coasthost.blogg.se

1. #Nvidia quadro k600 vs gtx 960 drivers#
2. #Nvidia quadro k600 vs gtx 960 software#
3. #Nvidia quadro k600 vs gtx 960 professional#

I didn’t believe this myself, or expected it. Suddenly, the GeForce is just as fast as the Quadro. However, if an application implements the exact same formulas used for double-sided lighting by fixed-function OpenGL in a shader program, the difference evaporates.

#Nvidia quadro k600 vs gtx 960 software#

That’s how legacy CAD software would do it. Turns out, there isn’t.ĭouble-sided surfaces are slow when rendered in the “standard” OpenGL way, i.e., by enabling glLightModeli(GL_LIGHT_MODEL_TWO_SIDE,GL_TRUE). So where does the ginormous factor of 13 come from? There must be some feature specific to the GeForce’s hardware that makes double-sided surfaces slow. That would obviously take about twice as long. One way of simulating double-sided surfaces is to render single-sided surfaces twice, with triangle orientations and normal vectors flipped. What makes even less sense is that double-sided surfaces were a factor of 13 slower than single-sided surfaces (remember the claimed 10x Quadro speed-up I mentioned above?). That makes no sense, since everything else was significantly faster on a 480. Isosurfaces that rendered on the 285 at a sprightly 60 or so FPS, rendered on the 480 at a sluggish 15 FPS. Then an external user upgraded to a GeForce 480, and the bottom fell out.

On a GeForce 285, 3D Visualizer’s isosurfaces ran perfectly OK. Makes sense as well on special “professional” silicon, the two lighting calculations would be run in parallel.īut a couple of years ago, I got a rude awakening.

On a Quadro, the performance difference used to be, and still is, negligible. Makes sense, considering that OpenGL’s lighting engine has to do twice the amount of work. I don’t recall exactly, but the difference was significant but not outrageous, say a factor of 2-3. From way back, on a piddly GeForce 3, I know that frame rate drops precipitously when enabling double-sided surfaces (for those who don’t know: double-sided surfaces are not backface-culled, and are illuminated from both sides, often with different material properties on either side). Well, I don’t have a CAD application at hand, but I have 3D Visualizer, which uses double-sided surfaces to render contour- or iso-surfaces in 3D volumetric data. Could it be that these two features were specifically targeted for crippling in the GeForce driver, because they are so common to “workstation” applications, and so rarely used in games, to justify the Quadro’s price tags? No, right? What’s common in CAD? Wireframe rendering and double-sided surfaces. But wait: the quoted performance difference is for “professional” or “workstation” applications. So, is the Quadro a lot faster than the GeForce? According to web lore, it is, by a large factor of 10x or so (oh how I wish I could find a link to a benchmark right now, but please read on). Granted, the Quadro 6000 has 6GB of video RAM to the GeForce’s 2GB, but that doesn’t explain the difference. So, why are professional-level cards so much more expensive? For comparison, an “entry-level” $700 Quadro 4000 is significantly slower than a $530 high-end GeForce GTX 680, at least according to my measurements using several Vrui applications, and the closest performance-equivalent to a GeForce GTX 680 I could find was a Quadro 6000 for a whopping $3660. What are their differences? Obviously, gamer-level cards are cheap, because the companies face stiff competition from each other, and want to sell as many of them as possible to make a profit. There are gamer-level cards, and professional-level cards. Case closed.One of the mysteries of the modern age is the existence of two distinct lines of graphics cards by the two big manufacturers, Nvidia and ATI/AMD. The gaming card gave me lags and jerks every time I did a zoom / pan / rotate. I opened up a huge file on two identical computers. I used to think it didn’t make a difference until I did a test. If I were upgrading an older computer (or making a cheaper workstation) I would have bought the K600.Īs Holo wisely advised (several times!) gaming cards are fine, but they’re not what the professionals use. The top-of-the-line cards are usually overkill for me, so I recently bought the K4000 which works great on 2x27 in monitors. The new K-series are excellent with their CUDA-GPU co-processors these can do real-time viewport rendering which is a huge boost to visualize a final render.

#Nvidia quadro k600 vs gtx 960 drivers#

That means they care if the card will run for days / stay cool / look great on screen / update drivers regularly / etc.

#Nvidia quadro k600 vs gtx 960 professional#

Many 3D professional geeks consider the nVidia line to be the gold standard the key being 3D professionals. Whenever I buy a new computer or upgrade, I just check to see what is the latest nVidia OpenGL card and go with a model that is 1 or 2 steps less expensive than their best.