View Full Version : gtx 670 vs quadro 600, 2000 4000 for workstation.

06 June 2012, 09:40 AM
Im starting a 3 year course at uni on digital design ie learning to use software like Maya, 3dsmax, Photoshop, blender zbrush and the likes. at the same time my dad is planning to become a heavy Photoshop user and use video editing software. we are planning on mutually owning a computer to do these tasks.

What card would you recommend for doing these tasks. Is something like a quadro 4000 way overkill for non commercial usage and does the brute processing power of a card like a gtx670/680 make it better for workstation use than something like a quadro 600? what are the advantages of a quadro over a gaming card for amateur use?

Also while i'm at it should i go socket 1155 or 2011? if I was gaming I would go 1155 but for workstation i'm lost.

One last thing. The current generation of quadros have been out for a while. Is it better to wait for the next generation as I can wait about 6 months before getting this computer if needs be. Or is the next generation still a while off.

06 June 2012, 04:59 AM
Quadros are way overpriced for what they offere compared to other solution, gaming nvidia cards are crippled since version 480 and have really bad performance in any 3d software.
My solution was radeon hd 7970. Compared to any other nvidia product so far it is far superior, even got some test where it outperformed quadro 5000.

If you have some time for reading you can check out this forum:;action=display;threadid=45465;start=270

I replaced gtx580 where I had something like 17fps, and only after like 1min of use going up to 80fps with an test script in viewport for Softimage, while with radeon it goes straight up to 170fps.

06 June 2012, 06:47 PM
Indeed, you do not need a Quadro for video editing or 3D really. Geforce cards prior to the 600 series are crippled in many 3D applications, Radeons are not. I'm running a Geforce 550Ti here at work now (GTX460 just died last week, after two faithful years!) and it is superior in power to the GTX460. The compute performance is not crippled on the 550Ti - but I can't speak for other cards, myself. This $150 gaming card pushes millions of polygons in Maya 2012 with about double the framerate of last week's GTX460. It also accelerates some aspects of Photoshop significantly, although I can't quantify the acceleration other than it feels faster working with hi-res 300dpi prints.

A Geforce or Radeon will be just fine for your needs for some time. Seriously diminishing returns on any Quadros or FireGL cards if you're just starting out - they're not going to pay for themselves quickly in your scenario.

06 June 2012, 07:01 AM
So then what is the point of a card like a quadro 600 if for a lot less money you can get a card like a gtx550ti? Is it just for idiots or is there some advantage to the quadro?

06 June 2012, 01:16 PM
In theory drivers should be better optimized for CG work and software used, and should work without problems and better.
In practice... final gain in my opinion doesn't justify price tag.

06 June 2012, 03:13 PM
I can really only speak for Maya usage. With a gaming card, you'll see your viewport crawl between 1 million and 15 million polygons. With a "pro" card, you'll get to maybe 40 or 50 million polygons.

In complex scenes with all those polys though, the standard workflow is to use Visibility Layers in Maya. You would then set most of your geometry to show as "bounding box", so you can still work on a huge scene without major slowdowns, no matter what card you have.

So it all depends on your needs. If you were doing, say, medical work and needed to have 25 million polys on your screen at once animating smoothly, a $3000 graphics card might help out a lot.

06 June 2012, 04:49 PM
Yeah, even I'm not so sure about quadros going forward anymore. I work with high res medical models that need to have specific geometry details modeled in directly and can't use displacement mapping or instancing.

with viewport 2.0 - which I've been using more and more on my home machine with my radeon 7950, I'm finding less and less reasons to use maya's classic viewport other than for rare specific instances. It's so much faster than a quadro with the classic viewport and flat out does some things better - like its xray options. Basic ambient occlusion is nice to have too. I wish it had better wireframe AA like classic viewport's smooth wireframe feature, but oh well.

I've been waiting for the new quadro line to refresh so I can get one for my work computer, but I might just end up getting a radeon for work.

The radeon actually does a decent job with maya's classic viewport performance. After seeing my coworker's brand new Geforce 460SE only get 1-2fps beyond 500k polygons in classic viewport, and then seeing so many other people complain about the 500 and 600 series as bad at the time, the conclusion was Nvidia is reducing maya's classic viewport performance on purpose.

I decided I'm done with geforces until Nvidia gets their act together. Good job Nvidia. If you're purposely botching maya classic viewport performance in an attempt to force me to buy a quadro - think again. Now your competitor is getting my money instead.

My previous experience with quadro vs geforce with my line of work has been the quadro giving roughly 3x the performance in classic viewport compared to the latest geforce despite the hardware being inferior. Viewport 2.0 changes everything and it's now the other way around where quadros just don't make any sense for me. I did try a Firepro before, and it was a piece of crap that wouldn't display or select things correctly.

06 June 2012, 07:51 PM
So then what is the point of a card like a quadro 600 if for a lot less money you can get a card like a gtx550ti? Is it just for idiots or is there some advantage to the quadro?

Some people will buy a bag of rocks to balance on their audio speakers because they think it absorbs the bad vibrations.

Some people wear a hologram badge on their wrist because they think it gives them better balance.

06 June 2012, 10:46 PM
I'm totally with you on this one, Sentry. Except the 460 (non-SE model) and 550Ti I've been using both work pretty well for Maya, but like I said, they'll be the last Nvidia cards I purchase for non-gaming purposes. AMD already gets my money on the CPU end (just got an 8120 and I'm very happy with the gains over my 1100T!), and the Radeons like you said are still rockin' for Maya too. No reason to exhibit brand-loyalty, it's all about price-per-performance ratios.

*Edit: Imashination, you don't use "fossilized dinosaur dung through eons of tectonic pressures and afterward carefully sorted in our nuclear magno-tune accelerator (patent pending) to capture and hogtie unruly frequencies on a subatomic level."??? You're missing out! (grins)

07 July 2012, 06:34 AM
Having read all this im starting to think the best option is to stick with the 5870 that im using in my current computer.

Just one more thing do nDynamics use physx? if so is there a big performance boost in nDynamics in going for an nvidia card? and is the loss of cuda worth the money saved in going for an ati/amd card over a quardro?

07 July 2012, 01:19 PM
I use a 5850 and have had no issues.

07 July 2012, 01:51 PM
nDynamics aren't accelerated by the GPU, currently, on either card.

07 July 2012, 09:03 PM
You know- but nDynamics seem to be running much better nowadays- Messing with nHair and WOW!

07 July 2012, 02:55 AM
Well sure, the display of them is handled by the GPU, but the calcs and dynamic math is all done by the CPU still. We may get OpenCL support in the future, and there are plugins which use CUDA (Nvidia) to do similar things, but nDynamics are still CPU-bound, at least in Maya 2012.

CGTalk Moderation
07 July 2012, 02:55 AM
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.