Why Quadro's Are Better

[fafnir]

quadro's are NOT going to be slower than the equivalent geforce that they are based off of;

people like to think they are slower because they have specific drivers/driversets for them, which usually are older, therefore slower

e.g. Quadro FX 3000 vs FX5900 Ultra


comparison done at xbit-labs shows the quadro’s lagging by 15 fps in ut2003, BUT, when you look at the system specs, you see:

FX5900 with det 51 drivers VS. Quadro FX 3000 with the 3ds/ugi Det 45 drivers


ever wonder where the additional fps went?


in conclusion:

when system specs are identical, the quadro’s will have IDENTICAL OR BETTER performance UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES

[shiltz]

actualy that's not true as the 4X.XX series drivers are actualy faster in directX 8 games than the 5X.XX.

[MooMasster716]

Can you link to the xbit-labs article plz.

[YellowDart]

Quadro's are not better for gaming. From what I've heard, the Quadro FX3000 is essentially the same card as a 5900ultra. There is one resistor that's located differently, and you run different drivers w/ a Quadro.

It's performance suffers in games, but if you do any 3d creation, modeling, animation, etc. That's where you'll see the Quadro shine. It's not a gaming card... It' designed to make games. ;)

[9mmCensor]

The drivers a tweaked for stability in OpenGL (?), which is what people will be using for CAD, 3DMax, type apps, no for playing games where a high framerate is essential, but this does not mean your $3000 card will suck when you boot up UT.

[dreIU]

Originally posted by 9mmCensor
The drivers a tweaked for stability in OpenGL (?), which is what people will be using for CAD, 3DMax, type apps, no for playing games where a high framerate is essential, but this does not mean your $3000 card will suck when you boot up UT.

Oh my god, that is a crap load of money! :eek: