Quadro FX1000 AGP 128MB vs GeForce FX 5900 ULTRA 256MB

Quadro FX1000 AGP 128MB vs GeForce FX 5900 ULTRA 256MB

Post by abc » Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:52:30



Possibly the 2 fastest cards on the market atm.
I believe both come with DDR2 so could the GeForce FX have the
edge here? ( taking price:performance ratio into account )
 
 
 

Quadro FX1000 AGP 128MB vs GeForce FX 5900 ULTRA 256MB

Post by Paul Gunso » Sun, 29 Jun 2003 07:24:39



> Possibly the 2 fastest cards on the market atm.
> I believe both come with DDR2 so could the GeForce FX have the
> edge here? ( taking price:performance ratio into account )

i'm not sure if the GeForceFX will be supported in Maya 5's new hardware
renderer (i'm only on 4.5), you'll want to check that otherwise its an
easy coice for the quadro.

 
 
 

Quadro FX1000 AGP 128MB vs GeForce FX 5900 ULTRA 256MB

Post by Tom » Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:38:09


Where did you get that information? How do you know that "the current Quadro
cards are based on a *
design. That's the FX500-1000-2000" ?? The alias | wavefront webpage says
that many of the quadro cards work well with Maya. They actually test them.

Tom



> >Possibly the 2 fastest cards on the market atm.
> >I believe both come with DDR2 so could the GeForce FX have the
> >edge here? ( taking price:performance ratio into account )

> Hi

> First post here. I'm in the process of parts shopping to build a
> computer for Maya. Nividia is really the only choice, as they have a
mature set
> of drivers. Please note that the current Quadro cards are based on a *
> design. That's the FX500-1000-2000. The infamous 5800FX is the game card
that
> earned the name dustbuster (too much heat, too much noise), and the
present
> Quadro cards are the same, to the best of my knowledge. Therefore a bad
buy, in
> my opinion. The FX2000 is the physical match to the 5800FX, so the FX500,
and
> FX1000, won't run as fast, or as hot, and probably use a different cooling
> system, slightly less noisy. Some people here have those cards. If you
don't
> know, the workstation cards and the game cards are identical physically,
but the
> game cards have a few features disabled that are needed for workstations.
So we
> get hosed buying a workstation card, pricewise.
> The GeForce FX 5900 isn't a bad card, but it's not a new design, it's
> just a fixed up 5800. They got rid of the DDR2 ram, which ran too hot, and
> dropped the speed 50 clicks to reduce heat, letting them get away with a
quieter
> fan system. The 5900 is slower than the 5800. While the card is fine for
*,
> I don't know if the software exists to bootstrap it into a workstation
card.
> Translation - re-enable the workstation features. The software does exist
for
> the Ti4600 cards, and that's the way I'm going. In one or two generations,
the
> N40, or N45 chips, I have no doubt that Nividia will produce a decent
> workstation card, and it might be worth spending the money, especially if
you
> can write it off to some degree. Until then, I'm taking the short-term
solution
> with a Ti4600, which means that I won't have Directx 9 for *, but
I'll have
> a pretty decent, and cost effective card for the meantime, and it will
make a
> nice gift to some poor kid in the future. Read a bit more here,
> http://www.veryComputer.com/, go down to the Gainward Ti4600 video card
review,
> and here, the guy who wrote the software,
> http://www.veryComputer.com/, it's an interesting read. Hope this
> helps, rather than confuses.

> Best, Ari.

 
 
 

Quadro FX1000 AGP 128MB vs GeForce FX 5900 ULTRA 256MB

Post by Tom » Sat, 05 Jul 2003 07:08:02


Ok. I knew along time ago that the FX5800 sucked because of there noise. We
agree there. I see that the fx5800 and the fx2000 are based on the nv30
chip.On www.newegg.com 's site, I see that the quadro fx2000 looks alittle
like the fx5800, but the rest of the quadro's dont. Tom's hardware didnt
mention the fx2000 being loud or anything in his conclusion. He seems to
like it. I never read anywhere in the fx2000 review that it sucked. Even the
fx2000 has a different venting fan on it.  I dont quite buy your argument.
What am I missing? Show me where it says that fx2000 sucks and makes alot of
noise. I just want to see it for myself.



> >Where did you get that information? How do you know that "the current
Quadro
> >cards are based on a *
> >design. That's the FX500-1000-2000" ?? The alias | wavefront webpage says
> >that many of the quadro cards work well with Maya. They actually test
them.

> >Tom

> Hi Tom

> If you go here, http://www.veryComputer.com/, go down 8 or 9 sections
> until you get to the graphic cards section. Have a look in "More Releases"
> section, which has older articles, and a couple of good workstation
articles.
> Another site to check is http://www.veryComputer.com/
> sites, but you can do a search for other sites that review the FX5800.
Although
> some sites are more diplomatic than others, the consensus is that the
FX5800 was
> a technical bust. The card was so loud that you couldn't be in the same
room
> with it. This is not to say it wasn't a well performing card. There were
some
> complaints of bugs, but the main thing with electronics is heat. If it
runs hot,
> it has a shorter life. Here's the rub, the starting price on the FX5800
was
> around $500, and the companion workstation card the FX2000 was $2000 U.S.,
> although it's dropped to about $1400 now. My point is, if you want to
*me
> over for a premium price, then I expect absolutely flawless technology,
not a
> card they rushed to market to compete with ATI, and to get back the
fastest card
> name once again. Read around for some FX5800 articles.
> You won't find many workstation reviews unfortunately. They probably
> account for less than 1% of sales, which I imagine is how they justify
charging
> as much as they do. I just find it less than amusing that all cards are
> workstation cards in reality, and they make game cards by disabling
workstation
> features.
> I have nothing against Nividia, but they screwed the pooch on this
> release. As they are a decent company, I tend to think that means they
will try
> twice as hard to bring out a top of the line workstation card next time,
with
> the next generation of chipsets.
> Look at it this way. You have always bought a BMW car. Every 2 years you
> trade in and get the new one. This year though, just before you buy, you
read
> reviews that say that there are major design flaws, so what do you do?
Well I'd
> keep my current car until next years model comes out. Same with the video
cards.
> If I had one, I'd wait for the next generation. As I don't have a card,
I'll go
> back in time and buy a well reviewed card, for a couple of hundred bucks,
and
> wait for a good new one to come out. $200 won't break my heart. I'm just a
> consumer that fails to be surprised when things don't turn out as
advertised.
> Caveat Emptor, buyer beware. There may be someone in this group that has
one of
> these cards, a FX2000, and may say it runs cool and whisper quiet, in
which case
> I would be wrong. All that I have said is that based on what I have read
and
> researched, I have not read anywhere that the FX2000 uses a quieter, more
> expensive cooling solution. I could be wrong, but how about we leave it
like
> this. You buy one from a place with a good, no questions asked, return
policy.
> That way you can try it without the worry of being stuck with a dog for
several
> years. Then let us know. To me, a group like this should share
information, due
> to significant hardware costs, and especially because some of us are doing
it
> privately with our own money, in the hopes of breaking into the job market
in
> the future. My feelings certainly won't be hurt if someone can say that
I'm
> wrong. I'm just putting the information out there to people like me, that
you
> better do your damn homework, and offering a low cost alternative.
> To address your Alias\Wavefront question, yes I've read the page, and
> know it well. The card works, that's not in dispute. But for how long?
What's
> it's resale value going to be? When you sell it to someone who's just
starting
> out, are you going to feel bad? Also you should consider that corporations
can
> afford to house their workstations in other rooms, so no noise. Is that
the case
> with you, or is your workstation going to be beside your desk? I want my
> computer experience to be as painless as possible. Think about spending 12
to 16
> hours a day with a constant droning noise. I have.

> Best, Ari.

 
 
 

Quadro FX1000 AGP 128MB vs GeForce FX 5900 ULTRA 256MB

Post by Tom » Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:20:56


"Please note that the current Quadro cards are based on a *
design. That's the FX500-1000-2000. The infamous 5800FX is the game card
that
earned the name dustbuster (too much heat, too much noise), and the present
Quadro cards are the same, to the best of my knowledge"

1) I know Tom's Hardware gets advertising money, but he still slammed the
fx5800( or whichever # card really did suck) He didnt give the fx2000 a
negative review as far as I could tell. If the Fx2000 consists of the
workstation market, which you said was a really small percent, why would
nvidia pay him off to give a good review of the 2000 and not the 5800, when
the 5800 could have made nvidia more money? thats just food for thought. I
dont want a lengthy answer to that since all anyone can do is speculate.

2) Ive read alot more reviews of the quadro cards than just that one on
newegg.com for the 2000. Yes I noticed there was only one review for the
fx2000. But people seem to like the other quadro's. And yeah, even A|W likes
some of them! They dont like 3DLabs or most of the FireGL cards. I have the
list on paper right next to me.

3) I built my current computer box myself. Every part came from newegg.com.
I have a geforce3 TI200 at the moment. P4 with 512 mb of ram. I built this
thing for games but now I want a pc for Maya. I am looking to buy a quadro 4
750(cost ~ $320) in the future.

4) You said that you looked around and found that the 2000 and the 5800 were
the same. Sure, they both use the nv30,I said that already. But where are
the flaws in the quadro line that you asserted from the first post?

5) Ive been following game cards and workstation cards for over 8 years.
Hi - end workstation cards are always priced in the 1,000's of dollars. The
graphics industry knows people want the best, so thats why they overprice
them. A studio like ILM will pay whatever they have to to get the best
cards, and computers as well. If you cant afford the fx2000, then go with a
cheaper one. The hi end cards are for top professionals. Thats not you or me
at the moment.

If the fx2000 does not make as much noise as the 5800, then is it still a
*design? If so, show me. Thanks.



> >Ok. I knew along time ago that the FX5800 sucked because of there noise.
We
> >agree there. I see that the fx5800 and the fx2000 are based on the nv30
> >chip.On www.newegg.com 's site, I see that the quadro fx2000 looks
alittle
> >like the fx5800, but the rest of the quadro's dont. Tom's hardware didnt
> >mention the fx2000 being loud or anything in his conclusion. He seems to
> >like it. I never read anywhere in the fx2000 review that it sucked. Even
the
> >fx2000 has a different venting fan on it.  I dont quite buy your
argument.
> >What am I missing? Show me where it says that fx2000 sucks and makes alot
of
> >noise. I just want to see it for myself.

> Hi Tom

> I had a look around, and the FX5800 & the FX2000 cards are the same.
> What you have to look for is the connectors, the capacitor layout, you get
the
> idea. What does look different is that it looks like PNY, who is the sole
> distributer for the Quadro cards, has changed the cooling solution, with a
much
> larger passive heatsink, and probably a much better fan, so I'm willing to
> concede that it would run quieter than the FX5800. Couple of things that I
> picked up at the newegg site. While they claimed to have 3 reviews on the
> FX2000, I found only one, pasted below.

> PNY Quadro FX 2000 128MB DDR2, 8XAGP, DVI+DVI - RETAIL
> Specifications:
> Chipset: NVIDIA Quadro FX
> Memory: 128MB DDR2

> Dual 400MHz RAMDACs
> Full 128-bit floating-point precision pipeline
> Dual-link TMDS - Drives one digital display up to 2048x1536 and another at
> 1600x1200 simultaneously
> AGP: 8X
> Ports: DVI+DVI
> Operating Systems: Windows NT/2000/XP (WHQL Certified)
> Retail Box (see pictures)

>   N/A,6/9/2003 11:39:03 PM

> I own both the FX-2000 and the Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb cards. I tested them
both
> with my favorite Lightwave 7.5 application, and found NO practical
difference in
> rendering performance or image quality. I consider the FX-2000 a waste of
money
> for almost a thousand dollars more than the Radeon...at least for
Lightwaver's.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

> I agree with this guy, the cards are way overpriced, and the following
> might have something to do with it. I believe that PNY gives a lifetime
> warranty, so they have to figure that into the cost. Also when
overclocking,
> it's not unusual to buy a superior aftermarket cooling solution, some of
which
> are quite expensive. PNY had to go with a much higher priced cooling
solution to
> cut back on their returns, which makes sense. While what the guy above
says for
> Lightwave may be true, Maya definitely uses hardware enabled features on
the
> Quadro, that wouldn't be available on the ATI 9800. Of course if ATI ever
gets
> their drivers for workstations working a little better, they may become
> competitive in the future. I'm actually hoping ATI gives us a competitive
card
> or two, forcing prices down for both companies. They have two cards
suitable for
> Maya, the Z1 and X1 based on the 9700 Pro, but apparently their drivers
still
> need work. Now, if someone in the future writes a little software program
to
> make a 9800 Pro into a workstation card, we're going to be very happy.
> So after seeing the picture of the different cooling solution we can
> probably agree that the FX2000 runs quieter than the FX5800. By how much
is
> anybody's guess. It's still a bad design though. Nividia can do much
better, and
> hopefully will in the future. Another thing I noticed on the newegg site
was
> that they have a "no return, exchange only" on the FX5900. As the
successor to
> the FX5800, it's probably being treated unfairly, but it goes to show you
there
> must have been a buttload of returns on the FX5800, and hell, they only
made
> about 10,000.
> The reason that the FX500 & FX1000 look different is because they are.
> They still have the same inherent flaws, but they aren't clocked to go as
fast
> as the flagship FX2000, so they put out a lot less heat, and they get a
more
> Mickey Mouse cooling solution. They are the mates of the FX5600 & FX5200.
> I steered you towards Tom's Hardware as it is one of the few places that
> had Workstation video card reviews. You can't always trust old Tom though,
he
> can be biased, or leave out important information if his advertising
dollars are
> at stake. I still like reading the site though, lot's of good articles. I
always
> try and read other peoples views though before drawing conclusions.
> To tell you the truth, when I started out, I knew a boatload about game
> cards, because I have been following their development very closely for
over a
> year. I didn't even know there was such a thing as a workstation card
until I
> found the info on the Alias Wavefront site. Complicates life. I
immediately
> decided that I wanted the FX2000, because I always want the very best,
even if I
> can't afford it. That changed after my research. I'm in Canada, so it's a
$2000
> card for me with the exchange. Don't think so. I would take a shot with
one for
> $500 though. When the new line comes out, you may see some deep discounts
as PNY
> tries to get rid of their stock. Personally, I'm going to put together a
P4 3
> ghz MT, with a Ti4600 card that I can make into a soft Quadro. I'll look
at
> putting together a Workstation somewhere down the road, when I see some
quality
> video cards coming down the pipe. I'm doing this personally, not for work,
so
> I'm not in a hurry, I have a lot to learn. I'd rather stick the money into
> tutorials, than know I wasted my money on what I think is a substandard
line of
> cards.
> I never really got around to asking, but do you own one of these cards,
> or are you in the market for a new card?

> Best, Ari.

 
 
 

Quadro FX1000 AGP 128MB vs GeForce FX 5900 ULTRA 256MB

Post by Tom » Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:00:03


Quote:> O.K., one last time. Nividia admitted they screwed up, and the FX5800
> barely made it to the assembly line before they were taken off. So let's
look at
> the changes they made to the FX5900 card, the short term fix.
> (1) The Fx5800 had **sub-par** image quality, and so would any FX2000
> based on this design.

You missed my key point. Just because one card has flaws doesnt mean a card
based on it has those flaws. Maybe the flaws in the visual quality were
driver related and were fixed for the fx2000. I am also assuming that your
right that the 5800 had visual flaws. I am a comp sci student so I know that
flaws have several sources. Also, games use directx and
maya/softimage/lightwave use open gl. Maybe 5800 + directx sucked, but not
with opengl. Maybe the fx2000+opengl is really good. Why would Alias
|Wavefront recommend the fx2000 if it has visual flaws with Maya?? I feel
like this debate goes around in circles.
 
 
 

Quadro FX1000 AGP 128MB vs GeForce FX 5900 ULTRA 256MB

Post by Tom » Wed, 09 Jul 2003 05:12:51


Ok. So now the story is that the fx2000 isnt noisy like the 5800, and the
fx2000 is based on the 5900 instead of the 5800. I cant dispute that. Ive
read alot about 3d game cards and 3d workstation cards over the past 5
years, especially stuff written by John Carmack. It appears to me that you
buy a card for either games or 3D apps like Maya. You dont buy an fx2000
expecting it to play quake3 as well as the latest gforce gaming card. I dont
think anyone should expect a workstation card to work with directx.
SoftImage, Maya, Lightwave 3D MAX dont use directx. They use Open GL(
invented by SGI) If the card does handle directX, then thats a bonus. I dont
think a card for the hi end graphics market is faulty if it cant handle
directX. DirectX was invented( by Microsof) for games that have different
requirements than 3D Apps. As to why A|W likes certain cards but not others,
I dont think its all about $$. I think there would be an uprising if (for
example) ILM bought 200 fx2000's to do their next movie, only to find out
that the fx2000 had visual flaws. Flaws that A|W covered up just because
Nvidia makes a majority of graphics cards. Its theoretically possible that
that could happen, but has it? I never heard of such a scam. Have you? Also
remember that cards that dont work well with Maya could possibly work well
with MAX, LW etc. I dont know for sure.  You also never game me any precise
info on the visual flaws of the fx5800/fx2000, but now your saying the
fx2000 is based on the 5900, so that means the fx2000 doenst have any of the
flaws of the 5800 ? I know people pay top money for graphics cards. Again,
why hasnt anyone in this group posted a complaint about the fx2000 or 1000
or what ever when it was recommended by A|W, but is really flawed as you
claim. Where is all the proof? Thats what I want. I dont want statements or
opinions or "I read somewhere.." I want to know where you are getting all of
this stuff about visual flaws. Again, I read tom's hardware site about the
5800 and i do know he slamed it for being noisy and running hot etc. And yes
it had a bad hardware design. I agree with you there. I dont know anything
about the fx2000 inheriting those flaws that you claim. It even sounds like
you are saying that the fx2000 isnt flawed, even though that was your
original assertion. I certainly dont think people are being forced to buy
the fx2000. Like I said, if you cant afford it, buy something less
expensive. Im sure those other quadro's for $300-600 work just fine for most
people who are beginners or intermediate users. Buy what you can afford.
Dont sell your house for a graphics card. If you do, then you deserve to be
homeless ;)  If you want to buy a game card and install a non-official quasi
hack driver to get it to work like a workstation..be my guest. Im not
interested in adding more hack drivers to my computer. The hack job called
"Windows" is enough for me. I just want one website with an unbiased review
of the fx2000 that says it sucks ass, isnt worth the money, buy something
else..which would be what?? I dont know. Tom's hardware liked the fx2000 so
that's the story I am sticking with until someone proves( proof: using and
showing facts to make a rock solid argument) otherwise.

Tom

"Ari" <a...@nomail.com> wrote in message

news:vl8jgvg4ej5q0bmk70rj2cjckq9sg7gpgt@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:00:03 GMT, "Tom" <tom11110...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> O.K., one last time. Nividia admitted they screwed up, and the FX5800
> >> barely made it to the assembly line before they were taken off. So
let's
> >look at
> >> the changes they made to the FX5900 card, the short term fix.
> >> (1) The Fx5800 had **sub-par** image quality, and so would any FX2000
> >> based on this design.

> >You missed my key point. Just because one card has flaws doesnt mean a
card
> >based on it has those flaws. Maybe the flaws in the visual quality were
> >driver related and were fixed for the fx2000. I am also assuming that
your
> >right that the 5800 had visual flaws. I am a comp sci student so I know
that
> >flaws have several sources. Also, games use directx and
> >maya/softimage/lightwave use open gl. Maybe 5800 + directx sucked, but
not
> >with opengl. Maybe the fx2000+opengl is really good. Why would Alias
> >|Wavefront recommend the fx2000 if it has visual flaws with Maya?? I feel
> >like this debate goes around in circles.

> Hi Tom

> I think you missed the point. If it was driver fixable, it would have
> been fixed. Nividia is really good at writing drivers. Hardware sites are
quick
> to say, "This just needs a driver upgrade, ignore this small problem".This
was
> hardware related, and vastly improved in the FX5900 card. These days, *all
> cards* are tested in both directx and Open GL, by any one of a hundred
sites, so
> I don't understand your thinking. How many cards have you bought that
sucked at
> directx, but excelled at Open GL? Why would you buy a one-way card? A
one-way
> card is faulty, and not worth buying. Even if Maya only uses Open GL, I
expect
> my card to swing both ways. Why? When you upgrade, and go to throw your
old card
> in a game computer, what are you going to say, "Doh?" I'm going to try and
get
> this point across one more time. Workstation cards and game cards come off
the
> same assembly line, exactly the same, no difference. Game cards would then
have
> some of their workstation features disabled. With SoftQuadro, you are by
way of
> a software patch, able to re-enable the workstation features. At least on
cards
> up to the Ti4600. Now Nividia doesn't like that people can do this, but
it's
> like any other form of protection. You find a new protection, I'll find a
way
> around it. If they modify their cards by adding or subtracting a small
hardware
> part, their costs go up significantly, because they aren't modifying the
1% of
> workstation cards, they have to modify the 99 % that are game cards. So
you can
> see that Nividia prefers a software patch, versus a hardware patch. It
certainly
> doesn't mean it won't happen, but it will cost, and those same smart
people who
> figured out the software patch will soon enough tell you how to mod your
board
> to get around the hardware fix. Put your head into this idea. If Nividia
just
> made cards that - DO IT ALL - and just charged $20 more for all cards,
they
> would make a lot more money than they do by fostering the illusion of huge
> differences between the game and workstation cards. Easier for them,
better for
> us. They wouldn't need PNY to distribute their workstation cards, there
wouldn't
> be any. It sort of like the cable companies that spend millions of dollars
on
> hardware to encrypt signals so they can sell a small percentage of the
> population pay T.V. Why not just give us all the programming, and charge
> everyone a dollar extra. They would make more money. Corporate greed
doesn't
> think that way though. Think though of all the new animated features
coming out
> now, and the interest that is being generated. When people go to buy a
video
> card, their choices are an ATI card at $500, or the Nividia (do-it-all)
for
> $520. Which card would you buy? I think that even if an older person
didn't know
> the difference, their kids will tell them which card to get. The kids want
to do
> 3D animation. ATI's only defense is to do the same, so we have
competition,
> better products, and lower prices.
> As to Alias Wavefront, well, think. You have the largest video card
> maker that has put in hardware optimizations for *your* software. Are you
going
> to estrange them? Alias knows that any Nividia problems are short-term,
and they
> have the resources to fix them. The graphics problem may have had more
> applications on the game side, so Alias didn't even notice it, as it
didn't
> affect their software. What you have to understand is that the person who
puts
> all his/her money into a workstation, or any computer, has the reasonable
> expectation that the thing will play a freakin' game, especially if the
cards
> are as pricey as they are. If it doesn't, you got ripped off, and if the
video
> card is the weak link, then you made a mistake, and you bought the wrong
card.
> The same mistake can be said of someone who buys a 3D Labs Wildcat card
for
> Maya. It will work as a mediocre game card, and do most applications, but
it is
> not optimized for Maya, so you paid too much, and you have made a mistake
in
> your purchase. Alias is not a video card reviewer, but it's obvious that
they do
> test cards. I expect that they are only looking for a few key
optimizations,
> that help their program to run well. Let's do an Alias rundown.
> 3D Labs Wildcat cards to qualify - none.
> ATI - 2.
> Nividia - what about 8 or so?
> You do not screw around with your biggest supporter. Sound business.
> Without good video cards, Maya doesn't have a business.
> As I've said, it now looks like the FX2000 is now based on the FX5900.
> With PNY's warranty, I imagine that any card that was based on the FX5800
that
> was returned, was sent back to Nividia for a credit (their fault), and the
> customer got a shiny new FX5900 based FX2000, which is a much better card.
> Debate, hmmm. All I've done is offer common sense advice, and for anyone
> reading this thread to be very concerned about buying a video card. It's a
major
> concern if your forking out big bucks to build your own workstation (a
> workstation being at least 2 cpu's), or whether your buying the latest and
> greatest card for your home PC. The fact of the matter is that there are
people
> in this group using video cards for Maya that you and I could probably buy
for
> $100, now that they're a few years old. They just aren't optimized, but
are
> entirely fine for the home enthusiast. What you have to understand, is
that the
> person that bought a game card for gaming, but finds out after the fact
that it
> works fine for Maya,  is different from the person that is shopping for a
card
> for

...

read more »

 
 
 

Quadro FX1000 AGP 128MB vs GeForce FX 5900 ULTRA 256MB

Post by animati.. » Fri, 11 Jul 2003 02:08:55


I just have to put in my 2 cents....  As you are all arguing this, great
animations are bieng produced utilizing the old geforce 2 cards on pentium
III machines. The race for the latest and greatest technology is an hardware
industry created infatuation. My work computer may be close to top of the
line ("close" not "the"), but the two PC's I run at home are about two years
behind and still manage to do the job very decently. My advice... stop
worrying about which is the "best" cause tomorrow it's something different,
focus on your skills as a modeler,, animator, texture artist, etc. before
you worry about your hardware. The fastest, most powerful machine on the
planet won't hide or help bad work!  
 
 
 

Quadro FX1000 AGP 128MB vs GeForce FX 5900 ULTRA 256MB

Post by Tom » Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:08:51


Absolutely. I have a geforce3, which isnt compatible with Maya at all. Im
not going to buy an fx2000 ever.

Quote:> I just have to put in my 2 cents....  As you are all arguing this, great
> animations are bieng produced utilizing the old geforce 2 cards on pentium
> III machines. The race for the latest and greatest technology is an
hardware
> industry created infatuation. My work computer may be close to top of the
> line ("close" not "the"), but the two PC's I run at home are about two
years
> behind and still manage to do the job very decently. My advice... stop
> worrying about which is the "best" cause tomorrow it's something
different,
> focus on your skills as a modeler,, animator, texture artist, etc. before
> you worry about your hardware. The fastest, most powerful machine on the
> planet won't hide or help bad work!

 
 
 

Quadro FX1000 AGP 128MB vs GeForce FX 5900 ULTRA 256MB

Post by Tom » Sat, 12 Jul 2003 14:18:44


I think buying a card right now is on the bottom of my list. Id rather buy
books right now. But I will buy a card someday. Thats why I wanted to ask
about your claim. It didnt make sense so I had to ask.


> >Ok. So now the story is that the fx2000 isnt noisy like the 5800, and the
> >fx2000 is based on the 5900 instead of the 5800. I cant dispute that. Ive
> >read alot about 3d game cards and 3d workstation cards over the past 5
> >years, especially stuff written by John Carmack. It appears to me that
you
> >buy a card for either games or 3D apps like Maya. You dont buy an fx2000
> >expecting it to play quake3 as well as the latest gforce * card.
> Yes, it should.
> >I dont
> >think anyone should expect a workstation card to work with directx.
> Why for God's sake not? People who use Maya make games, and some are
> direct x. What your saying is that anyone that does business with
Microsoft
> doesn't use Maya. Like to poll the group on that one?
> >SoftImage, Maya, Lightwave 3D MAX dont use directx. They use Open GL(
> >invented by SGI) If the card does handle directX, then thats a bonus. I
dont
> >think a card for the hi end graphics market is faulty if it cant handle
> >directX. DirectX was invented( by Microsof) for games that have different
> >requirements than 3D Apps. As to why A|W likes certain cards but not
others,
> >I dont think its all about $$. I think there would be an uprising if (for
> >example) ILM bought 200 fx2000's to do their next movie, only to find out
> >that the fx2000 had visual flaws. Flaws that A|W covered up just because
> >Nvidia makes a majority of graphics cards. Its theoretically possible
that
> >that could happen, but has it? I never heard of such a scam. Have you?
> I'm beginning to think that you just like to argue and have everyone
> else tell you all the answers, instead of doing your own work. The FX5800
was on
> the assembly line for a *very* short time. I have never used the words
scam or
> cover up.
> >Also
> >remember that cards that dont work well with Maya could possibly work
well
> >with MAX, LW etc. I dont know for sure.  You also never game me any
precise
> >info on the visual flaws of the fx5800/fx2000, but now your saying the
> >fx2000 is based on the 5900, so that means the fx2000 doenst have any of
the
> >flaws of the 5800 ?
> Visual flaws. Read Tom's review on the FX5900.
> > I know people pay top money for graphics cards. Again,
> >why hasnt anyone in this group posted a complaint about the fx2000 or
1000
> >or what ever when it was recommended by A|W, but is really flawed as you
> >claim. Where is all the proof? Thats what I want. I dont want statements
or
> >opinions or "I read somewhere.." I want to know where you are getting all
of
> >this stuff about visual flaws. Again, I read tom's hardware site about
the
> >5800 and i do know he slamed it for being noisy and running hot etc. And
yes
> >it had a bad hardware design. I agree with you there. I dont know
anything
> >about the fx2000 inheriting those flaws that you claim. It even sounds
like
> >you are saying that the fx2000 isnt flawed, even though that was your
> >original assertion.
> My original claim was that an FX2000 based on the FX5800 would be
> flawed. It would seem that current cards are based on the FX5900, so no
worries.
> > I certainly dont think people are being forced to buy
> >the fx2000. Like I said, if you cant afford it, buy something less
> >expensive. Im sure those other quadro's for $300-600 work just fine for
most
> >people who are beginners or intermediate users. Buy what you can afford.
> >Dont sell your house for a graphics card. If you do, then you deserve to
be
> >homeless ;)  If you want to buy a game card and install a non-official
quasi
> >hack driver to get it to work like a workstation..be my guest. Im not
> >interested in adding more hack drivers to my computer. The hack job
called
> >"Windows" is enough for me. I just want one website with an unbiased
review
> >of the fx2000 that says it sucks ass, isnt worth the money, buy something
> >else..which would be what?? I dont know. Tom's hardware liked the fx2000
so
> >that's the story I am sticking with until someone proves( proof: using
and
> >showing facts to make a rock solid argument) otherwise.

> >Tom
> I may wind up buying an FX2000 sometime in the future, when the price
> comes down a lot. Your not going to buy one right away either, so I don't
know
> why you are so excitable about the subject.
> Your passing up a good deal on the SoftQuadro. I told you, take the
> question to the group, ask how many are happy using SoftQuadro. You buy
the 700,
> and I'll buy the Ti4600, and my card will be ssssooooo much faster, you
will
> have made a bad buy. My card will be the equivalent of the 980XL. That is
the
> whole point of this exercise. Go compare an MX card with a Ti, and get
back to
> me. Like the new fellow in the thread says, the best card won't help you
be a
> good artist. Buying the right card will make you a smart person though.

> Best, Ari.

 
 
 

Quadro FX1000 AGP 128MB vs GeForce FX 5900 ULTRA 256MB

Post by Tom » Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:31:57


Im not even totally convinced a 3D card is as important as everyone says. I
would think having enough RAM would be more important. I have 512 mb, but it
doesnt seem like its enough. I really want a scanner. This would help me
making models, and they are only 70 bucks.

> I think buying a card right now is on the bottom of my list. Id rather buy
> books right now. But I will buy a card someday. Thats why I wanted to ask
> about your claim. It didnt make sense so I had to ask.



> > >Ok. So now the story is that the fx2000 isnt noisy like the 5800, and
the
> > >fx2000 is based on the 5900 instead of the 5800. I cant dispute that.
Ive
> > >read alot about 3d game cards and 3d workstation cards over the past 5
> > >years, especially stuff written by John Carmack. It appears to me that
> you
> > >buy a card for either games or 3D apps like Maya. You dont buy an
fx2000
> > >expecting it to play quake3 as well as the latest gforce * card.
> > Yes, it should.
> > >I dont
> > >think anyone should expect a workstation card to work with directx.
> > Why for God's sake not? People who use Maya make games, and some are
> > direct x. What your saying is that anyone that does business with
> Microsoft
> > doesn't use Maya. Like to poll the group on that one?
> > >SoftImage, Maya, Lightwave 3D MAX dont use directx. They use Open GL(
> > >invented by SGI) If the card does handle directX, then thats a bonus. I
> dont
> > >think a card for the hi end graphics market is faulty if it cant handle
> > >directX. DirectX was invented( by Microsof) for games that have
different
> > >requirements than 3D Apps. As to why A|W likes certain cards but not
> others,
> > >I dont think its all about $$. I think there would be an uprising if
(for
> > >example) ILM bought 200 fx2000's to do their next movie, only to find
out
> > >that the fx2000 had visual flaws. Flaws that A|W covered up just
because
> > >Nvidia makes a majority of graphics cards. Its theoretically possible
> that
> > >that could happen, but has it? I never heard of such a scam. Have you?
> > I'm beginning to think that you just like to argue and have everyone
> > else tell you all the answers, instead of doing your own work. The
FX5800
> was on
> > the assembly line for a *very* short time. I have never used the words
> scam or
> > cover up.
> > >Also
> > >remember that cards that dont work well with Maya could possibly work
> well
> > >with MAX, LW etc. I dont know for sure.  You also never game me any
> precise
> > >info on the visual flaws of the fx5800/fx2000, but now your saying the
> > >fx2000 is based on the 5900, so that means the fx2000 doenst have any
of
> the
> > >flaws of the 5800 ?
> > Visual flaws. Read Tom's review on the FX5900.
> > > I know people pay top money for graphics cards. Again,
> > >why hasnt anyone in this group posted a complaint about the fx2000 or
> 1000
> > >or what ever when it was recommended by A|W, but is really flawed as
you
> > >claim. Where is all the proof? Thats what I want. I dont want
statements
> or
> > >opinions or "I read somewhere.." I want to know where you are getting
all
> of
> > >this stuff about visual flaws. Again, I read tom's hardware site about
> the
> > >5800 and i do know he slamed it for being noisy and running hot etc.
And
> yes
> > >it had a bad hardware design. I agree with you there. I dont know
> anything
> > >about the fx2000 inheriting those flaws that you claim. It even sounds
> like
> > >you are saying that the fx2000 isnt flawed, even though that was your
> > >original assertion.
> > My original claim was that an FX2000 based on the FX5800 would be
> > flawed. It would seem that current cards are based on the FX5900, so no
> worries.
> > > I certainly dont think people are being forced to buy
> > >the fx2000. Like I said, if you cant afford it, buy something less
> > >expensive. Im sure those other quadro's for $300-600 work just fine for
> most
> > >people who are beginners or intermediate users. Buy what you can
afford.
> > >Dont sell your house for a graphics card. If you do, then you deserve
to
> be
> > >homeless ;)  If you want to buy a game card and install a non-official
> quasi
> > >hack driver to get it to work like a workstation..be my guest. Im not
> > >interested in adding more hack drivers to my computer. The hack job
> called
> > >"Windows" is enough for me. I just want one website with an unbiased
> review
> > >of the fx2000 that says it sucks ass, isnt worth the money, buy
something
> > >else..which would be what?? I dont know. Tom's hardware liked the
fx2000
> so
> > >that's the story I am sticking with until someone proves( proof: using
> and
> > >showing facts to make a rock solid argument) otherwise.

> > >Tom
> > I may wind up buying an FX2000 sometime in the future, when the price
> > comes down a lot. Your not going to buy one right away either, so I
don't
> know
> > why you are so excitable about the subject.
> > Your passing up a good deal on the SoftQuadro. I told you, take the
> > question to the group, ask how many are happy using SoftQuadro. You buy
> the 700,
> > and I'll buy the Ti4600, and my card will be ssssooooo much faster, you
> will
> > have made a bad buy. My card will be the equivalent of the 980XL. That
is
> the
> > whole point of this exercise. Go compare an MX card with a Ti, and get
> back to
> > me. Like the new fellow in the thread says, the best card won't help you
> be a
> > good artist. Buying the right card will make you a smart person though.

> > Best, Ari.

 
 
 

Quadro FX1000 AGP 128MB vs GeForce FX 5900 ULTRA 256MB

Post by Nick » Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:53:30


Toms Hardware are crooks! Most of their reviews are fixed.



> >Where did you get that information? How do you know that "the current
Quadro
> >cards are based on a *
> >design. That's the FX500-1000-2000" ?? The alias | wavefront webpage says
> >that many of the quadro cards work well with Maya. They actually test
them.

> >Tom




> >> >Possibly the 2 fastest cards on the market atm.
> >> >I believe both come with DDR2 so could the GeForce FX have the
> >> >edge here? ( taking price:performance ratio into account )

> >> Hi

> >> First post here. I'm in the process of parts shopping to build a
> >> computer for Maya. Nividia is really the only choice, as they have a
> >mature set
> >> of drivers. Please note that the current Quadro cards are based on a
*
> >> design. That's the FX500-1000-2000. The infamous 5800FX is the game
card
> >that
> >> earned the name dustbuster (too much heat, too much noise), and the
> >present
> >> Quadro cards are the same, to the best of my knowledge. Therefore a bad
> >buy, in
> >> my opinion. The FX2000 is the physical match to the 5800FX, so the
FX500,
> >and
> >> FX1000, won't run as fast, or as hot, and probably use a different
cooling
> >> system, slightly less noisy. Some people here have those cards. If you
> >don't
> >> know, the workstation cards and the game cards are identical
physically,
> >but the
> >> game cards have a few features disabled that are needed for
workstations.
> >So we
> >> get hosed buying a workstation card, pricewise.
> >> The GeForce FX 5900 isn't a bad card, but it's not a new design, it's
> >> just a fixed up 5800. They got rid of the DDR2 ram, which ran too hot,
and
> >> dropped the speed 50 clicks to reduce heat, letting them get away with
a
> >quieter
> >> fan system. The 5900 is slower than the 5800. While the card is fine
for
> >*,
> >> I don't know if the software exists to bootstrap it into a workstation
> >card.
> >> Translation - re-enable the workstation features. The software does
exist
> >for
> >> the Ti4600 cards, and that's the way I'm going. In one or two
generations,
> >the
> >> N40, or N45 chips, I have no doubt that Nividia will produce a decent
> >> workstation card, and it might be worth spending the money, especially
if
> >you
> >> can write it off to some degree. Until then, I'm taking the short-term
> >solution
> >> with a Ti4600, which means that I won't have Directx 9 for *, but
> >I'll have
> >> a pretty decent, and cost effective card for the meantime, and it will
> >make a
> >> nice gift to some poor kid in the future. Read a bit more here,
> >> http://www.veryComputer.com/, go down to the Gainward Ti4600 video card
> >review,
> >> and here, the guy who wrote the software,
> >> http://www.veryComputer.com/, it's an interesting read. Hope
this
> >> helps, rather than confuses.

> >> Best, Ari.

> Hi Tom

> If you go here, http://www.veryComputer.com/, go down 8 or 9 sections
> until you get to the graphic cards section. Have a look in "More Releases"
> section, which has older articles, and a couple of good workstation
articles.
> Another site to check is http://www.veryComputer.com/
> sites, but you can do a search for other sites that review the FX5800.
Although
> some sites are more diplomatic than others, the consensus is that the
FX5800 was
> a technical bust. The card was so loud that you couldn't be in the same
room
> with it. This is not to say it wasn't a well performing card. There were
some
> complaints of bugs, but the main thing with electronics is heat. If it
runs hot,
> it has a shorter life. Here's the rub, the starting price on the FX5800
was
> around $500, and the companion workstation card the FX2000 was $2000 U.S.,
> although it's dropped to about $1400 now. My point is, if you want to
*me
> over for a premium price, then I expect absolutely flawless technology,
not a
> card they rushed to market to compete with ATI, and to get back the
fastest card
> name once again. Read around for some FX5800 articles.
> You won't find many workstation reviews unfortunately. They probably
> account for less than 1% of sales, which I imagine is how they justify
charging
> as much as they do. I just find it less than amusing that all cards are
> workstation cards in reality, and they make game cards by disabling
workstation
> features.
> I have nothing against Nividia, but they screwed the pooch on this
> release. As they are a decent company, I tend to think that means they
will try
> twice as hard to bring out a top of the line workstation card next time,
with
> the next generation of chipsets.
> Look at it this way. You have always bought a BMW car. Every 2 years you
> trade in and get the new one. This year though, just before you buy, you
read
> reviews that say that there are major design flaws, so what do you do?
Well I'd
> keep my current car until next years model comes out. Same with the video
cards.
> If I had one, I'd wait for the next generation. As I don't have a card,
I'll go
> back in time and buy a well reviewed card, for a couple of hundred bucks,
and
> wait for a good new one to come out. $200 won't break my heart. I'm just a
> consumer that fails to be surprised when things don't turn out as
advertised.
> Caveat Emptor, buyer beware. There may be someone in this group that has
one of
> these cards, a FX2000, and may say it runs cool and whisper quiet, in
which case
> I would be wrong. All that I have said is that based on what I have read
and
> researched, I have not read anywhere that the FX2000 uses a quieter, more
> expensive cooling solution. I could be wrong, but how about we leave it li
ke
> this. You buy one from a place with a good, no questions asked, return
policy.
> That way you can try it without the worry of being stuck with a dog for
several
> years. Then let us know. To me, a group like this should share
information, due
> to significant hardware costs, and especially because some of us are doing
it
> privately with our own money, in the hopes of breaking into the job market
in
> the future. My feelings certainly won't be hurt if someone can say that
I'm
> wrong. I'm just putting the information out there to people like me, that
you
> better do your damn homework, and offering a low cost alternative.
> To address your Alias\Wavefront question, yes I've read the page, and
> know it well. The card works, that's not in dispute. But for how long?
What's
> it's resale value going to be? When you sell it to someone who's just
starting
> out, are you going to feel bad? Also you should consider that corporations
can
> afford to house their workstations in other rooms, so no noise. Is that
the case
> with you, or is your workstation going to be beside your desk? I want my
> computer experience to be as painless as possible. Think about spending 12
to 16
> hours a day with a constant droning noise. I have.

> Best, Ari.

 
 
 

1. GeForceFX 5900 Ultra pixel shader instructions extended count

hi

i posted earlier about the unlimited pixel instruction count shaders
for the Radeon 9800 and was disappointed to learn that this only
applies to opengl.

so now i'm leaning towards the GeForceFX 5900 Ultra which advertises
1024 pixel instructions. has anyone had any experience with
programming a long shader on it? do i have to learn cg or can i still
use HLSL?

thanks.

daren

2. Inventor NURBS Question (RenderMan->Inventor problem)

3. Quadro vs Geforce

4. PLEASE Help:Saving TCanvas Image to Bitmap

5. GeForce /GeForce 2 -> Quadro /Quadro2

6. lighting backgound

7. FS: MacPlus, 1/0, with external 20 mb hard drive

8. Geforce 4Go versus geforce 4go Quadro

9. GeForce /GeForce 2 -> Quadro /Quadro2

10. FS: 3dLabs WILDCAT II 5110 128mb AGP VGA/DVI Video Card