AM
SPEC are paid by nvidia and friends. Some framerates from actual scene files measured in the app is what I'd like to see. We never see these tests on hardware sites because nvidia would refuse to ever send them another piece of hardware if they did.

Some people just don't like being convinced....the guy gives decent evidence and you shrug it off by saying that spec are paid by nvidia!...you've seen copy of these transactions I take it?...and yah gonna post em?....or are they just wild fanciful accusations lacking any merit whatsoever, that glide so effortlessly off your keyboard.

enygma
07-23-2005, 03:56 PM
Thems the scores I got. If I have time, I'll run SPECapc for Maya 6... on Maya 6.5 and see if I can get a successful benchmark and results. That benchmark uses a MEL script to run its benchmarking, so it is as close to a real world benchmark you can get.

imashination
07-23-2005, 04:34 PM
Some people just don't like being convinced....the guy gives decent evidence and you shrug it off by saying that spec are paid by nvidia!...you've seen copy of these transactions I take it?...and yah gonna post em?....or are they just wild fanciful accusations lacking any merit whatsoever, that glide so effortlessly off your keyboard.

Nvidia and ati are listed as paying members on their website:
http://www.spec.org/spec/membership.html
A mere five seconds of using google would have shown you that. I'll just assume that such a difficult task of doing some actual research is above you though.

Oh, and the reason I slate it immediately is because ckerr pops his head up once a month to give some poor person utterly terrible advice which he bases entirely off reading the marketting junk on various websites. He's the kind of person that recommends intel chips by providing some intel sponsored benchmarks on a pro-intel website, then wonders why everyone puts him on their ignore list.

Ckerr812
07-23-2005, 05:31 PM
Poor imashination, the typical know it all who gets mad when he is wrong.

We have all seen it, those are the types that usally aren't good to work with.

Read the charter at spec, you will learn that Spec members have no control over the benchmarks, besides one vote as stated in article 2. http://www.spec.org/spec/docs/spec_bylaws.txt

So spec benchmarks are perfectly valid and trustworthy.

lots
07-23-2005, 05:46 PM
The same driver version was used with both cards. No software mods involved.

The comparisons were done using an eVGA GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB and a PNY Quadro FX 3400 256MB. Both PCI Express, both in the same machine. I actually pushed better results with the Quadro FX in Linux than Windows.
So.. You are using the default Geforce drivers vs the Quadro drivers?

Like I said before, the difference is in the drivers :P Why wont anyone test a modded geforce vs a quadro?

imashination is right.. You cant trust synthetic benchmarks that are paid for by the very companies that want to have "good numbers" Simply running a frame rate measure in your app of choice would get you some better, real world results, and they wont look the same. This is a known fact.

lots
07-23-2005, 05:48 PM
Again imashination you have been proven a fool time and time again, and typical immature behaviour you have to attack and name call like a child because you have no vaild facts or reason. Spec menbers do not control the benchmarks or how they are run.

Such a shame, I do feal sorry for you and anyone you "tutor", because I am sure they throw their money away listening to a know it all like you who is all opinion and no facts.
What do you think you're doing? ;)

Ckerr812
07-23-2005, 05:49 PM
What do you think you're doing? ;)

Yea I realized that, and changed my post to reflect facts rather then opinion.

DanSilverman
07-23-2005, 06:45 PM
As has been stated several times here and in other similar threads, the main difference between a Quadro card and its GeForce equivalent is the drivers. The GeForce card has features locked out by the GeForce drivers and you cannot install Quadro drivers on a "stock" GeForce card. It is sort of like having a governer on your car (one of those things that restricts how fast the car can drive despite its capabilities). When you mod your GeForce card you actually are making it so that Quadro drivers can be installed on a GeForce card. This is like removing the governer on a car (so that the true potential of the engine can be achieved). Besides speed benefits (and quite visible ones) you also get some hardware features that the GeForce is not suppose to have because these are native to the Quadro cards. This is simply because both sets of cards use the same (or very similar) chip sets.

Another interesting thing is that the GPU and RAM on a card like the GeForce 6800 Ultra is actually faster than the fastest Quadro card. So, once you mod a 6800 Ultra you would actually have to DOWNCLOCK it in order to match the speed of the equilalent Quadro card.

If you simply go to the Nvidia web site and compare the numbers you will actually see that the 6800 Ultra handles more polygons, more textures and is faster than the Quadro (comparing AGP to AGP).

On top of that, the 6800 is A LOT less expensive than the Quadro range of cards. I see absolutely NO reason to buy a Quadro card.

MadMax
07-23-2005, 07:15 PM
The same driver version was used with both cards. No software mods involved.



If you are not testing the 6800 usingthe softmod so that you are comparing Apples to Apples, this chart is useless. As has been stated before, features are locked out on the GeForce drivers. The ONLY way you will get an accurate comparison is to do the softmod.

As for the original link, it's mostly crap.

enygma
07-23-2005, 07:46 PM
MadMax, IIRC, the QuadroFX 3400 chipset is based of a slower GeForce chipset than the 6800 Ultra. If that was the case, then the Spec benchmark I would still find to be rather relevant, although not real world. Modding a GeForce 6800 Ultra I believe would give you the equivalent of a Quadro FX 4400. While not comparing apples to apples, it does give a pretty good example of the difference between the 2 cards.

The drivers I used for both were the Forceware 77.30 ones.

imashination
07-23-2005, 11:56 PM
Whoops ckerr, looks like someone quoted you before you could edit your insane ramblings, maybe you'll be quicker off the mark next time or better yet, simply not post at all ;-) ckerr your experience seems to exist simply of reading paid-for websites and taking in everything as fact which the manufacturers feed you.

Tell me one thing though, if the quadro cards truely are better, why do they forbid all of the hardware review sites from putting them head to head?

lots
07-24-2005, 04:44 AM
If i could afford a quadro, I'd do the tests my self :P but alas, I cant. So anyone out there with some cash willing to show us what a modded Geforce stacks up to against the Quadro?

As for the original link, it's mostly crap.
Blunt as ever I see :)


EDIT:
Just to add some more info. The GPU on the Quadro differs only slightly from the GPU on the Geforce. And this difference is mostly to prevent modding of Geforces to Quadros (though, this prevention doesnt always work ;)). Like it was said earlier, the Quadro shares almost 100% of its design with its cheaper gamer cousin, the Geforce. And actually, up until the release of the FX series Quadros (it may have been with the geforce4 based Quadros though...) the two chips were identical.

Why would Nvidia do that? Money :P. It is much easier and cheaper to produce only one chip, and then strip the "lower models" of the more advanced features (why not, everyone else does). This practice is fairly common in the CPU business, take the Duron, Celeron, etc. for example. Of cource the GPU will have a hardware identification that triggers the installation of either Quadro or Geforce drivers, but in the end you're really buying just about the same hardware either way.

DanSilverman
07-24-2005, 05:30 AM
MadMax, IIRC, the QuadroFX 3400 chipset is based of a slower GeForce chipset than the 6800 Ultra. If that was the case, then the Spec benchmark I would still find to be rather relevant, although not real world. Modding a GeForce 6800 Ultra I believe would give you the equivalent of a Quadro FX 4400. While not comparing apples to apples, it does give a pretty good example of the difference between the 2 cards.

Without the GeForce card being either soft or hard-modded there can be no true comparison between the Quadro and the GeForce cards. Not only do the GeForce drivers lock out certain "features" but they also provide for slower OpenGL performance. The OpenGL performance is the main advantage the Quadro's have over the GeForce cards and why people want to use them for 3D applications. Modding the GeForce card significantly increases the speed of OpenGL performance.

BTW - To show that the GeForce card and Quadro cards are basically the same, you don't have to simply softmod the card via something like RivaTuner, but in many cases even a Quadro BIOS can be flashed to update the firmware of a GeForce card ... and it works quite well. The only difference is that the BIOS may need to be "fixed" a bit. That is because the stock BIOS for a Quadro card is set for a slower GPU and RAM. Doing a simple flash of the BIOS using a Quadrio BIOS on a GeForce 6800 Ultra will actually SLOW DOWN the card. Fixing the Quadro BIOS to accurately reflect the speed of the GPU and RAM will fix this, though.

enygma
07-24-2005, 06:10 AM
I may have to look into seeing how a soft modded GeForce 6800 Ultra would run on my system. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon. I have too many projects on the go now, but I hope to try when (if) things settle down a bit at the office.

EDIT:

http://www.3dbuzz.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=109604

Here is a thread where Davidaleon had purchased a 7800 GTX and soft modded it. He posts the results from SPEC Viewperf 8 in there before and after the mod if you want to see a difference based on one card.

cpan
07-24-2005, 08:09 AM
interesting discussion overhere guys :)

a little q for u modders: is a geforce 6600 non GT (A4 revision, NV43) moddable to a quadro card? if yes, then what's the quadro equivalent to it?

thanx

iambic
07-24-2005, 11:31 AM
interesting discussion overhere guys :)

a little q for u modders: is a geforce 6600 non GT (A4 revision, NV43) moddable to a quadro card? if yes, then what's the quadro equivalent to it?

thanx

That my friend is the quadro fx540.....Although from what i've read the nv43 A4 is not moddable and the guy who developed riva has stopped work on this...You probably don't want to modd it as the nv43 in the fx540 has one of its pixel units disabled leaving only 4 pix pipes to the 6600 8....You can see this in riva tuner but unfortunately you can't do much about it .....and interesting example of how the quadro card has been de-speced instead of the gamer cards!...although an fx540 costs less than a 6600gt.

BillB
07-24-2005, 02:33 PM
Does the Quadro drivers licence agreement prohibit installing them on a non-Quadro card? Just curious about the ethics - Nvidia would argue (to play devils advocate) that they spend money on R&D to write the quadro drivers and refine the hardware, hence the higher price for a quadro. Isn't it the same as saying "Alias include Maya Unlimited on my Complete CD, so if I unlock it, I should be allowed to use it!"

Discuss. Good answers may be cross-credited to your ethics and philosophy courses...

:)

BillB
07-24-2005, 09:38 PM
Never mind :)

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=195803

simoncheng
07-25-2005, 03:36 AM
hi, guys. i been long time miss the cgnetworks dues to the busy project rush.
finally i saw the interesting topic to jet into.

i m interior arch designer/concept artist. i m been using cad about 7 years.
frankly, and no offensive here. quadro is really powerful card.
if compared to geforce, i can tell it is noticetable. the planar and stabillity issue really count.
the viewport more stabil even the poly raise up if compared to geforce.
most of the design firm, arch firm, or professional use quadro not just because of the name,
it is from the spec they need to work with.
it is just like modd the subaru/nissan to reach the speed of ferrari/mc larren.
do this really works? how much money/time/risk to get it works?
if yes, you those guys will be working with ferrari/mc larren at f1.


i m sure the spec of the hardware that count not just listen or seeing from other.

MadMax
07-25-2005, 04:27 AM
it is just like modd the subaru/nissan to reach the speed of ferrari/mc larren.
do this really works? how much money/time/risk to get it works?
if yes, you those guys will be working with ferrari/mc larren at f1.


No offense intended here, but I really hate it when people use ridiculous car comparisons when they don't know what they are talking about.

Or are you telling me that Subaru's and Ferrari's use the same engine??? If not then this is a pointless comparison and a waste of time. We are all now dumber for having read it.


EDIT: FYI, A better comparison might have been modding a Formula Firebird into a TransAm.

DanSilverman
07-25-2005, 01:10 PM
cymon,

You comparison does not work here. First of all, I would like to say that you will get faster, better results with a Quadro against an UNMODDED GeForce card because the GeForce card has the Quadro features locked out. Essentially the GeForce and Quadro cards are identicle in terms of the Nvidia chips used. A better comparison would be having two Ferraris. One has a governer on it to allow it to only accelerate to 80 MPH. The other has no governer and can go its full speed. The first Ferrari is relabled as a "hobbyist" car (for wanna-be sport drivers) and the second is labled a "professional" car. The only other difference is the price. Other than that, the cars are identicle.

Now, someone in the know goes and saves a ton of mony by purchasing the "hobbyist" car, removes the governer and relables the car. It looks like the "professional" Ferrari, is labled as one and it also now perfoms as one. What is the difference? The amount of money spent on the car (and time to make the modifications). Another difference would be that the car dealer would most likely not support the car under a warrenty of any kind since the owner modified.

This is the same thing with the GeForce and Quadro cards. None of the Nvidia licenses prohibit the mod. The only restriction is that a modified card will not be covered by any warrenty. Other than that, the GeForce card will funcion, in many case, as well (if not better than) its Quadro counterpart. Depending on the GeForce card involved, even the "missing" hardware features may actually be there.

If you honestly compare the GeForce 6800 Ultra to the latest (AGP) Quadro card you will see that the following statement is not correct:

...even the poly raise up if compared to geforce.

A look at the Nvidia site will show that the 6800 actually pushes more polygons/tri-faces than the Quadro, handles more textures and actually has a faster GPU and RAM. As far as stability, I have had no such problems with mine and my machine is on 24-7. I also work professionally in 3D. I say this to let you know that I use this card in a professional environment and not on a "play" computer or some such thing.

I still cannot find one reason to fork over the big bucks for a Quadro when I can get virtually the same thing for pennies on the dollar.

cpan
07-26-2005, 07:25 AM
interesting discussion overhere guys :)

a little q for u modders: is a geforce 6600 non GT (A4 revision, NV43) moddable to a quadro card? if yes, then what's the quadro equivalent to it?

thanx

what the f**k?! Just got nVHardPage SE from guru3d and this application says my 6600 is revision A2!! And the RivaTuner says it's A4?!

anyway, can softmodding produce damage to the card? if not i might give it a try to see the performance in maya.


can someone list the steps to mod a geforce into a quadro? it would really help...




thanx

Ckerr812
07-28-2005, 06:31 PM
Well, opinion still dosen't mean it's true. No matter how long people will argue, or believe they are right because they have more time to waste on a web board.

The only problem with these opinions is they are not professional, and not based in fact.

Unwinder has stated many many times and posted long posts explaining the difference over at guru3d, Unwinder is the only one to sucessfully reverse engineer the drivers, so he knows a thing or two about this subject.

Benchmarks, Alias, Softimage, Nvidia, any professional reseller of software and the rest all say to buy professional cards, so it comes down on who you want to get your information from and trust.

lots
07-28-2005, 07:07 PM
So why are there no head to head comparisons of the two running Quadro drivers?

Ckerr812
07-28-2005, 07:11 PM
So why are there no head to head comparisons of the two running Quadro drivers?

The question makes no sense, there is a comparison in this thread, and on about every thread at guru3d.

Unlocking OpenGL api calls will help performance, not hard to figure out.

lots
07-28-2005, 09:11 PM
You seem to miss the point here. I want to see the difference between a MODIFIEDGeforce running with the quadro drivers, and a normal out of the box Quadro. Both of which have the same or similar hardware spec.

The benchmark in this thread is comparing a Geforce running with GEFORCE drivers. Enygma him self said so. This only proves that the quadro is faster, but doesnt show what aspect of the Quadro is more suited for 3D applications. Hardware or drivers?

All I'm asking for is a simple comparison. A Geforce that has been modded to run on Quadro drivers, and a stock Quadro of similar spec. Thats it. The best comparison will put these two head to head on an otherwise identical setup. That really is the only way to see what the Quadro brings to the table that the Geforce wont ever be able to, modded drivers or not.

Just from a quick look at Guru3D:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=115155&perpage=25&highlight=Geforce+softmod+quadro+performance&pagenumber=3

This is comparing a modded geforce vs a similarly specced quadro:

All my 3D work is in Maya 6.01 so I was pleased to see my specviewperf 8 score on maya surpass the documented pny quadro fx 4000

---------- SUM_RESULTS\3DSMAX\SUMMARY.TXT
3dsmax-03 Weighted Geometric Mean = 30.92 (Normal Quadro FX 4000 = 30.47)

---------- SUM_RESULTS\CATIA\SUMMARY.TXT
catia-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 24.02 (Normal Quadro FX 4000 = 16.87)

---------- SUM_RESULTS\ENSIGHT\SUMMARY.TXT
ensight-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 19.07 (Normal Quadro FX 4000 = 20.33)

---------- SUM_RESULTS\LIGHT\SUMMARY.TXT
light-07 Weighted Geometric Mean = 21.05 (Normal Quadro FX 4000 = 17.84)

---------- SUM_RESULTS\MAYA\SUMMARY.TXT
maya-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 43.45 (Normal Quadro FX 4000 = 31.35)

---------- SUM_RESULTS\PROE\SUMMARY.TXT
proe-03 Weighted Geometric Mean = 33.97 (Normal Quadro FX 4000 = 46.50)

---------- SUM_RESULTS\SW\SUMMARY.TXT
sw-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 20.23 (Normal Quadro FX 4000 = 22.06)

---------- SUM_RESULTS\UGS\SUMMARY.TXT
ugs-04 Weighted Geometric Mean = 25.29 (Normal Quadro FX 4000 = 36.57)


So this makes it appear that for the most part, modding the Geforce to run Quadro drivers brings a normal Geforce up to about par with a Quadro.

For a quarter of the price of the similarly specced Quadro, this is definately a better deal. The disadvantage of cource is Alias and the like do not wish to support anything lower than Pro level cards. It makes sense. For one, they are probably invested in Nvidia/ATI/3DLabs, two it is much easier to support a tightly controled set of hardware. It does not mean that other hardware will not perform just as well.

The small hardware differences between Geforce and Quadro allow for softmods to happen, thus you get almost what you get with a Quadro. My bet is, going one step further and physically modding a Geforces will bring it closer to a Quadro than a softmodded solution, mainly because some of the hardware may be locked out by a cut bridge on the GPU (CPU makers use this trick).

Remember I'm not disagreeing there is some hardware difference between quadro and geforce. But alot of the Quadro's advantage is in the drivers, not the hardware.

onlooker
07-28-2005, 09:28 PM
I'll bet one of you knows who shot John F. Kennedy. :thumbsup:

Ckerr812
07-28-2005, 09:34 PM
Remember I'm not disagreeing there is some hardware difference between quadro and geforce. But alot of the Quadro's advantage is in the drivers, not the hardware.

Again, Unlocking the extra open GL api calls the quadro has will boost performance, there is no doubt about it, I never disagreed with that.

It's the difference between maya complete and maya unlimited, one has more features then the other.....and one costs a lot more then the other. To unlock one to save money is an ethics question for anohter thread.

But Unwinder will not always support it, and has stated himself not to buy a geforce just to Softmod it, I I for one would take his advice over a lot of people. Unwinder took a year off before and left Softmodding in the dust....so there is no guarentee he will keep doing it. I know from email that it's not his main focus at all, just a side project. So it's something to think about if you want to have a workstation for awhile.

Ckerr812
07-28-2005, 09:41 PM
I'll bet one of you knows who shot John F. Kennedy. :thumbsup:

lol...exactly, when a thread is all opinion and no facts it turns into all speculation, makes for a funny read though.

Just have to trust the people you buy your software from.

lots
07-28-2005, 10:17 PM
Again, Unlocking the extra open GL api calls the quadro has will boost performance, there is no doubt about it, I never disagreed with that.

It's the difference between maya complete and maya unlimited, one has more features then the other.....and one costs a lot more then the other. To unlock one to save money is an ethics question for anohter thread.

But Unwinder will not always support it, and has stated himself not to buy a geforce just to Softmod it, I I for one would take his advice over a lot of people. Unwinder took a year off before and left Softmodding in the dust....so there is no guarentee he will keep doing it. I know from email that it's not his main focus at all, just a side project. So it's something to think about if you want to have a workstation for awhile.
Well I never said it was good for the production environment. Most studios can afford such hardware anyway ;)

And I do agree that it is not a 100% fool proof way of getting around the costs of a pro card, but it definately is something that the tinkerer would be willing to do. So long as they realize that they get no support, and probably void warranties by doing it.

Mr-BlueSummers
07-28-2005, 10:27 PM
Good afternoon gentlemen,

I wanted to ask where the Radeon chip fits into all this. Better or worse or no contest?
I'm looking into new hardware, and the 3d card is high on my priorities.
(I own a GeForce2Ultra from the 1990s and I figure it's time to upgrade)

Thanks,
--Guy

MadMax
07-28-2005, 10:50 PM
Good afternoon gentlemen,

I wanted to ask where the Radeon chip fits into all this. Better or worse or no contest?
I'm looking into new hardware, and the 3d card is high on my priorities.
(I own a GeForce2Ultra from the 1990s and I figure it's time to upgrade)

Thanks,
--Guy

File Radeon under "extreme suckage"

DanSilverman
07-29-2005, 12:31 AM
I modded my GeForce 6800 Ultra WITHOUT using RivaTuner. I simply flashed the BIOS with a Quadro BIOS (after modifying it to match my GeForce's GPU and RAM speed, which were faster than the Quadro's). After flashing the BIOS the card was recognised by Windows as a Quadro and the Quadro drivers installed and ran as expected. Therefore, whether there are ever future versions of RivaTuner (or any other method of Softmodding) or not it should not matter. The very fact that my card was able to be flashed with a Quadro BIOS should say something about the 6800 Ultra. Its basically a Quadro at a drastically reduced price.

dvornik
07-29-2005, 06:29 AM
So how hard it is to put together a set of benchmark results that actually matter? Specviewperf doesn't say anything about real life performance anyway.

A good benchmark would compare performances from a Geforce, a Softquadro (or/and Bios) mod of it and a Quadro equivalent using real-life applications (and in the case of max with all useable viewport drivers). Specapc for maya and max would be a place to start. Then maya testcenter and then cinebench.

I can't believe nobody has done it yet. As far as this discussion goes I support Imasination's point of view based on personal experience. I don't even know of any credible tests that prove that a real Quadro is better than a Geforce performance-wise.

Here's what corresponds to my experience BTW (I have no idea how credible the site is and the tests are done without Maxtreme obviously):
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=qfx4400&page=8

lots
07-29-2005, 07:02 AM
Exactly what I was saying :P

dvornik
07-29-2005, 07:55 AM
Exactly what I was saying :P Yes. But also what imashination was saying. The ultimate benchmark would be real world applications (not synthetic Specviewperf) plus head to head quadro/softquadro/geforce comparison. [edit] Hey you did say it in one of the posts. So I guess I just agree with both of you and suggest some benchmarks that should be used.

dvornik
07-29-2005, 08:18 AM
quadro is really powerful card.
if compared to geforce, i can tell it is noticetable. the planar and stabillity issue really count.
the viewport more stabil even the poly raise up if compared to geforce.
That seems to be not the case with Maya, max, Lightwave and other "content creation" software. It may well be that the cards and the drivers are optimised for CAD while DCC is added as an afterthought. Coming from DCC background I can't comment on CAD real-world performance.

My main point is mosly that Quadros are hardly better than Geforces for DCC applications in the first place. So Softquadro doesn't really matter unless you really like Maxtreme in max. That may be very different for CAD.

lots
07-29-2005, 08:40 AM
Yes. But also what imashination was saying. The ultimate benchmark would be real world applications (not synthetic Specviewperf) plus head to head quadro/softquadro/geforce comparison. [edit] Hey you did say it in one of the posts. So I guess I just agree with both of you and suggest some benchmarks that should be used.
Hey, if i had the cash for a quadro and a moddable geforce, i'd try it out :P

pailhead
07-29-2005, 09:55 AM
Modding a 6X00 series geforce into an equivalent quadro fx is pretty easy and can be done in a few steps with rivatuner, no need for flashing the bios with quadro drivers like with the 5x00 series.

You'll need the latest version of rivatuner which can be found on www.guru3d.com, and then you can follow this (http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=122413&highlight=6800+quadro) simple tutorial. You may need to experiment a bit with forceware drivers, this mod may not work on all cards and any driver.

I'm running this softmod on my leadtek 6800GT, and i've been testing the results in 3ds Max using the benchmark scenes that ship with it. I have a prescott @ 2.8 but that doesnt really matter if we wont compare the results with eachother. If u want i can host the benchmark scenes, there is one custom scene added to it.

The results. (http://pailhead.animacija.org/misc/results.txt)

.src.visualisation
07-29-2005, 10:55 AM
I have been reading this thread with interest, as I'm just about to put a proposal in to the powers that be for my new machine (X2 4400+; 2GB RAM. I have specced the 7800, but should I be thinking more of a Quadro? I'm not keen on modding anything (I like warrantied). I use Max exclusively for 3D, and Photoshop for textures and presentation. I too would love to see a bare facts comparison of 6800GT, 7800GT and equivalent quadros, in different performance situations.


The results. (http://pailhead.animacija.org/misc/results.txt)


Looking at these results, it would appear to be better to use Max with Direct3D on a normal basis? Is this correct? (I didn't think i was that much of a noob, but I've always been advised to use Direct3D)

pailhead
07-29-2005, 11:26 AM
hm... :hmm:

direct3d/opengl frame rates in my results seem a bit weird, ill run the benchmark again because these are a few months old.

cpan
07-29-2005, 01:11 PM
Hi guys!

When u softmodded your quadro... how did u do it? From what i understood i have to install NVStrap driver with RivaTuner and sett it accordly and then uninstall Forceware drivers and install Quadro drivers... Is this the way to softmod??

thanx again

Knotter8
07-30-2005, 02:15 AM
Well, I can only say that Cinema4D R9.1 with an unmodded Geforce 6800GT works fine for my regular character modeling stuff. 40 to 55 thousand poly's no problem. Currently on 76.44 drivers.

But...I recently got the new Bodypaint module and somehow it crashes fairly often :argh:

In Maya , the Geforce also had more trouble than my old QuadroFX1000 when using Hypershade. Maybe something to do with the textures and difference in the way Quadro's
& Geforce address to oncard video ram ?

dvornik
07-30-2005, 04:30 AM
The results. (http://pailhead.animacija.org/misc/results.txt)
"custom" driver means "Maxtreme". You haven't tested SoftQuadro OGL performance. You ONLY tested Maxtreme drivers on a Softquadro. In a way you could acheave the same result if you hacked Maxtreme to run on a Geforce (something that had been done on older Geforces back in the Elsa days).

Some professionals don't use Maxtreme as their viewport driver and prefer OGL.

pailhead
08-03-2005, 05:12 PM
I've updated my results. This time ran the benchmark with 77.72 drivers, ogl and d3d, before and after the mod, and as you can see, there is a slight increase in the cards performanse after modding.

Im not sure why is d3d better than ogl in almost every field, do you guys know any other benchmarks that we could run as a comparison?

Ji 4Tze
08-03-2005, 06:13 PM
yup, 6600 A4 rev. NV43 isn't moddable, have one, gigabyte 6600 TurboSomething (passive cooling) and OS says that found quadro card, but maxtreeme won't recognize it, so it doesn't matter. Maxtreeme takes the most of our GeForce softmoded, almost as fast as directX cached geometry, but draws much faster wireframe (edged faces) and spline in viewports (like openGL which is faster in those terms compared to directX). But then, sometime, maxtreeme on softmoded cards can crush 3dsmax, so one can be frustrated if that happens too often or with very heavy scenes.
Dunnow about real Quadro card, it's a bit expensive for better models (eg. here, in Belgrade it's very hard to find one, even when you do, probably it will cost like one complete PC like render node :D), but looks like fx540 has reasonable price.

dvornik
08-05-2005, 02:57 AM
I've updated my results. You should've included the Maxtreme results as well - there's nothing wrong with them - just people have to understand it's a customised 3ds max viewport driver that makes the difference. You need to use it to get this type of performance. The OGL results are what I would expect from the cards. At the time I was using max (a couple of years ago) d3d drivers were not professionally used due to viewport artifacts - missing vertices, missing textures, wrong geometry and so on. They were way faster in many situations but completely unuseable.

Another benchmark would be specapc for max (hope it runs on d3d):
http://www.spec.org/gpc/apc.static/max7info.html
http://www.spec.org/gpc/apc.static/max6info.html

dvornik
08-05-2005, 03:07 AM
But then, sometime, maxtreeme on softmoded cards can crush 3dsmax... At the time I was using it Maxtreme had some undesirible effects on real Quadro cards as well. The situation might be different at the moment.

DrFx
08-05-2005, 09:47 AM
One question for everybody here which may seem a little off-topic: If you're basically paying for drivers when buying a quadro, isn't it the equivalent of piracy to soft-mod a Quadro?
It seems to me that the general attitude of soft-modders in these forums is that if you are paying double or triple price for a card, then you're being a bloody fool because the difference is only in the software, which you can easily hack into a Geforce card.
Would you have the same opinion about people who buy their software for a few grand when you can get it easily and cheaply as warez? Remember, it's these "suckers" who are supporting the development of drivers and apps.

DanSilverman
08-05-2005, 10:08 AM
You are not paying for the drivers at all. The drivers are offered freely by Nvidia and anyone can download them. The license allows for you to basically use them as you please (obviously things like backward engineering are illegal due to other laws). You are really paying for the hardware. Therefore it is not piracy in the least. The Nvidia license even allows for you to install, for example, Quadro drivers on a GeForce. While this is not specifically mentioned in the EULA, you are warned that using the drivers in a way not intended can void your warrenty. So, you can use them as you please, but you may make your warrenty void.

DrFx
08-05-2005, 11:12 AM
They may not mention it in the EULA, but you cannot install the drivers without some hacking, and that afaik is one illegal step you have to take if you want to softquadro a Geforce. This clearly shows nVidia's intentions and that the money allocated to Quadro dev comes from Quadro sales. Hardware-wise the cards are not that much different, so for sure you're not paying for example 2000,00 for better DA converters or whatnot, that money goes to driver dev.

DanSilverman
08-05-2005, 11:34 AM
This has already been discussed to death on this very forum and in other places. The general mood is that it is perfectly fine. I (and others) even sent emails to Nvidia concerning this topic and even posted on the Nvidia forum asking this question. While Nvidia did not bother to respond, others did (including a lawyer that handles software cases) and it was discovered that nothing illegal was being done by converting a GeForce over to a Quadro.

No "hacking" is really required. You can install RivaTuner and then the Quadro drivers. Or, as in my case, you can flash the BIOS with a Quadro BIOS and then install the drivers. Both the BIOS and the drivers are freely given to anyone that desires to download them (and this is according to Nvidia's site and EULA). In fact, certain language from Nvidia's web page and EULA seem to encourage this sort of activity.

lots
08-05-2005, 02:26 PM
Fact is Nvidia makes more sales off the big corporations that buy Quadros than from Joe User buying quadros, so they probably dont care ;)

And for big companies, $2000 for a video card that has tighter validation processes than the Geforces, is a bargan :P (Same idea as that X2 vs DC Opteron thread... basically they can afford it, Joe User cant)

dvornik
08-06-2005, 02:33 AM
I think it's illegal but tolerated by the parties involved for good reasons (cards get more media exposure and more sales to amatures/students while well-paid professionals would buy pro cards anyway). Using Maxtreme on a Geforce would definitely be illegal though (even Unwinder had an aside in one of his articles about it). I don't think you are just paying for the drivers. There are differences but unfortunately there is no authority to tell you what these differences really are as far as your work is concerned.

DanSilverman
08-06-2005, 06:56 AM
I think it's illegal ...

People can think a good many things, but that does not make it true or not. The facts are there are no laws, Federal, International or otherwise that prohibit this sort of activity. Number two, the EULA for the drivers and BIOS from Nvidia also do not prohibit this sort of activities. Number three, even the information at the Nvidia web site does not prohibit this sort of activity.

When you go to the Nvidia driver download section of their web site you read the following:

Below you will find drivers for all NVIDIA multimedia processors and additional software applications, tools and games designed to demonstrate the exciting features of NVIDIA processors. Simply choose from the selections below and press "Go" when you are ready to download.

Bascially the above is telling you to choose what you want to download. It makes no reference to selecting only the drivers, etc that go with your Nvidia hardware. As a matter of fact, there is nothing that states you need to have Nvidia hardware to download and use the drivers and software from the Nvidia site. Basically the end-user is given free reign to use the software (drivers or otherwise) that Nvidia is freely providing.

When you go to actually download a driver you are presented with a EULA. Examples from the EULA state:

2.1.1 Rights. Customer may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE on a single computer, and except for making one back-up copy of the Software, may not otherwise copy the SOFTWARE. This LICENSE of SOFTWARE may not be shared or used concurrently on different computers.

This portion lets us know that we can install a copy of the software on a single computer (except a backup). It does not state that the computer must have the appropriate hardware to go with it.

No Reverse Engineering. Customer may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE, nor attempt in any other manner to obtain the source code.

This section is forbidding backward engineering or any attempt to obtain the source code. Since installing a Quadro BIOS or driver on a GeForce card or using RivaTuner does not attempt to obtain the source code and does not use any form of backward engineering then this portion of the EULA is also not broken.

No Separation of Components. The SOFTWARE is licensed as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more than one computer, nor otherwise used separately from the other parts.

Again, installing the drivers, flashing the BIOS or using RivaTuner does not "seperate components".

That is about it. You can read the rest of the EULA, but there is really nothing else that comes close to touching the subject of using either Nvidia drivers or a BIOS on hardware they were not designed for. In fact, the initial language on the Nvidia download page seems to invite this activity ... at least it is not prohibited in any way.

With no law, international or otherwise, and not restrictions from Nvidia, how could modding a GeForce card be illegal activity?

Spin99
08-06-2005, 12:39 PM
Hi there,
I'd also already heard of this debate for long now.
I actually already have RivaTuner installed.

Thing is I think I set my user cookies wrong and can't seem to search the Riva forum.
Just wanted to know if the steps for softmodding an nV card are listed somewhere?
I'm running an FX5900 > Quadro FX3000 and would love to see it work in professional mode?

Can maybe someone please help?
Do I have to install the Quadro drivers? I'd love to be able to just switch back and forth
to OpenGL acceleration on reboot. Wouldn't that be just heaven :D
Maybe I can also try get a new username on the Riva forum later.

I suspect that people are absolutely on the right track,
specially with softmodding.
Thing is if you get a Quadro you can be sure you'll be getting absolutely top notch hardware.
It should also be an entirely hassle free experience.
But if you like gaming and want to save up then it's not even an option :D

pailhead
08-06-2005, 02:32 PM
You should've included the Maxtreme results as well - there's nothing wrong with them - just people have to understand it's a customised 3ds max viewport driver that ...l (http://www.spec.org/gpc/apc.static/max6info.html)

Whats the point in that? Ill run the benchmark with maxtreme, though that result was already posted, but i think that for discussion's sake, i should try to run them on a modded card, and do the hack you've mentioned, on my regulary recognized card and compare the results.

Klowno
08-06-2005, 05:18 PM
I don't use rivatuner anymore, but in earlier versions of it there was a statement that forbids
using the quadro/firegl mod for commercial work. I don't remember now the exact words written but most probaly it's meant to not be used to boost opengl performance in 3d apps if you are making money of the work done with it.

Btw, I did a catalyst vs firegl driver comparison with xsi4.
I had an animation of a head rotating to test with.
catalysts got 5fps
firegl got 16fps

The card was a 9800xt.

Havent tested with geforce vs quadro drivers yet but atleast with firegl drivers you get a
pretty nice boost.

dvornik
08-08-2005, 01:07 AM
People can think a good many things...
They surely can.

dvornik
08-08-2005, 01:11 AM
Whats the point in that? Ill run the benchmark with maxtreme, though that result was already posted.. Cause you've overwritten them. They were good benchmark results. Keep them.

There is no current Maxtreme hack I'm aware of.

dvornik
08-08-2005, 01:22 AM
With no law, international or otherwise, and not restrictions from Nvidia, how could modding a GeForce card be illegal activity?

Look - they scared Mr Nikolaichuks's site from mentioning the word "softquadro" for a year or so once. I'm sure a couple of visits from Ukrainian Secret Police (or whatever they call it) would scare anyone of us.

Spin99
08-09-2005, 06:38 PM
I just tried softmodding my card to an FX3000.
Trying to share my experience :blush:
Should I mention first that with recent cards (GeForce FX even)
OpenGL performance is quite excellent anyway :D

Well, it's easy to convince Windows that you're running Quadro with the Riva tool.
With the Quadro software running (beautifully?) I fired up an OpenGL program.
After maybe two minutes it just froze my machine (sofware protection?)

Until then I had a very brief yet very complete experience
of what softmodding would have achieved. In my case? NOTHING.

I didn't see the wireframe any more anti-aliased.
If there's a speed increase it's just too slight to notice much.
I suppose I could try go "patch" the drivers nVidia maintains for their users free of charge :rolleyes:

What about ethics?
Plus you're not supposed to do business with a softmod Quadro. It's illegal?

OK I didn't benchmark, but I know the difference is really slight even with hardmods.
When it comes to engineers re-soldering transistors, I don't know.
Otherwise I really don't see the point.
Is softmodding a thing of the past?

I'm still saving up for the REAL Quadro.. :D

ihavenofish
08-09-2005, 09:27 PM
the reason nvidia wouldnt want people to use the term "softquadro" and would take legal action to stop it is pretty simple. first, its a violation of copyright. second, and most importantly, it implies a certain legitimacy to the hack. one that would have customers seeking support from nvidia with issues. nvidia is right in wanting to distance themselves from this mod, even if they cant/dont want to take legal action, or even encourage tweaking. they just dont want to, and shouldnt have to support it. when the thing is all set up and ready to go, you get quite the bang for your buck. but getting there can be an adventure, most often ending in using the good ol geforce drivers, and sometimes with a dead card from bad bios flashing. companies and people who depend on hardware for their income most likely would not bother with this. the few hundred $ more in purchase price is easily overrun by the hours spent trying to get it running and dealing with (even more than usual) flakey drivers. this is similar to overclocking in my opinion... you "might" get an impovement, but is it really worth it? if all you do all day is "play" with your hardware, sure, why not. if you "use" it, then you have to decide if its worth the effort.

as far as riva tuner stating not to use if for commercial purposes, this is not because its illegal, but because he doesnt want to support you either. all of this is "at your own risk". if it works, great. if your card fries and you lose 4 days of work, to fricken bad.

later

lots
08-11-2005, 11:33 PM
exactly......

Mastakojo
12-15-2005, 05:18 PM
I just got a 6800 nu and i just softmod it to quadro 4000, I dunno if its equivalent to a real quadro but the difference from b4 modding is very significant. I did not run any benchmark and i would volunteer to do and post it here if anyone knows a non-bias real time benchmark.

enygma
12-15-2005, 05:26 PM
I just got a 6800 nu and i just softmod it to quadro 4000, I dunno if its equivalent to a real quadro but the difference from b4 modding is very significant. I did not run any benchmark and i would volunteer to do and post it here if anyone knows a non-bias real time benchmark.
SPEC Viewperf 8.1 is generally a good benchmark for judging workstation performance. You should see some major increases on SPEC with your mod. I'm not sure if I posted this earlier in this thread or not, but here are results I had gotten in SPEC Viewperf 8.01 with a native 6800 Ultra and a native QuadroFX 3400.

http://homepage.mac.com/cheier/.movies/SPEC-Mark.jpg

I'll hopefully get some graphs to include benchmarks of the QuadroFX 4500 on Mac OS X.

mustique
12-15-2005, 06:10 PM
From my experience with Quadros and Geforces, I can tell that the only advantage of Quadro's is during interactive hardware rendering. The extra stability and OpenGL performance (which is due to dirty driver development) are not worth hard earned money.

Mastakojo
12-16-2005, 12:48 AM
I might be wrong, but i see a significant increase in maya viewport just using riva tuner and softquadro. Still downloading specviewperf so cant prove anything. But its been running whole day, very stable.

enygma
12-16-2005, 04:34 AM
Once you get SPEC Viewperf up and running, do a run with and without the soft mod. Would be nice to see the difference between the modes in a softmodded environment. I think something like that was originally requested in this thread at some point (I think page 1 or 2).

Mastakojo
12-16-2005, 04:43 AM
K , ill do that as soon as i finish download the dam thing. Takes forever, post the result tmr.

enygma
12-16-2005, 04:51 AM
Try downloading from one of the mirror FTPs. The standard download link is SLOW!! I was able to reach the cap on my ADSL bandwidth on one of the mirrors.

Mastakojo
12-16-2005, 05:44 PM
This is the result of a softmod XFX 6800 128 mb AGP to Quadro 4000

My rig:
AMD64 2800+
1 gig ram
nforce 3 mobo

3dsmax-03 Weighted Geometric Mean = 24.80
catia-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 18.86
ensight-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 9.602
light-07 Weighted Geometric Mean = 16.22
maya-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 33.69
proe-03 Weighted Geometric Mean = 28.29
sw-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 17.66
ugs-04 Weighted Geometric Mean = 7.346

Will do the non-mod 6800 benchmark in the weekend.
Anyone knows how i can save color profile from quadro driver to geforce driver? i dont want to re-calibrate both of my monitor to just do a benchmark :(
From the published results, i think this softmod quadro have pretty respectable results considered my computer is not the top of the line.

Mastakojo
12-16-2005, 06:07 PM
Dam, couldnt find the screenshots i did b4 modding and too lazy to mod it back to geforce. But i remember i was working on around 20000 polys model in maya, and b4 modding the viewport was about 45 fps and after modding it beomces 85 fps (85 being my refresh rate), so i would say in real life performance it makes a difference.



Also, i benchmarked yesterday the gaming performance with 3dmark 05
3360 non mod 6800
3654 pixel and vertex shader unlock
3450 softmod quadro

So the gaming performance have a 5% drop from a unlock 6800.

Ckerr812
12-20-2005, 12:01 PM
I applaud people like Enygma and Mastakojo who have the smarts and know how to do their own benchmarks with the proper tools.

The more intelligent and less naive people can see through the BS posts that people like Imashination post that are based on reading video game hardware sites (or low grade 3d apps), and have more time to post crap opinions and hang around in IRC chat rooms to spread bad information.

Geforce's will work fine no doubt and work great on a budget, but Quadro's are faster, and the more OPenGL API calls your software can access the better.

If you need to make a decision about video cards the guru3d forum is populated with knowledgeable people about how drivers work and the differences between cards, especially if you do a search for Unwinder (the only person to succesfully reverse engineer Quadro drivers) and read his posts. http://forums.guru3d.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18

Also this thread by GregHess is great as well:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=169042

It's a shame a few people can Hijack a forums opinions, I guess that's why most of the professionals like Ed, Greg don't post much here anymore, it's not worth it to argue with people that have to much time on their hands.

imashination
12-20-2005, 04:41 PM
Now, now, David Vanderploeg, don't forget that your trolling is no longer anonymous. Do you mind if I send you a christmas card?

Ckerr812
12-20-2005, 05:22 PM
No trolling, just standing up for the facts, and what's right.

I have never seen someone whine and show what an ass they are so much in my life over being wrong over computer hardware.

It's pretty funny..lol

imashination
12-20-2005, 05:35 PM
You pulled out my name for the middle of nowhere, totally unprovoked and slandered me, you have issues.

Ckerr812
12-20-2005, 05:45 PM
If you want to countinue this you can private message me anytime like a professional.

So we can keep the boards clear so people can read facts, and not a bunch of BS.

Mastakojo
12-20-2005, 06:24 PM
After testing with different drivers on my 6800 (test on normal Geforec dirvers and softmod quadro) , i concluded that yes softquadro definitely boos teh openGL performance. The question remains that if u r a professional and your computer is solely use are graphics application, i will invest in a quadro knowing the stability and the technical support are quarantied. Since, im a student and i use my computer from graphics applications and games, i would use a GeForce since i dont think i can benefit the extra features that quadro offer other then the boost fps i got from viewport. Thats my opinion, Ckerr812 and imashination both have good points about this topics, one suggests the stability and support the other compare the performance/price ratio. I guess most of the people who read this by now understand the difference of the 2 line of cards. So plz guys, be nice to each other, no more flamming, CGtalk is a big family afterall. :love:

matty429
12-20-2005, 06:34 PM
You Guys Are Funny.....

You just made my morning....Why don't you just get married already...

leigh
12-21-2005, 04:01 PM
Knock off the squabbling, guys.

draco76x
12-21-2005, 05:59 PM
Just want to find out, I've see that most of you guys using specviewperf to get the result of both graphic card. But anybody do any "serious" rendering like animation about 10 to 20 minutes etc to test the stabilty of Nvidia 6800 card without using specviewperf just to "test" for the benchmark.

Even though Nvidia 6800 can turn into Quadro, cheap, but the most important is to prove that
it "work" as good as or Better than Quadro with it stability not only just to get benchmark.

For me, I own a Quadro FX500, it just an entry level, can't really afford to buy highend product, to me, price is my budget constraint but if a 6800 card can tranform into an Highend
Quadro with stability as good as orginal Quadro, I will go for it.

No offend, just my thought.:hmm:

Mastakojo
12-21-2005, 06:39 PM
Serious rendering is done on software renderer, therefore the graphic card have no connection in this, its all cpu/ram dependent.

pailhead
12-21-2005, 06:39 PM
Rendering? Animation?

Just try working with a scene that has lots of polygons for 10 or 20 minutes, thats all the rendering you'll need to test your card.

draco76x
12-21-2005, 10:08 PM
Another question I want to find out long ago, can a 6800 card after softmod into a Quadro, can it play games e.g. Doom or Warcraft using Quadro driver and using Maya to do modeling at the sametime??

lots
12-22-2005, 08:09 PM
It should play games fine, but keep in mind that not all 6800s will mod into a quadro.

draco76x
12-23-2005, 05:53 PM
lots,

Any nvidia 6800 card should I look out for that won't mod into Quadro??



Rgds

Mastakojo
12-24-2005, 03:05 PM
Only the first few versions of the 6800 is modable to Quadro, tahts what i heard at least, therefore, AGP versions. Sinc ehte 6800 chips on pic-e is different from 6800 GT and Ultra.

lots
12-24-2005, 06:47 PM
You have better chances of modding an AGP 6800GT, if your 6800 is PCIe, then chances are you have the revision that does not mod. Also, no 7 series Geforces are modable either. Nvidia's change in the PCIe versions of the 6800s, is also used in all recent Geforces. So soft modding your Geforce to a Quadro, is slowly becoming a thing of the past.

MattClary
12-24-2005, 08:52 PM
If you want to countinue this you can private message me anytime like a professional.

So we can keep the boards clear so people can read facts, and not a bunch of BS.

This is just comical coming from you. :rolleyes:

nitindesign
01-18-2006, 06:48 AM
Just read the whole thread....phewww :banghead:

jks84
01-18-2006, 11:16 PM
im the one who has experinced change from a normal ati 9550 to quadrofx540, i tel u guys there is no big different improve on the performace atleast in the view port no big different in frame rate increased, man im so regret brought it :banghead: , but is true the stablebility are much better. :hmm:

Vashner
01-18-2006, 11:41 PM
Serious rendering is done on software renderer, therefore the graphic card have no connection in this, its all cpu/ram dependent.

huh? That's what a GPU is for. Yes the major packages have software rendering. But "serious rendering" is done on GPU's not the CPU.

That's how battlefield 2 and other games work as well. Without OpenGL or DirectX hardware acceleration it would crawl.

OC-NightHawk
01-19-2006, 12:42 AM
huh? That's what a GPU is for. Yes the major packages have software rendering. But "serious rendering" is done on GPU's not the CPU.

That's how battlefield 2 and other games work as well. Without OpenGL or DirectX hardware acceleration it would crawl.
You are mixing up real time rendering for games which take shortcuts to get some of that speed, and real time viewports which are used in 3D apps to develop 3D models. Rendering scenes (making the final image that goes to a image file per frame for video editing)from 3D apps is not typically done with the GPU.

lots
01-19-2006, 04:00 AM
Indeed, in the vast majority of situations, a large renderfarm made of hundreds of render nodes push out the final images that you see in movies such as king kong and Starwars. These render farms are composed of computers whose main strong points are high end CPUs and lots of RAM. These systems will generally have nothing more than an ATI Rage 3D for video. And probably never use it except for the intial setup of the system.

The point of a video card is to render real time images as seen in video games (a noticably different quality than say the CG Kong created by WETA) Video cards are not capable enough to render an image that complex in real time :P

imashination
01-19-2006, 11:18 AM
huh? That's what a GPU is for. Yes the major packages have software rendering. But "serious rendering" is done on GPU's not the CPU.

That's how battlefield 2 and other games work as well. Without OpenGL or DirectX hardware acceleration it would crawl.

Just to reiterate what has been said here, and about 4.1 million times on cgtalk in general, rendering is done on the cpu, the graphics card's gpu does not come into the equation unless you use one of the rare render engines such as gelato. The graphics card is used to process the realtime editor, which is not typically referred to as 'rendering'

lukx
01-19-2006, 12:21 PM
why there are no real test of geforce vs quadro? spec%#$%^$$ benchmarks or other strange name benches doesn't give me straight answer. I want to see someone doing framerate test rotating polygons in maya, 3dsmax, xsi viewports on geforce and quadro with differents light setups. ALso playing with particles and stuff. I guess we won't see this kind of test because it might show that it's waste of money to spend it on quadro cards.

Mastakojo
01-19-2006, 03:23 PM
I softmoded my 6800 NU to quadro back in december, i think i posted the results here. Yes you can play games just fine, with about 5% decrease in performance all around, but since u can unlock the locked pipelines, it makes up for it. In 3d app, theres an significant increase in viewport performance, i havent notice any unstability yet (i used to own a AiW 9700 pro, and im using maya). Only thing i dont like about nvidia is there are way too many versions of drivers, dont even know which one to use.

CGTalk Moderation
01-19-2006, 03:23 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.