Are you sure, you are remembering this correctly? Back "then" I used to game on my Quadro cards (nV10, nV28, G70 and the last was a GT200) quite regularly. Maybe they missed out on the latest optimizations for newly launched titles, but standard game acceleration has alsways been there.
What they say in the article is not necessarily true .... P4000 seems to do equal or better performance at $850 based on their reported benchmark data.
Edit: One thing I hope reviewers do is check AMD and Nvidia drivers for power management mode features ... when installed both Geforce and Quadro drivers do not default to the highest performance setting ("Prefer Maximum Performance").
I know I've been following this thread a little and saw that before. But I mainly posted for those thirsty for some gaming performance leaks.
And the article/video contains really nothing for gamers, apart from "it seems to play as good as a Titan Xp". It's a token gesture and nothing more by AMD, purely some marketing to show people that there are cards, they're working, and we want prosumers to buy them. They know they're safe with a media outlet like PC Gamer who will definitely follow any rules provided by AMD.
] compute fe.).https://www.forbes.com/sites/moorin...-ante-vs-intel-ibm-and-nvidia/2/#118e62ad414a
Or, it could mean that professional workloads don't really scale well on GCN. AMD's pro line has always suffered non linear scaling inbetween iterations. Besides, AMD didn't hint at that being the case at all.
Maybe they just have no idea, what they are talking about:
GCN architecture has native 1/16 double-precision support, there is not a single GCN-based GPU without FP64. It seems they are confusing native double-precision with fast (1/2) double-precision. Maybe they sould at least read specs of a product before publishing an article about it…
I was thinking a new tweaked version of the silicon.
Double the memory bandwidth, near double the shader count, about 30% higher geometry performance from clockspeed, double the ROPs, and you're telling me they couldn't get any more performance out of it than WX7100?
Yes, you could not project DX-performance 1:1 on corresponding Geforce cards, but Quadros were configured a bit differently most of the time (clocks, shaders, memory controllers - my GT200-Quadro has DDR3, but 4 GiByte graphics mem). But german c't magazine for example most of the time tested at least the common 3DMark at the time alongside SPEC Viewperf and other "pro" applications. To my knowledge, they never really complained about missing DX-API compliance or general performance (apart from what is to be expected given the configuration differences and a few optimizations).I appologize, it wasn't fair. DirectX 11 only shipped 1 1/4 years after reveal, the GT200 has PS 4.1 which is 10_1 (even though you can run 10_1 on DX11.0 it's a PITA, no [edit: decent, shouldn't be so dismissive about this level
The point I tried to convey is that you couldn't use a Quadro to evaluate real-time performance on the API which becomes relevant when you ship/finish your project, your team also can't program against it because it doesn't have the features, except you do it in OGL. The ATI FirePro V5800 would have been a better choice.
formatted for better readability.
