OTOY Forums

http://blogs.nvidia.com/ntersect/2010/0 ... phics.html

http://www.slashgear.com/nvidia-fermi-b ... o-2795561/

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-qu ... 00-us.html

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-qu ... 00-us.html

and a review: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=964

Get out your checkbooks because this stuff ain't cheap.

Starting at $1,200 for the Quadro 4000 and going up to $5,000 for the Quadro 6000.

I read about it and regarding the new 5000 for about $2500 it offers 20% better performance than the 4800 and it doesn't have any gaming corresponding part. But anyway, does the Quadro line presents any advantage over the gaming parts?. I thought for octanerender it wouldn't matter.

Well the compute power stays the same, is the driver that is truly different and they are a lot more optimized for apps like maya, 3D max CAD etc. Octane and other require a CUDA card, CUDA is the same for geforce and Quadro . Quadro 6000 is more or less a GTX 470 and Quadro 5000 is GTX 465, Quadro 4000 has no gaming equivalent .

The best setup for a pro user is a cheap quadro card (the 4000 or even less),
for the better drivers it has for DCC apps (max, maya, opengl, etc...)

And a Geforce GTX400 or more in 2nd slot(s) for octane power.
You'll a lot more octane render power for a lot less than buying those high-end quadro cards,
and you'll have good DCC drivers with the quadro.

Radiance

I totally agree, a cheep Quadro will do the work for 3D apps and a good geforce for octane is the best combination .

Agreed ,many Solidworks users for instance would be quite satisfied with a FX580 or 1800.
Buying a high end Quadro esp to get more cuda cores for Octane use is a very expensive solution.
An FX580 + GTX 460,470 or 480 for cuda would be fine for many needs.

pixelrush wrote:Agreed ,many Solidworks users for instance would be quite satisfied with a FX580 or 1800.
Buying a high end Quadro esp to get more cuda cores for Octane use is a very expensive solution.
An FX580 + GTX 460,470 or 480 for cuda would be fine for many needs.

It really isn't about the cuda core for those high end ones. It's about the VRAM. If I can find a way cheaper alternative, I'd jump on that. With big scenes and high res film, I think 3GB-6GB is needed for Octane to really shine in the future. I mean imagine the possibilities. By the way, I was at SIGGRAPH and apparent even Renderman is looking into GPU now.

True enough,
I think 5gb would be handy for pro Octane use but only Quadro and Tesla offer that sort of size and you pay an absolute premium for those that most people wont/cant afford.
It seems likely Nvidia would strategically want higher capacities kept out of the gaming variants.
I'm not even sure we will see a 3gb 480. I'm actually still waiting to find out if the 460/2gb is going to be real.
If we are lucky perhaps Sparkle will do a run of 2gb GTX475(?) but they also have to have a reasonable market for them to bother.
I am sure there is a niche for a manufacturer to produce large vram gaming cards for 'casual cuda use' - if they are allowed to make them.

GPU computing has definitely arrived. If an application can run massively parallel GPU delivers a solid improvement you cant ignore, but even just unloading mundane tasks off cpu is beneficial.