View Full Version : nVidia Quadro 2 Pro or 3DLabs Wildcat VP 870

11 November 2003, 02:01 AM
What would be a better buy, not including price, because they are both cheap on eBay: an nVidia Quadro 2 Pro, or a 3DLabs Wildcat VP 870?

I would assume the Wildcat, because it is more up to date... or am I wrong?

I use the demo versions of 3dsmax 5, Maya 5, and Mirai

11 November 2003, 02:11 AM
If you play games at all stay away from the Wildcat.

11 November 2003, 02:14 AM
Actually, I do play games a lot, but I do more with 3d. Why should I stay away from the Wildcat?

And thankyou for replying to both of my topics

11 November 2003, 03:38 PM
The Wildcat is great for OpenGL but just plain stinks for Direct3D. While Direct3D 8 is supported on the Wildcat you metioned if they were great for Direct3D we would see them used more in the gaming market.

11 November 2003, 05:18 PM
So you're saying, if i were to buy one, it wouldn't be as good as a normal card for gaming. But, what if I were to compare it to my GeForce 2 Mx400... would it still be lousy for gaming?

11 November 2003, 06:06 PM
The Wildcat is slower than even your GeForce2MX. I found the (almost) prefect review for you; a comparison of a GeForce2MX, a Wildcat VP 870, and a Quadro4 Pro. it was in another language but I ran it through Google. All you really have to take a look at is the graphs. Read it here (

But since your compairson is between a Quadro2 and a Wildcat VP 870 the gap with OpenGL preformance will widen. I'm not so sure about gaming preformance but I would expect it to be less than that of your current card (of course you will get the newer features) unless they have fixed their drivers.

11 November 2003, 06:19 PM
Uhh, I'm really thankful of all the help you've been giving me, but that link you sent me was just for the google translater, not the page with the comparisons.

Thank you again for the help

11 November 2003, 07:06 PM
Here ( it is

11 November 2003, 08:44 PM
What that basically said to me, was to stick with a Quadro 4. Was I reading this wrong, or did it say that playing video games would actually harm the card: "In addition, its poor performances with the video games, will reassure those which find that the video games harms the productivity seriously!"

I think i'm reading that wrong

Thanks for the help everyone!:bounce:

11 November 2003, 10:09 PM
I think that means that the card will reassure those who fret about games costing productivity -- i.e. your boss.:D

11 November 2003, 11:34 PM
Haha, yes, games will not harm the card. They are saying that games run so poorly on it that you will not want to play them and harm how much work you can get done :D

Sorry about the link, I just copied and pasted the link that Google gave me, don't know what the deal is with that. :hmm:

11 November 2003, 11:43 PM
Well that's good and bad, cause I like playing games. Do any of you know how Quadro's work with games? I found a brand new Quadro 4 with dvi connectors for real cheap.

Thanks for the help:thumbsup: :bounce:

11 November 2003, 02:40 PM
The Quadro's work with games comprably to their GeForce counterpart. So expect the gaming preformance of a Quadro4 to be similar to that of a GeForce4.

11 November 2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by stephen2002
The Quadro's work with games comprably to their GeForce counterpart. So expect the gaming preformance of a Quadro4 to be similar to that of a GeForce4. *unless* its one of those POS Quadro's that are for buisiness users and such that are based on the NV17/18 core. It needs to be a Quadro4 700 or higher. If you do decide to get one the Direct3D performance will be about equal to a GeForce4, *but* in OpenGL games you can see as much as a 60 percent improvement in speed.

However, there is one thing to be careful of if you get anything from nVidia that is non-FX. The drivers are forcing a pseudo-trilinear (sometimes referred to as brilinear) filtering method and turning off z-occlusion culling and some other things that, when summed together, will give you more performance out of the FX's with relatively small hit to quality. The problem is that the FX's TMU's are more a limitation than the GF4's and so running bilinear filtering on a GF4 doesnt net you the performance to make up for loosing things like early-z.

So, basically, nVidia is artificially slowing down the GF4 series in order to boost the performance of their FX series. Really the safest thing to do is stick with Detonator 43.2x's which can still be downloaded from

Assuming that you do have a Quadro4 700XGL+ it would definitely be your best choice vs the other options you have presented. The second best would be the WildcatVP, despite it's lower D3D performance. Remember, all games based on the Quake3 and Doom3 engines are OpenGL, of course all games based on the Half-Life2 engine are D3D...

11 November 2003, 05:34 PM
Do you use dual monitors?

11 November 2003, 11:33 PM
The card I was looking at was a Quadro 4 900 XGL, and I am saving up for new parts towards the computer I'm building (more of a workstation comp). My current Dell is horrible, as it's memory is maxed out at 512mb.

I figure that this computer will last me a while, for I want to use a full tower case, for nice space and airflow. Then I'll think about using dual monitors.

11 November 2003, 03:12 AM
oh, definitely get that 900XGL. it's probably the best you can do right now for performance + comatibility in both games and pro apps. it wont run all of the pretty special effects in games such as Half-Life II, but will definitely be playable with quite a bit of eye candy.

CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2006, 08:00 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.