1 person found this helpful
Quadro's are a waste of money in PremierePro CS5.x. You have a much faster solution with a GTX580 then you'd ever get with a Quadro4000 for a lot less money. You could always do with a GTX570, which is cheaper still.
If you plan on doing 3D with Maya, 3DSMax, Soft Image, etc, then yes, Quadro's are optimised for these typed of apps.
If you want to have a little extra punch with a GTX580, get the PNY water cooled version.
ok thanks you just saved me from some unneccesary costs I think
1 person found this helpful
You made the right decision to skip the Quadro 2000: It is based on a clock-speed-reduced GeForce GTS 450 - but costs almost four times more money than the regular GTS 450. In fact, the Quadro 2000 actually costs more than all of the current single-GPU GeForce cards except the GTX 580! Premiere Pro does not take much if any advantage of the workstation-optimized drivers. That alone makes the Quadro 2000 the functional equivalent of something less than a GTS 450 when running CS5.x.
Also, skip the Quadro FX 580 and the Quadro 600 entirely: The Quadro FX 580 (not to be confused with the far newer and superior GeForce GTX 580) costs as much as a GTX 550 Ti yet is essentially only a 512MB GeForce 9500 GT. The Quadro 600 costs as much as a GeForce GTX 560 yet is exactly the same (hardware-wise) as a GeForce GT 430.
Thats astonishing for the prices NVidia puts forward, but im grateful to finally hear from people who know what they're talking about
Thanks! What about compositing? From what I read AE uses the CPU over the GPU but then Nuke apparently needs the GPU? In that case would I be wise to go for a workstation card like the Quadro 4000? Or could I get away with using the GeForce GTX 580?
To be honest, the Quadro 4000 is actually below the GeForce GTX 460 or GTX 560 (hardware-spec-wise): The Quadro 4000 is based on the original GF100 GPU that is relatively inefficient in terms of performance per watt compared to newer Fermi GPUs. In this case, the GF100 Fermi was supposed to have 512 CUDA cores (but only a maximum of 480 CUDA cores are ultimately enabled, as they were in the GeForce GTX 480) - but the Quadro 4000 has half of the GF100's CUDA cores disabled, resulting in only 256 CUDA cores being enabled. (For comparison, the most cutdown version of the GF100 GPU used in GeForce cards, the GeForce GTX 465, still has 352 CUDA cores enabled.) The GeForce GTX 460 series and the GTX 560, on the other hand, are based on newer and slightly more efficient versions of the Fermi architecture. The GeForce GTX 460 SE is the slowest of the 460/560 series GPUs, but still has 288 CUDA cores enabled. The full-blown GTX 460 and the GTX 560 (a cut-down version of the 384-core GTX 560 Ti) both have 336 CUDA cores.
Thus, the Quadro 4000 is still underspecced (GPU-wise) compared to even a GTX 460 SE, let alone a GTX 560 Ti that we've been recommending as a BFTB (Bang-For-The-Buck) choice. And even the top-of-the-line Quadro 6000 is only slightly faster than a GTX 470 but is still slower than a GTX 480, 570 or 580.
Thankyou kindly sir, you both helped inform me greatly, much appreciated!!