NVIDIA rolls out monster QuadroFX graphics cards

NVIDIA may be best known for its consumer-level graphics cards, which are impressive enough in their own right, but the company of course also caters to some users even more demanding than gamers (rare as they are), who look to be in for a treat with its latest high-end offerings. According to NVIDIA, its new QuadroFX 4600 and QuadroFX 5600 graphics cards represent the company's biggest generational leap evar, bringing hereto unheard of GPU power and up to 1.5GB of frame buffers to tasks like automotive design, medical imaging, scientific research, and visual effects. If that's not enough, you can also double 'em up for some SLI action. Of course, the cards also come with some equally jaw-dropping price tags, with the QuadroFX 5600 demanding a cool $3,000 and the slightly lower-powered QuadroFX 4600 a comparative bargain at an even $2,000.

[javier.guillermo @ Mar 5th 2007 5:07PM]

3,000$ for a graphics card!!!!!!!!.... WTF?

[ScOObyDoo @ Mar 5th 2007 5:08PM]

And you just KNOW that some insane gamer is gonna get one of these.

Your video can never be too fast.

[Scabies @ Mar 5th 2007 5:10PM]

ahh yes, CPU-bound computer gaming at its best.

[Matt @ Mar 5th 2007 5:12PM]

These cards aren't exactly optimized for gaming, and preformance would be worse than a top of the line consumer class graphics card.

[Brennan @ Mar 5th 2007 5:13PM]

not necessarily for gaming guys, but for business purposes only. Hey that's what i was told, it probably wont work the same way for gaming.

someone back me up on how Quadro FX cards r differ from cards used for gaming plz?

[Nabil @ Mar 5th 2007 5:28PM]

Quadro Cards are different than Gamming cards. They are designed purely for CAD and Video editing. Their design is drastically different than that of the GeForce Series.

I learned that the hard way, when I put a Quadro FX3450 ($1300) in my machine (dual core, 2 GB Ram) and tried to play Call of Duty 2. It sucked really bad.

I then put in a Geforce 7800GT ($300) and every games runs like a champ now.

[kuzu-b @ Mar 5th 2007 5:14PM]

...but can it play Doom?

[KnightmareCS @ Mar 5th 2007 5:58PM]

didn't you know?, that jokes not funny anymore...

[kadajawi @ Mar 5th 2007 5:20PM]

Yeah, these cards will probably pretty much suck for gaming (well, you still can, probably). These are intended for CAD and software like Maya (animation films etc.). Used in computers like the Mac Pro and other workstations... and these computers are pretty expensive anyway.

[Brennan @ Mar 5th 2007 5:27PM]

thx for the info, but im just curious, im planning on transfering, hopefully, to Cal State LA to get a gaming degree in animation. I maybe using 3D Studio Max, n if i do, would i be required to change GPU cards like, Quadro FX for example, just to use that program? Or would i be fine with getting the X2900 XTX that is coming out in 1-2 months?

im gonna be using my computer for gaming n future graphic work in game animation, like in 3D Studio Max if i learn it pretty good.

[kadajawi @ Mar 5th 2007 5:43PM]

Well, I'm running a 6600 GT hacked to be a (pretty low end) QuadroFX. That works with some cards, using RivaTuner. A bit cheaper :D Technically these cards are usually pretty similar, using the same chips, main difference is in the drivers AFAIK.

[Brennan @ Mar 5th 2007 5:29PM]

now that totally answers n makes a difference between the two, u hit the spot!

thx!

[Revrant2394 @ Mar 5th 2007 5:34PM]

Oh how I recall a forum post, requesting information on drivers for one of these back after Doom 3 was released, needless the say the guy was crushed upon learning they weren't meant for gaming.

These are the monsters developers use to actually MAKE the games we play on Radeons and Geforce FX's, among others, they're extremely impressive for that task, and it's one market that nVidia manages to dominate in to this very day.

Again, not meant for gaming, however for developing, namely highly graphical tasks like the aforementioned 3D Studio Max, and even old Maya, it's highly suited.

[Brennan @ Mar 5th 2007 5:47PM]

does this mean the X2900 XTX will suck at video editing n 3D dimensions when i use 3D Studio Max in the future?

[brandon @ Mar 5th 2007 5:43PM]

Brennan-
That software is designed to work with any video card. If you get a quadro, all the better, but it really isnt necessary. Your x2900xtx will be more than sufficient.

[Revrant2394 @ Mar 5th 2007 5:50PM]

It won't be as good as a Quadro or a Rage, but it won't "suck", no.

[Filip Serban @ Mar 5th 2007 10:27PM]

Dude, I'm using 3D Studio Max8 on a very old GeForce3 TI200, and believe me, it works like a charm. The card is used for modeling, not for rendering. The difference is made by the CPU(s), unless, of course, you get your nose into Nvidia Gelato which uses the graphic chip for rendering. Google for it and see the difference. But, for normal modeling I think your mentioned card will be more than enough even for an advanced user. Good Luck!

[Brennan @ Mar 5th 2007 5:53PM]

well that is good news to hear, i was worried for a second, thx for the help guys!

[guitarjeff1112 @ Mar 5th 2007 6:48PM]

I currently use a Quadro FX 3000.
The games I play aren't very taxing overall,
But Need For Speed Carbon looks great on full detail, and I'm not sure the on board fan has ever needed to run
so overall, I'd say its powerful.

[tau zero @ Mar 5th 2007 7:59PM]

dispite the fact taht these games lack in game performance.

you've gotta admit

nVidia knows how to build a sexy looking card.

[Phoenix Enigma @ Mar 5th 2007 8:28PM]

I may be wrong, but I believe the difference between the Quadro and GeForce lines is largely that the Quadro cards are optimized to handle OpenGL apps and, often, a few extremely complex models, where as the GeForces are designed for DX usage and large numbers of object. Could be wrong, but that seems to stick in my mind for some reason.

[Jason @ Mar 5th 2007 10:14PM]

You hit the nail on the head. For Quadro, think OpenGL, and for GeForce, think DirectX. Of course there is a lot that differs at the hardware level, but that's basically the difference.

[sc00ter @ Mar 5th 2007 9:48PM]

as many of you have said, this is a rendering gpu. acts more like a processor than a graphics card. definitely the biggest card "evar"

[ashmist @ Mar 6th 2007 3:29AM]

I remember a similar discussion a few years ago about CAD and gaming cards from the same vendor.

IIRC the truth was that the cards were almost identical except for driver tweaks and you could actually fool a geforce gaming card to think it was a quadro, and get the same performance in 3D Apps (notably a unified back buffer)

The only difference I remember is that the gaming cards couldn't give you HW accelerated wireframe views

I doubt the architecture is that much different. It would be good to know from someone more knowledgeable about it tho

[BrotherEstapol @ Mar 6th 2007 5:52AM]

Quadros are still alright for gaming...we had some at my old tech school(Academy of Interactive Entertainment) and they ran bout as well as my 6800gt at the time.(in both gaming and high-poly 3d work with 3dsMax)
I *think* they were 4400's or something?

But yeah, funny thing was that in the next set of PCs we got the next year, the 6600gt's in those seemed to run just as well as the Quadros!

But yeah, it's been said many-a-time here...these are NOT gaming cards.

[Andir3.0 @ Mar 6th 2007 9:19AM]

The main difference between the Quadro cards and the Geforce cards is how it handles the frame buffers. The Quadro cards allow faster rendering to multiple "render" devices than the Geforce cards. Think of it like this. Those 4-way CAD views you see are actually four different render boxes. Games only require one surface to draw to so the card is optimized to only render on that one surface where the Quadro cards will render to multiple surfaces. If you have ever used dual monitors, you can see what happens when you drag your movies from one screen to the next. It has trouble rendering the image on both spaces.

Using a Quadro for gaming is pointless unless you want to run multiple 3D games at one time.

[mdbj @ Mar 6th 2007 10:19AM]

using quadro for gaming is not useless, if you want to run openGL games in span mode
I have a 4500, and WOW across two monitors is hard to start using, but 1680*2X1050 is pretty amazing.
have the char dead center of the split line is--- weird

[CPU64 @ Sep 7th 2007 10:57PM]

Wait, why do I see someone write "old Maya"? I'm hurt. To me Maya is like the supermodel of modeling software.
I can only imagine how nice it would be to have a card that powerful. I'd finally be able to stuff like my bump-maps and shadow-maps in real time! JOY!!
I have a 64MB Quadro Pro 2 card that while great with wireframes, it kinda chugs with particles and shadows. I also get a message that it doesn't support hardware rendering (Maya)