FireGL V5600 vs. QuadroFX 1700 vs. FireGL V3600

Just in case you didn't catch the new link at the top of the page, we’re writing to let you all know that we’ve just posted a mid-range workstation-class GPU round-up at HotHardware.  We look at three cards in particular – two from ATI and one from Nvidia.  From ATI, we’ve got the new FireGL V5600 512 MB card along with the low-end FireGL V3600 256 MB card.  And in the Nvidia camp, we’ve got the popular QuadroFX 1700 512 MB card.  All three of these cards are very tolerable in terms of size, power consumption, noise, and (most of all) price . While one shouldn't expect top of the line performance from them, in our tests we found performance in many applications to be impressively good, proving that you don’t need to spend four digits to get solid workstation performance.  Click the link below and check them out...

FireGL V5600 vs. QuadroFX 1700 vs. FireGL V3600
Via:  HotHardware
Tags:  firegl, Quadro, Fire, v5, fx, 560, 360, V3
tierento 6 years ago

 I was just curious if there is any advantage using these cards over a high end gaming card. Is there any chance you can post a couple of bench marks of the latest NVidia and ATI offerins?



beezlebub 6 years ago

Yes, please help us by making that comparison.


I have to do graphics work (rendering) for my job and I am trying to decide what way to go.  I have to justify purchasing decisions to my pointed headed bosses (plural, unfortunately), and if I say that I want to spend $600 dollars on a card, they will have a tendency to say "But I saw this really cool card Y at BestBuy for $300".  I can tell them that it would be great to play Warcraft on that card, but I need to do real processing.  And they will say 'what's the difference'?   It would be great to show them a chart that shows a workstation card taking 1/10th of the time to do it compared to the consumer card, for only twice the money.  


chrisconnolly 6 years ago

This honestly depends on which application you'll be running.  If you have an application which is optimized for workstation GPU hardware with a profile on the driver level, it will likely run much faster on the workstation card.

 However, if it's not a supported application, it will likely run just as fast (or faster) on a less expensive gaming card.

Dave_HH 6 years ago

I'd like to just chime in here and say that it's great to see some new blood enter our registered user base.  Welcome to HH guys.  We appreciate your input and perspectives, positive, critical or otherwise.


clabrown 6 years ago

 Nice Review! My main concern is 2D and 3D CAD using Autodesk's Autocad 2008. Are any of the benchmarks you ran representative of that? Any possibility you could run a few that might apply to things like hidden line removal in a 3D Cad drawing, rotation or regen speed? 

 Thanks again.

chrisconnolly 6 years ago

The best place to look for CAD-like performance comparison would be to look at the CATIA benchmarks in Spec Viewperf 10 (in the review).

Crisis Causer 6 years ago

Throwing in an 8800GT/S and a 3850(70) would be very good ideas.  I can't think of any reason why not, unless you fear they would break for some strange reason.  Why not add them?

smev 6 years ago

I'm quite surprised with the power consumption of these cards. My whole office is using 189 watts right now. And thats with 3 17" lcds, 2 pcs, and my laptop powered on.  Those video cards use just as much as my setup ? thats crazy. I log all my power usage and use no more then $9 per month. These cards would cost a extra $10 a month or so to leave on 24/7


designmule 6 years ago

First off, the Studio Max benchmarks indicate that the tests were performed in OpenGL. Max has been optimized for Direct X for the last two or three versions. Nvidia even offers the Maxtreme drivers for D3D rather than OpenGL. You do not want to run Max in OpenGL if you don't have to.

Second: If you do 3D work in AutoCAD there maybe some benefit to using workstation grade video cards (due to optimized drivers, again D3D being preferred) but if you do only 2D work there is no need to spend the extra money.

Lastly: Don't go and buy one of these things for games. Typically the workstation grade cards are a generation behind the equivalent gaming card that they are based on (read: identical to). For example: the 8800 GT came out a few months ago, the Quadro based on the 8800 GT will be out in two or three months but will cost 5 or 6 times what the 8800 costs and perform no better.

I run a team of 3D Max users and there used to be a time that (for Max work) it was worthwhile to buy the workstation grade cards however this is no longer the case.

wang 6 years ago

I need to buy video card for my pc which is used for trading financial futures. I am considering ATI FireMV 2250, Matrox P690 and Nvidia NVS 290. I need only 2D and able to drive dual 1920X1200 monitors. I understand that I should use a fast video card (don't know why),  and I wonder whether I should consider a more expensive 3D card like ATI FireGL V5600 instead of the 2D cards that I am considering. Please enlighten. My rig is quad core 6600 and OCed to 3.48, 2GB of Crucial Ballistix, 444-12 at 850 and currently using a Matrox P650 (PCIe X16) driving dual Dell 24 inch LCD. OS is 32 bits XP pro.

tierento 6 years ago

Wang  You don't need a more expensive 3D card if your running a normal application. FireGL cards and the like only help if you are attempting to run 3D Games and Scientific programs. How does your Matrox card run? 

Does anyone here know if there are any optimized opengl drivers for the geforce 8800 gts range? I recently got one of these for my workstation and it runs slower on some opengl apps then my older ati card. Or does nvidia just suck when it comes to OpenGL?



Post a Comment
or Register to comment