FireGL V8650 Vs. NVIDIA QuadroFX 5600 Review

The hardware probably don't mean much unless you are a workstation user. I
just read the article for the pictures. Nothing quite like two massive video
cards that don't require a kickstand... ATi even went as far as putting a
gusset in the heatsink plate, making it a semi-stressed structural member.

http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/...Card_Shootout/

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."

* First of One:
> The hardware probably don't mean much unless you are a workstation user. I
> just read the article for the pictures. Nothing quite like two massive video
> cards that don't require a kickstand... ATi even went as far as putting a
> gusset in the heatsink plate, making it a semi-stressed structural member.
>
> http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/...Card_Shootout/

Thanks for the link. Having upgraded from Quadro FX 4600 to the Quadro
FX 5600 recently I found that a very interesting read. IMHO they should
have used a dual processor system as a single CPU system probably can't
bring any of these GPUs to their limits.

Benjamin

"Benjamin Gawert" <> wrote in message
news:...
>* First of One:
>> The hardware probably don't mean much unless you are a workstation user.
>> I
>> just read the article for the pictures. Nothing quite like two massive
>> video
>> cards that don't require a kickstand... ATi even went as far as putting a
>> gusset in the heatsink plate, making it a semi-stressed structural
>> member.
>>
>> http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/...Card_Shootout/
>
> Thanks for the link. Having upgraded from Quadro FX 4600 to the Quadro FX
> 5600 recently I found that a very interesting read. IMHO they should have
> used a dual processor system as a single CPU system probably can't bring
> any of these GPUs to their limits.
>
> Benjamin

There was a quad core CPU in their test bed. I think all of the programs
they used to test are multi-core/processor aware, so if a quad-core
processor can't remove any sort of CPU limitations from the equation, I
don't think adding a second processor would.

RF.

* RF:

> There was a quad core CPU in their test bed. I think all of the programs
> they used to test are multi-core/processor aware, so if a quad-core
> processor can't remove any sort of CPU limitations from the equation, I
> don't think adding a second processor would.

No matter how much cores you have a single CPU system (at least if it
uses intel processors) *always* is limited by the bus system (FSB). A
dual processor system has two independent FSBs, raising the FSB
bottleneck by a a noticeable amount.

I'd always take a dual dual-core system over a single quad-core system.

Benjamin

"Benjamin Gawert" <> wrote in message
news:...
>* RF:
>
>> There was a quad core CPU in their test bed. I think all of the programs
>> they used to test are multi-core/processor aware, so if a quad-core
>> processor can't remove any sort of CPU limitations from the equation, I
>> don't think adding a second processor would.
>
> No matter how much cores you have a single CPU system (at least if it uses
> intel processors) *always* is limited by the bus system (FSB). A dual
> processor system has two independent FSBs, raising the FSB bottleneck by a
> a noticeable amount.
>
> I'd always take a dual dual-core system over a single quad-core system.
>
> Benjamin

Ah yes, that's true. I hadn't thought of that. Be interested to see a
benchmark between the two systems. Would there actually be enough data
going through the FSB to saturate it?

RF.

* RF:

>> No matter how much cores you have a single CPU system (at least if it uses
>> intel processors) *always* is limited by the bus system (FSB). A dual
>> processor system has two independent FSBs, raising the FSB bottleneck by a
>> a noticeable amount.
>
> Ah yes, that's true. I hadn't thought of that. Be interested to see a
> benchmark between the two systems.

I can't remember any benchmarks on the web but at work we did several
application benchmarks between dual dual-core systems and single
quad-core systems. The dual dual-core system always performed better,
sometimes just a tad (<5%, so barely measureable and not noticeable),
often very noticeably (>20%).

> Would there actually be enough data
> going through the FSB to saturate it?

With two FSB1333 processors, yes. Definitely.

But even with a single CPU system the test is very interesting and shows
that (unlike for games) in the professional market there simply is not
the fastest gfx card for all purposes. ATI/AMD for example always was
strong in Maya, and if you do Maya you'd be stupid to spend the money
for a Quadro FX 5600 when a much cheaper FireGL brings you more
performance. I don't use Maya so I'm better of with the Quadro.

Benjamin