GTX 400+ and ATI 5900 series

[Darkpriest667]

You guys get on here and talk about shelling out 500 bucks for a graphics card for a video game computer.

And then you do what really puts me to think its a load.. you talk about using the protein folding programs with these cards .... IF you were serious about protein folding why do I not see you guys sporting the quadro series of cards? I mean hell 500 dollars isnt a damn thing for you to spend on a video card why not play with the big boys and shell out 3k? My buddy who runs an auto-cad business has a quadro in 2 of his systems and they all the video games I play and some I dont(quite well actually) and its not even one of the more expensive quadros only running him a mere 1k.


The reason im posting this is it seems like there has been a little elitism on here when ive read some posts. About how people that werent running the latest and greatest for the extra 10% the card actually gives compared to spending 250 bucks less and getting the not newest card that runs at 90% efficiency of the card you guys recommend (or claim to have) All I am saying is ease up a little... Some people would rather have something for 1400 or 1500 bucks (that runs everything that is even out on the highest resolutions btw) then shell out 5 grand for a system that in a year will be doing the same thing and cost about.. oh snap 1500 bucks... I bet in 12 months gtx 485s and nvidia 5000 series will be going for less than 150 dollars and of course they will have already released the GTX 600s and Nvidia 7000s (which wont have a single game on the market that uses its potential capacity even 50%) and I am certain there will be people on this very board recommending some newbie go out and fork over 5 or 600 bucks for this awesome card (because its supposedly the best when we all know quadros wipe the floor with them in every category) when they probably would be quite happy with a card 1/2 or 1/3 the price.



If you boys (and girls) are so about having the BEST thing available... then why dont I see you guys sporting the quadro series.. Is it something about pny you guys dont like? I dont want to hear that its not a gaming card just because the bios is developed for cad programs my buddy josh (aformentioned) has every video game i can think of on his comp and it runs them all just fine from what Ive seen.


Im not trying to bust peoples chops here (too much) im just curious why all the fuss. My laptop has a GTX 260m and i havent found a game yet that slows it down so why should i buy the GTX 495 when it comes out?

[Jaketh]

nvidia 5000 and Nvidia 7000s

[mrcrusty]

I certainly don't fold, when I leave the comp AFK, I switch it off or put it into hibernation. To hell with folding, I need my electricity bills low.

Any chance you could direct me to where this "folding elitism" is found?

[Awqa Puriq]

We all have different needs. What works for you might not work for other people. The Crysis fans out there that might want to run it on Highest settings, full AA and on a 30 inch monitor, I doubt they are gonna want to go for say a 5770 or a GTX 280, honestly if they are running at that then they need to at least get a 5850 or GTX 295/ or 470. For the casual gamer though i don't see the necessity of spending more than $300 on a graphics card, again that's CASUAL. Hardcore gamer, i would say less than $500, and for those extremist out there I don't think they are gonna go for anything lower than $600. I personally have had the GTX 285, ran all my games really good, the 4870, awesome card as well (ran everything great), and the 9800GT which still ran EMpire on medium settings on a lower resolution, and now I'm sporting the HIS iCooler 5850 which I currently love since it's cooler (never goes beyond 40C with fan speed at 65%, which is not loud) and it runs every game I throw at it, haven't tried Crysis yet since I'm not into that game but I do play TW series (ALL of them), COD MW2, Splinter Cell, Dirt, Need for Speed, GTA, I could go on but I think you get the point. To be honest the GTX 480/470 seem a waste (high price, high temps, about 5-10% performance increase I think i'm not sure) and the 5970 seems unnecessary as well. I would say If you have high resolution and want great bang for buck then go with either 5870 or it's little bro, which is still awesomely powerful, 5850. If not then a 5770 would be a GREAT choice as well.

[Darkpriest667]

We all have different needs. What works for you might not work for other people. The Crysis fans out there that might want to run it on Highest settings, full AA and on a 30 inch monitor, I doubt they are gonna want to go for say a 5770 or a GTX 280, honestly if they are running at that then they need to at least get a 5850 or GTX 295/ or 470. For the casual gamer though i don't see the necessity of spending more than $300 on a graphics card, again that's CASUAL. Hardcore gamer, i would say less than $500, and for those extremist out there I don't think they are gonna go for anything lower than $600. I personally have had the GTX 285, ran all my games really good, the 4870, awesome card as well (ran everything great), and the 9800GT which still ran EMpire on medium settings on a lower resolution, and now I'm sporting the HIS iCooler 5850 which I currently love since it's cooler (never goes beyond 40C with fan speed at 65%, which is not loud) and it runs every game I throw at it, haven't tried Crysis yet since I'm not into that game but I do play TW series (ALL of them), COD MW2, Splinter Cell, Dirt, Need for Speed, GTA, I could go on but I think you get the point. To be honest the GTX 480/470 seem a waste (high price, high temps, about 5-10% performance increase I think i'm not sure) and the 5970 seems unnecessary as well. I would say If you have high resolution and want great bang for buck then go with either 5870 or it's little bro, which is still awesomely powerful, 5850. If not then a 5770 would be a GREAT choice as well.

I mean thats what im talking about... a 10% increase in performance is not worth a 50% increase in price.


and im saying if they are that hardcore why arent they running the quadros.. those are the most hard core graphics cards on the market not the gtx series or the 5000 ATI series

[mrcrusty]

I mean thats what im talking about... a 10% increase in performance is not worth a 50% increase in price.

No, of course not, who is suggesting that?

I'm also still wondering about the folding and graphics card elitism that's apparently happening on these forums.

[Darkpriest667]

No, of course not, who is suggesting that?

I'm also still wondering about the folding and graphics card elitism that's apparently happening on these forums.

There's no reason why you should have to choose between having an expensive computer and helping good causes. You could build a computer with a Quad SLI GTX295 setup and use it to run the 'Folding at Home' project.

Really quad sli GTX 295 when you have all that money to blow for a folding project? give me a break you could get a quadro and do 10 times that much .. its all about efficiency.

According to bit-tech.....


Conclusions


Crysis in DX10 mode clearly favours the GTX 275 to the tune of a few extra fps, while the HD 4890 can't handle the AA of Far Cry 2 in DX10/10.1 mode. In DX9 mode, the GTX 275 is faster than the HD 4890 at every resolution too. The frankly rubbish Call of Duty: World at War also favours the Nvidia hardware, with the GTX 275 ahead by a few fps at every resolution.

That the HD 4890 is also noticeably louder than the GTX 275 when either card is idle, under load, or folding (especially when folding, where the HD 4890 cooler does a great impression of a hair-dryer) also counts against it. As usual, ATI's folding performance didn't match that of the Nvidia cards and the horrendous noise that the HD 4890 made when folding means that even casual folders running the client in the background while working or web browsing should look elsewhere for their graphics card.

yeah and neither the ATI 4000 or 5000 nor the nvidia gtx 200-400 series match the quadros for folding.. yet you boys(and girls) are still caught up on these cards for doing they aint designed to do.

Unless you simply want bragging rights, or are folding, etc, there is no real reason to go over 3.5Ghz with today's top end video cards. The 5970 is going to bottleneck any processor at any speed, so owning one, let alone two, is entirely pointless. But the 5800 series does benefit from 3.3-3.5

I wouldnt insult folding by using a 5970 to do it... again quadro...

Every article I've read about turbo core has pointed out how it is inferior to intel's turbo boost.

A source



Keep in mind the Phenom II X6 uses the old 45nm process, so there isn't anything other than the inferior turbo core going for it




I'd say a 10-25% performance increase for things like folding and CPU benchmarking over an i7-930.

For games and regular desktop use I expect no performance gain whatsoever with the hex core, most games and programs don't fully utilize a quad core so no way will a hex help them out in any way.

Intel has turbo boost and HT to boost performance on the i7-930, AMD only has "turbo core" and two extra CPU's that generally won't see use.

I7s aint good for folding.. generally you want to use these

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819105264

Intel doesnt even make processors with that many cores.. yet everyone says oh the i7 is king.. bull---- when it comes to serious multi core processors and the applications that use them (usually servers and folding) go with who has the edge on the market.. and that aint intel i7 .

I don't see how the HTT of the i7 will see more use than 2 extra cores. The OS won't use 2 extra, but it will use "4" extra? I think that 2 extra physical cores should just about equal the 4 logical threads the i7 has. And it won't equal the i7 in folding: the best command for CPU folding is Bigadv, which can only be run on 8 cores. It works on i7s, but won't work so well on a 6 core.

it wont work well on either of them... refer to previous statement.

The fake Nvidia outrage is really enough to make me wanna puke. We might as well have a badge system where people can align themselves with either company and have that be the end of it. There is no middle of the line, common sense disccussion to be had here when it comes to this topic.

You want to know which card you should choose, what really makes them unique? Go ATI if you want Eyefinity, or need an upgrade now. Or go Nvidia if you have an eye on 3D, folding, or care about the HPC potential of GF100. That is ultimately what it boils down to.

this guy almost made sense until he didnt mention the only cards good for folding were the nvidia quadro series.. ironically theyve cornered the advanced graphics market and no one has made a mention of it until I did just now. ATI doesnt even compete with them on that market.. and trust me.. its a high dollar market and ATI is handing it to nvidia on a silver platter.

$2's more a week, month, year? A week would mean its over $100 over the year and a month is $24 and some people like to keep there computers on 24/7 in which case you quadruple those numbers and if your farming or folding.............

this was a post in reference to the GTX 285 when it was first released.. again there were better nvidia cards out but no one mentioned them.. they were praising the gtx 285 which isnt even worthy of benchmarking compared to the quadros that were out at the time.


these are just a few that i picked out..... again I know we are gamers here and we care about gaming cards.. however if we want to claim to be that hard core.. these quadros will play the games even better than the nvidia GTX400 series and 5000 series from ATI.. and only nvidia makes them as i aformentioned.

during these nvidia vs ati fights no one has even bothered mentioning that.

edit... btw if you are curious to see some of the benchmark numbers and not fancy graphs look at this site... it shows you nvidias quadro benchmarks... you put those against the numbers of any other cards on the market.. hell if you gonna spend that kind of money get the best

http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_11761.html

[Big Boss]

First of all, calm down. Spending 3k is a helluva lot different from $500, especially when the benefit from doing so will be next to nothing.

yeah and neither the ATI 4000 or 5000 nor the nvidia gtx 200-400 series match the quadros for folding.. yet you boys(and girls) are still caught up on these cards for doing they aint designed to do.

Quadro wasn't designed for folding either And please point me to where a Quadro card produces such a higher PPD over a GeForce that the price is warranted.



I wouldnt insult folding by using a 5970 to do it... again quadro...

This makes absolutely no sense, and you clearly didn't read the context of the thread. He's not talking about folding with the 5970, he's talking about when you GAME it's going to bottleneck any processor. What he means when he includes folding in his post is that only if you're folding do you really need to overclock your CPU to over 3.5 GHz. Read next time.



I7s aint good for folding.. generally you want to use these

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819105264

Please learn about what you're talking about before you talk about. An i7 running bigadv with the bonuses averages over 20000 PPD, which is more than ANY video card on the market. Any video card.

Intel doesnt even make processors with that many cores.. yet everyone says oh the i7 is king.. bull---- when it comes to serious multi core processors and the applications that use them (usually servers and folding) go with who has the edge on the market.. and that aint intel i7 .

You're right, its Intel Xeon processors.


it wont work well on either of them... refer to previous statement.

Wrong. It works very well on them.


this guy almost made sense until he didnt mention the only cards good for folding were the nvidia quadro series.. ironically theyve cornered the advanced graphics market and no one has made a mention of it until I did just now. ATI doesnt even compete with them on that market.. and trust me.. its a high dollar market and ATI is handing it to nvidia on a silver platter.

Trust that you're totally qualified in the subject at hand? Sorry to burst your bubble, but ATI does compete, its called FirePro. And to reiterate, your posts make no sense. To believe that quadro are the only good cards for folding is silly, when in terms of PPD/cost of the card they make no sense whatsoever and lose terribly to GeForce cards.


this was a post in reference to the GTX 285 when it was first released.. again there were better nvidia cards out but no one mentioned them.. they were praising the gtx 285 which isnt even worthy of benchmarking compared to the quadros that were out at the time.

Too bad that the fx5800 and the GTX 285 use the exact same chip. The only difference is that the drivers on the quadro card are better suited for openGL and design work, not gaming. The quadro might have better gaming performance due to better memory and memory controller, but that small increase is definitely not worth the extra $2500, and its definitely not worth mentioning as a serious alternative to the GeForce. Please think next time.


these are just a few that i picked out..... again I know we are gamers here and we care about gaming cards.. however if we want to claim to be that hard core.. these quadros will play the games even better than the nvidia GTX400 series and 5000 series from ATI.. and only nvidia makes them as i aformentioned.

And as I corrected you, ATI makes same type of cards too. And seeing as how no one has compared a Fermi/Evergreen CPU to the gt200b based Quadro card, then you are pulling that "fact" right out of your ass. Because I assure you it won't be better at gaming than a 5870, 5970, gtx 480, and probably even a gtx 470.

during these nvidia vs ati fights no one has even bothered mentioning that.

Cause they're not worth mentioning in the consumer market. THE MARKET WE'RE ALL A PART OF.

edit... btw if you are curious to see some of the benchmark numbers and not fancy graphs look at this site... it shows you nvidias quadro benchmarks... you put those against the numbers of any other cards on the market.. hell if you gonna spend that kind of money get the best

http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_11761.html

Those 2 graphs only show its speed when running an application it was made for, it shows nothing about folding or gaming.

And just to be clear, spending $500 is not similiar to spending $3000. You are just straight up not allowed to say "if you spend that kind of money, then spend the extra 2500 and get a card thats only marginally better."

Good idea, why don't you lead by example and go buy a Quadro FX5800. Maybe we'll all follow suit afterwards.

[mrcrusty]

Wait, so your entire argument hinges on the fact that our PC's aren't supercomputer workstations? No kidding. I'm also struggling to see this "hardcore" stuff you keep mentioning. Who cares whether someone is seen as "hardcore"?

In any case, by those standards, the only "hardcore" PC gamers or enthusiasts are successful 3d graphics designers or medical researchers.

Absurd. I'll respond to each of the quotes one by one, but the entire premise is flawed.

Also, what's your fixation with the Quadro's?

#1 Freddie - In a thread called "if I were rich", responding to a person who said that gaming PC's can't be put to good use.

#2 ChaobSiroc - Quoting a bit-tech review.

#3 BarnabyJones - Completely taken out of context and missing the point. I have no idea what's so wrong about saying that the HD 5970 is going to bottleneck the processor.

#4 ChaobSiroc - Talking about the difference between Phenom II's Turbo Core and Intel's I-Series Turbo Boost, as well as the performance of the i7 processors against the Phenom II x6 processors. Completely missing the point again. Irrelevant.

#5 Roman_Man#3 - Same thing. They are comparing Intel's i7 range to AMD's Phenom II x6 range. Irrelevant.

#6 ATI has the FirePro range and the latest one, the FirePro V8800 (based on the HD 5870 Cypress chip) is the fastest workstation GPU on the planet. It's better than Nvidia's Tesla and Quadro cards. Nvidia just makes a bigger deal out of it.

#7 Freddie - Again, relevance? He's talking about the fricken electricity bills, not folding performance.

Nobody mentions the Quadros, Teslas or FirePros because they aren't gaming cards, they are workstation cards. Could they be used as gaming cards? Probably, however they aren't designed for it.

If someone came along and said "Oh, I need a good graphics card for folding, running extremely complex simulations and calculations and maybe a little 3d graphics designing on the side", the first card I would recommend would be the Nvidia Tesla C 2070 or the ATI FirePro V8800.

But we don't, because it's a gaming forum and we talk about hardware, mostly in relation to games.

Honestly though, I still don't get what the thread is about... aside from "why don't you all worship and adore Quadro's?"...

[HansDuet]

Okay...

I don't even...

[Smokey]

You guys get on here and talk about shelling out 500 bucks for a graphics card for a video game computer.

And then you do what really puts me to think its a load.. you talk about using the protein folding programs with these cards .... IF you were serious about protein folding why do I not see you guys sporting the quadro series of cards? I mean hell 500 dollars isnt a damn thing for you to spend on a video card why not play with the big boys and shell out 3k? My buddy who runs an auto-cad business has a quadro in 2 of his systems and they all the video games I play and some I dont(quite well actually) and its not even one of the more expensive quadros only running him a mere 1k.


The reason im posting this is it seems like there has been a little elitism on here when ive read some posts. About how people that werent running the latest and greatest for the extra 10% the card actually gives compared to spending 250 bucks less and getting the not newest card that runs at 90% efficiency of the card you guys recommend (or claim to have) All I am saying is ease up a little... Some people would rather have something for 1400 or 1500 bucks (that runs everything that is even out on the highest resolutions btw) then shell out 5 grand for a system that in a year will be doing the same thing and cost about.. oh snap 1500 bucks... I bet in 12 months gtx 485s and nvidia 5000 series will be going for less than 150 dollars and of course they will have already released the GTX 600s and Nvidia 7000s (which wont have a single game on the market that uses its potential capacity even 50%) and I am certain there will be people on this very board recommending some newbie go out and fork over 5 or 600 bucks for this awesome card (because its supposedly the best when we all know quadros wipe the floor with them in every category) when they probably would be quite happy with a card 1/2 or 1/3 the price.



If you boys (and girls) are so about having the BEST thing available... then why dont I see you guys sporting the quadro series.. Is it something about pny you guys dont like? I dont want to hear that its not a gaming card just because the bios is developed for cad programs my buddy josh (aformentioned) has every video game i can think of on his comp and it runs them all just fine from what Ive seen.


Im not trying to bust peoples chops here (too much) im just curious why all the fuss. My laptop has a GTX 260m and i havent found a game yet that slows it down so why should i buy the GTX 495 when it comes out?

[HansDuet]