GeForce GTX vs Quadro: the comparsion

 

What does GTX have that Quadro does not have?

 

What does Quadro have that GTX does not have?

 

I would like for you to give me a chart on the difference between them like an outline comparsion or column comparsion.

 

Also, what is the maximun of RAM memory for video editing?

 

Thank you

1. GTX has performance advantage for general video editing over Quadro
2. Quadro has 10 bit output, but unless you have a monitor that properly supports 10-bit it will do you no good.

I have never tested a Quadro, but here are my comparison charts of GPU's and a chart showing a few boards I have tested with CS5.5.

There is no maximum RAM, there is a minimum for MPE to work it is (I believe)  896 MB or we typically round it off to 1 GB

If you don't need the 10 bit color of the Quadro (and most users probably don't), then here's the low down:

GTX will offer better performance for less money.

Quadro will offer less performance for more money.

GTX$$$ & Quadro$$$$$$$$$$

If you are looking for improvising your performance first make your self next´s question´s:

What processor do I have: AMD or intel? dual, Quad, Exa core...?

How much Ram do you have, HDD CONFIG, Overclocking, Cooling etc...

Get the maximum of your pc before order a $$$$$$$ Video card.

Gtx 580 can perform 80% of the quadro 5000?

...but it always was vice versa...

quadros were always slower "viewpoint performance" but they're "for some reason" certified autodesk hardware... but for example the gtx295 is also certified.

the problem is now that there is a driver opengl performance problem reported by some people using the new 4xx series[ a great performance drop down in dcc apps...]

The GTX580 has 512 cores, running at 772MHz, 1002MHz (Core/RAM)

The 5000 has 352 cores, running at 513, 750

You decide. Don't see a reason to buy a Quadro when you cam improving in so many others areas

Hi

I had beeen had the same question quadro or gtx.

and made a decisition. I changed my gtx  580  with quadro 4000.

positives:

1.Color: Black is like pure black with quadro. And the other colors also. Eventhough my monitor is not 10 bit.

2.Luminans contrast: Luminasity and contrast of images look like better. This is just feeling and very subjective: Pixel creation way is qutie diffirent. I felt as if I use an  ati card. Much contrast and luminans.

3.Video quality: This is very very very subjective okey take care : They both do the same thing such as video editing but I feel like quadro final result is better. Maybe I always tick best render and best depth boxes.

4.Antialias:This is certian quadro is better.

Futuristic:

Next years and monts will bring a new rule : In video production and news people will use much 3d

so quadro will be better for me.

negatives

1.Cuda cores: Yes quadro has less cuda cores

But here comes a question: Yes cuda core is a horsepower.

But is it only horse power that pulls my car? No

here is a case: Ten minuties ago I was having a previev rendering in pp.

cpu usage %15 gpu:%20 Ram:%50 (hard disk sata ssd 3)

Some horses must be sleeping

Why cuda dosent use all my cpu

İf I would have maximus(how wish I would have) or gtx

shall it be the same

Please do not just stick on  cuda cores

Stick on your wishes and plans and your needs

Cuda is very usefull and gooooood

But not only horsepower

thx

What you are describing is the use of an uncalibrated monitor. There is no difference in color, contrast, luminance or video quality between GTX or Quadro on a properly calibrated monitor. What you are experiencing is the same as with different TV models. They have different display settings from the factory and without proper calibration, they show different levels of black, luminance, contrast etc. But who uses a TV with factory settings? Who uses a video card with default driver settings? Every editor should calibrate his monitor or TV first.

First calibrate, load the resulting profile into the video card and then you will not see any difference. Your sleeping horses are the result of slow components in your system, like that disk setup. Your sleeping horses are comparable to a low horsepower car but with all gears available. You can put in more horsepower by using a GTX, but if you limit yourself to using only first gear, the difference is negligent.

Hi Sir

sory but dou you think my system is slow:

Motherboard:ASUS - Rampage III Extreme Intel X58 Soket

Processor : i7-980X Processor Extreme Edition @4.2

Memory :Dominator® GT 12GB Triple Channel DDR3 Memory Kit

Video Card :Quadro 4000

Hard Drive :Corsair Force GT 3 120GB

Hard Drive :Corsair Force GT 3 120GB

Hard Drive :Corsair Force F240A

Hard Drive :Corsair Nova V128

Optical Drive:LG BH12LS38

Case:Obsidian 800D

Power Supply:Corsair 1200 Watt

Sound Card:M audio Audiophile 2496

MonitorEdit:Samsung T260

Operating System:Win7 x64 Ult.

Try the PPBM CS5 Benchmark and you will know. My guess is your score will be in the 200-250 second range.

Very Dear  Millaard:

You say "There is no difference in color, contrast, luminance or video quality between GTX or Quadro on a properly calibrated monitor."

Okey but my eyes think diffirent.

Please lets find a way to test this.

and create a test set up.

best

turgut

Here's the thing, Turbut:

Most LCD (or LED-backlit LCD) monitors are still of the TN panel variety, which can only reproduce 6-bit color. And even a good IPS panel-based monitor can cost $500 to $800. And the lower-priced monitors are increasingly S-IPS (a cheaper version of IPS that sacrifices a bit of image quality in favor of faster response times) or of the VA type (which does not offer the best of both worlds - but rather, the poorer of both worlds). That's because most people want things cheaper, not necessarily better. Thus, if a monitor can't faithfully reproduce the output of even a GTX, let alone a Quadro, why waste the money on such an expensive and slow GPU? Good monitors that can take full advantage of the 10-bit output of a Quadro can cost well into the thousands (or even tens of thousands) of dollars.

Hiii RjL

Thx  for knowladge.I wish to have Dell U2711

Im not fan of gtx or quadro.

but I hope to be fan of Maximus.

Im fan of speed .

I happened to be the one who edited with high speed game desktops instead of 100000USD avid computers 14 yearsego In my country.

So we changed the rule.At least three major tv channels asked me to desing desktops for editing with gforce. Thx Lord I happened to have and test all best gforce cards.

NgKids Lansman Film was made  by intell 3.4 HT and gforce 7600 for CINEMA  at home.

And some news for BBC were made in my Toshiba laptop .

I know the force of gtx.

4 years ego Lets try quadro fx I said. But I wasnt happy.8800 gtx was hotter for me

Gtx 480-580 fleid me to the moon.

And I said lets try quadro new generation. First time Im happy with quadro.

There must be reason Im trying to find why

best

turgut

Strange things happen when you think with your eyes, listen with your nose and see with your ears.

(now the ears of my ears awake and

now the eyes of my eyes are opened)

                                  e.e.cummings

the lower-priced monitors are increasingly S-IPS (a cheaper version of IPS

Uh...may I ask your source on that?  Wikipedia claims that IPS was "plagued by slow response time and a low contrast ratio", and that "IPS has since been superseded by S-IPS (Super-IPS) in 1998, which has all the benefits of IPS technology with the addition of improved pixel refresh timing.

Hiii Millaard

Wikipedia answers question for quadro vs gforce performance like that:

The performance difference comes in the firmware controlling the card.^{[citation needed]} Given the importance of speed in a game, a system used for gaming can shut down textures, shading, or rendering after only approximating a final output—in order to keep the overall frame rate high. The algorithms on a CAD-oriented card tend rather to complete all rendering operations, even if that introduces delays or variations in the timing, prioritising accuracy and rendering quality over speed.

Is it still true that GTX has better performance for less money concerning video editing. Aren't there any advantages with the drivers of the quadro cards which should support the needs of programs other than games more?

Absolutely GTX will out perform Quadro's when you compare prices .  A GTX 1080Ti has 3584 CUDA cores an sells for about sells for 750 USD,  The Pascal version of the Quadro with same 3584 CUDA cores is a mere 9000 USD.  Qudro main advantage is if you have an expensive 10-bit monitor

Thanks!

Get a GTX690 or 780ti. I have two of each and it is a real fun

Right now get the newer Pascal based cards the GTX 10 series they are solid performers you should size the GPU depending on your CPU power and how much you use GPU accelerated effects and features.

I'm planning to buy the recent Dell XPS 15, which has a i7 7300HQ and GTX 1050 and for me will have 32GB Ram. Do you think I will be able to able to do ,multicamera editing with at least two 4K cameras with intraframe codec and two more Full HD cameras? That's actually a common task for me in the future.

I just checked, and there is no i7-7300HQ CPU at all. Did you mean the i5-7300HQ? That CPU has four physical cores without hyperthreading (only four threads).

I'm sorry, I meant 7700HQ...

Since you are dealing with 4k and HD you might want to consider at least a good GTX 1060 because evidently you will be scaling to HD  I have the EVGA 06G-P4-6163-KR which is superclocked and that Memory Clock is running at  2002MHz or effective Memory Clock 8008 MHz  but I have been able to overclock it to 9600 effective MHz.  For great CUDA reslts

There is a newer version the EVGA 06G-P4-6768-KR which has more thermal sensors built in and does cost a little more but may be a better buy in the long term.