FireGL V8650 Vs. NVIDIA QuadroFX 5600 Review
in [ATI Video Cards]
|
From: First of One on 23 Jan 2008 21:32 The hardware probably don't mean much unless you are a workstation user. I just read the article for the pictures. Nothing quite like two massive video cards that don't require a kickstand... ATi even went as far as putting a gusset in the heatsink plate, making it a semi-stressed structural member. http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/Ultra_HighEnd_Workstation_Graphics_Card_Shootout/ -- "War is the continuation of politics by other means. It can therefore be said that politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
From: Benjamin Gawert on 24 Jan 2008 05:21 * First of One: > The hardware probably don't mean much unless you are a workstation user. I > just read the article for the pictures. Nothing quite like two massive video > cards that don't require a kickstand... ATi even went as far as putting a > gusset in the heatsink plate, making it a semi-stressed structural member. > > http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/Ultra_HighEnd_Workstation_Graphics_Card_Shootout/ Thanks for the link. Having upgraded from Quadro FX 4600 to the Quadro FX 5600 recently I found that a very interesting read. IMHO they should have used a dual processor system as a single CPU system probably can't bring any of these GPUs to their limits. Benjamin
From: RF on 24 Jan 2008 07:49 "Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert(a)gmx.de> wrote in message news:5vr765F1mgbf5U1(a)mid.individual.net... >* First of One: >> The hardware probably don't mean much unless you are a workstation user. >> I >> just read the article for the pictures. Nothing quite like two massive >> video >> cards that don't require a kickstand... ATi even went as far as putting a >> gusset in the heatsink plate, making it a semi-stressed structural >> member. >> >> http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/Ultra_HighEnd_Workstation_Graphics_Card_Shootout/ > > Thanks for the link. Having upgraded from Quadro FX 4600 to the Quadro FX > 5600 recently I found that a very interesting read. IMHO they should have > used a dual processor system as a single CPU system probably can't bring > any of these GPUs to their limits. > > Benjamin There was a quad core CPU in their test bed. I think all of the programs they used to test are multi-core/processor aware, so if a quad-core processor can't remove any sort of CPU limitations from the equation, I don't think adding a second processor would. :) RF.
From: Benjamin Gawert on 24 Jan 2008 08:22 * RF: > There was a quad core CPU in their test bed. I think all of the programs > they used to test are multi-core/processor aware, so if a quad-core > processor can't remove any sort of CPU limitations from the equation, I > don't think adding a second processor would. :) No matter how much cores you have a single CPU system (at least if it uses intel processors) *always* is limited by the bus system (FSB). A dual processor system has two independent FSBs, raising the FSB bottleneck by a a noticeable amount. I'd always take a dual dual-core system over a single quad-core system. Benjamin
From: RF on 24 Jan 2008 19:15
"Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert(a)gmx.de> wrote in message news:5vrhpiF1nvenhU1(a)mid.individual.net... >* RF: > >> There was a quad core CPU in their test bed. I think all of the programs >> they used to test are multi-core/processor aware, so if a quad-core >> processor can't remove any sort of CPU limitations from the equation, I >> don't think adding a second processor would. :) > > No matter how much cores you have a single CPU system (at least if it uses > intel processors) *always* is limited by the bus system (FSB). A dual > processor system has two independent FSBs, raising the FSB bottleneck by a > a noticeable amount. > > I'd always take a dual dual-core system over a single quad-core system. > > Benjamin Ah yes, that's true. I hadn't thought of that. Be interested to see a benchmark between the two systems. Would there actually be enough data going through the FSB to saturate it? RF. |