Doomtrooper
Veteran
Darkcrow has posted some early benchmarks from AmazonInternational.
PNY Quadro FX 2000 Basic Benchmarks
- Thread starter Doomtrooper
- Start date
Already posted this at nV News, but anyway...
Amazon International already posted Fire GL X1 benchies with the exact same machine, so here is the full comparaison between Quadro FX 2000, Fire GL X1 and Quadro 980 XGL:
SPEC View Perf 7, Dual Xeon 2.8Ghz
23.46 vs 18.95 vs 18.13 (
121.5 vs 93.21 vs 89.68
132.6 vs 132.3 vs 105.2
30.9 vs 24.83 vs 26.52
38.55 vs 23.52 vs 22.34
37.04 vs 28.95 vs 21.26
ATI Fire GL X1 & PNY Quadro FX 2000 compared to the PNY Quadro 980 XGL
+04.52% & +29.39%
+03.93% & +35.48%
+25.67% & +26.05%
-06.37% & +16.51%
+05.28% & +72.56%
+36.17% & +74.22%
Average
+11.53% & +42.37%
PNY Quadro FX 2000 compared to the ATI Fire GL X1
+23.80%
+30.35%
+00.23%
+24.45%
+63.90%
+27.94%
Average
+28.44%
Please note, however, that the Quadro FX 2000 costs £1240 compared to the Fire GL X1 cost of £500...
Uttar
EDIT: Corrected the order in which the numbers are given, thanks demalion
Amazon International already posted Fire GL X1 benchies with the exact same machine, so here is the full comparaison between Quadro FX 2000, Fire GL X1 and Quadro 980 XGL:
SPEC View Perf 7, Dual Xeon 2.8Ghz
23.46 vs 18.95 vs 18.13 (
121.5 vs 93.21 vs 89.68
132.6 vs 132.3 vs 105.2
30.9 vs 24.83 vs 26.52
38.55 vs 23.52 vs 22.34
37.04 vs 28.95 vs 21.26
ATI Fire GL X1 & PNY Quadro FX 2000 compared to the PNY Quadro 980 XGL
+04.52% & +29.39%
+03.93% & +35.48%
+25.67% & +26.05%
-06.37% & +16.51%
+05.28% & +72.56%
+36.17% & +74.22%
Average
+11.53% & +42.37%
PNY Quadro FX 2000 compared to the ATI Fire GL X1
+23.80%
+30.35%
+00.23%
+24.45%
+63.90%
+27.94%
Average
+28.44%
Please note, however, that the Quadro FX 2000 costs £1240 compared to the Fire GL X1 cost of £500...
Uttar
EDIT: Corrected the order in which the numbers are given, thanks demalion
Mintmaster
Veteran
Interesting. It looks like the FX 2000 is a good deal faster than the FireGL X1 in some tests, especially ProE.
Look at the Fujitsu Siemens CELSIUS M410
http://www.specbench.org/gpc/opc.data/vp7/summary.html
However, the X1 does horribly at Tom's hardware. Maybe something's wrong with his setup:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030123/index.html
EDIT: Didn't see your post until after I did mine, Uttar. Good info.
Look at the Fujitsu Siemens CELSIUS M410
http://www.specbench.org/gpc/opc.data/vp7/summary.html
However, the X1 does horribly at Tom's hardware. Maybe something's wrong with his setup:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030123/index.html
EDIT: Didn't see your post until after I did mine, Uttar. Good info.
And the machines are differents as well: all the X1 configs have ONE desktop P4 CPU w/ 512MB (check here: http://www.spec.org/gpc/opc.data/vp7/summary.html ) but all the FX 2000 scores came from a dual Xeon 2.8GHz w/ 1GB...
Edit: your numbers are from that Spec.org benchies, right? Updtae: Ah I see, it's the same Amazon test,, sorry, I'm blind...
Edit: your numbers are from that Spec.org benchies, right? Updtae: Ah I see, it's the same Amazon test,, sorry, I'm blind...
Ooo...actual benchmarks. With professional drivers in use, the question of quality equivalence should be moot.
You should change the order of your list, Uttar...your numbers are in the order: Quadro FX, FireGL X1, Quadro 980.
Is this the benefit of the FX vertex processing arrangement? I.e., fixed function/"simple" T&L performance? Makes the decision look pretty smart if it saves real-estate, given the supposition of vertex shader performance being "easily" enhanced by the CPU and past indication (quite a while ago, forgive me for lack of a quote or perhaps being in error please) of a performance load balancing design goal of nVidia between CPU/GPU usage (and the demonstrated ability, if that is the case, of carrying it off well).
Then again, I wonder what exactly ATI has in mind to improve their FireGL driver performance as mentioned in the Tom's Hardware (
) article. I consider the fine tradition of shoddy and dubious video card benchmarking at Tom's Hardware in fine form, and I point out the screenshot showing "1021" for the drivers in that review, while 1024 was used for the numbers that Uttar is quoting, and also point out the similarity of the Tom's Hardware review numbers to the poorly performing mini-drivers mentioned at AmazonInternational.
On a positive note, the approach of that reviewer to the review struck me as well thought out and professional (in contrast to my opinion of every other videocard review I recall reading there), even though execution seems to leave some room for improvement. Hopefully that person will do future reviews and maybe some day (maybe as soon as the very next review or an update to that one), I won't be shaking my head over something after reading an article there.
You should change the order of your list, Uttar...your numbers are in the order: Quadro FX, FireGL X1, Quadro 980.
Is this the benefit of the FX vertex processing arrangement? I.e., fixed function/"simple" T&L performance? Makes the decision look pretty smart if it saves real-estate, given the supposition of vertex shader performance being "easily" enhanced by the CPU and past indication (quite a while ago, forgive me for lack of a quote or perhaps being in error please) of a performance load balancing design goal of nVidia between CPU/GPU usage (and the demonstrated ability, if that is the case, of carrying it off well).
Then again, I wonder what exactly ATI has in mind to improve their FireGL driver performance as mentioned in the Tom's Hardware (
) article. I consider the fine tradition of shoddy and dubious video card benchmarking at Tom's Hardware in fine form, and I point out the screenshot showing "1021" for the drivers in that review, while 1024 was used for the numbers that Uttar is quoting, and also point out the similarity of the Tom's Hardware review numbers to the poorly performing mini-drivers mentioned at AmazonInternational.On a positive note, the approach of that reviewer to the review struck me as well thought out and professional (in contrast to my opinion of every other videocard review I recall reading there), even though execution seems to leave some room for improvement. Hopefully that person will do future reviews and maybe some day (maybe as soon as the very next review or an update to that one), I won't be shaking my head over something after reading an article there.
T2k said:
Heh, how do you mangle such a short name? Just teasing!
I'll answer for him: his numbers are from this dual Xeon system, the same one likely used for the FX benchmarks.
EDIT: looking at the specs, there are differences in the details of the configuration, but it seems unlikely they matter greatly to the benchmark results. No motherboard is listed for the FX benchmark system to be sure, but given the same memory and CPUs I don't see that as being likely to impact the results to a significant degree.
Similar threads
