|PNY Nvidia Quadro FX 570 vs. FX 1700|
advice on Nvidia FX cards
I wonder if anyone knows how much of a performance difference one should expect when comparing two of those cards.
One (or two for dual configuration for up to four monitors) of these two cards will be a part of a Dell Precision workstation order, so Nvidia is the only choice.
Does anyone have any experience with any of the two (570 or 1700)?
The workstation will be used for day to day tasks (Office 2007) and web design (Creative Suite 3 Web Premium).
Ok, I'm probably off topic and not giving you the answer you're looking for, but I'm going to say it anyway because it might be helpful.
FX 1700 at over $400 seems like overkill for a computer that's only doing web design and maybe PhotoShop duties. Those cards are marketed for CAD and 3D modeling applications.
I have a system running two nvidia 8800GT's, but even with only one of them installed I received fantastic results with PhotoShop. Snappy, fast rendering of filter effects, etc.
Both of the cards you're looking at have only 12 pixel pipelines and DDR2 memory, which isn't much compared with standard graphics cards that at the 8600GT class have 32 stream processors and faster RAM. The 8800GT, which retails for around $230 features 256 bit processing (versus 128 bit) plus 112 stream processors.
XFX PVT84JUSD4 GeForce 8600GT 256MB 128-bit GDDR3 is a step down from what I have, the 8800GT, but the 8600GT's can be had for about $79 with a rebate. My wife has the Nvidia 8800GT (256 MB) on her computer and the latest Adobe Indesign and PhotoShop programs run flawlessly with it. And no wonder because the 8800GT has 32 stream processors versus the old style 12 pixel pipelines. To my understanding, stream processors do the same work as the pixel pipelines, but they also can do more. So the 8800GT costs less, has faster memory (DDR3 vs. DDR2) and has 32 stream processors. For what you are doing, as long as you have at least 300-350W power supply and 2GB RAM then you should be fine. If you step up to the 8800GT, which is overkill for what you're doing, it requires around at least a 450W power supply. So the 8600GT is very likely your best fit.
So that's another way of saying, if I were doing the ordering I'd source the cards elswhere and install the 8800GT's, saving money and getting a better graphics experience. Not sure if they can handle four monitors though, which might be the deal killer for you.
Thanks very much.
As I said, with Dell, I have no choice except Nvidia Quadro.
I found this, which outlines the difference between the two card families:
So, you’re right in regards of the difference, Quadro are for heavy 3D and CAD stuff, something I won’t need anyway.
I guess 570 is what I should pick.
Now, I have to settle down about 2 vs. 4 monitors (using one right now). 4 really sounds as too many. 3 sounds right only because I imagine it as central plus 1 on each side.
I know there have been some debates inside WW about number of monitors.
|Now, I have to settle down about 2 vs. 4 monitors (using one right now). 4 really sounds as too many. |
I use 4 monitors, but they are old 22" 4:3 ratio monitors. With newer wide (16:9) monitors, 4 would be way too wide.
I have my 4 monitors mounted on the wall in a roughly parabolic configuration. The edges are at the periphery of my vision.
I tried a 2-over-2 setup, but that will give you a stiff neck fast.
I do use all 4, but I am a programmer. I can use all the screen real-estate I can get. Two on Linux, two on Windows, and generally run browsers and PDF documentation on Windows, Eclipse IDE and help files on Linux.
My ideal thought was three, not wide though, or wide in a middle and "regular" on sides.
I think I settled with two FX 570s just so I have enough space for monitors down the road. I may start with two (using one right now) and go to three after some time.
I finally settled about the whole Dell desktop, but now I am worried about what people complain about Vista.