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?
- GTX has performance advantage for general video editing over Quadro
- 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
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
I had beeen had the same question quadro or gtx.
and made a decisition. I changed my gtx 580 with quadro 4000.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Power Supply:Corsair 1200 Watt
Sound Card:M audio Audiophile 2496
Operating System:Win7 x64 Ult.
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.
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
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.
Wikipedia answers question for quadro vs gforce performance like that:
The performance difference comes in the firmware controlling the card. 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.