View Full Version : Graphic cards and OpenGL with Lightwave : a few numbers

01-30-2014, 01:45 AM
Hi there :)
I recently read this review about Pro Graphic cards performance ( http://www.cgchannel.com/2013/11/group-test-amd-and-nvidia-professional-gpus-2013 ) and wondered if those were worth the extra cost.
I've been making a few tests with fraps (fps benchmark tool) and my 2 computers :
- One has a "Pro" GFX Card, an AMD Firepro V5900
- The other has a gamer GFX card, a Nividia Geforce GTX 670

Display options :


The object is a mix of 52000 faces and 150000 subpatches at subdivision level 8, so it's nearly 10 million faces when freezed.

The results are ... surprising :

Modeler, fullscreen perspective viewport in texture mode :
- 55 fps for the GTX670
- 18 fps for the Firepro
When turning on GLSL shaders :
- 53 fps for the GTX670
- 1 fps for the Firepro (impossible to work)

Layout, fullscreen perspective view in textured shaded solid mode :
- 745 fps for the GTX670
- 173 fps for the Firepro
When turning on GLSL shaders :
- 730 fps for the GTX670
- 130 fps for the Firepro

What do you think ?
For me it's pretty obvious : I will NEVER buy a "Pro" GFX card again :mad:

01-30-2014, 02:42 AM
Well, even though I know that the GTX570 is nearly as fast as a Quadro (the 6xx series being throttled to fake better performance from the Quadro cards, so they sell more of them), the comparison really has a lot of noise in the data. You have two differing manufacturers and two differing levels of card that you are comparing. Granted, the V5900 doesn't appear to stand up, but it is difficult to tell how it stands up to a Quadro of a similar level (there aren't any direct correlations) and then compare the chosen Quadro to a GTX. Drivers are different, architecture is different.

01-30-2014, 02:57 AM
Agreed !
The only point of comparison is price : the 2 cards cost the same when I bought them (300-350$).
They're different when used for gaming (duh ! :D ) and they're different when used for working in Lightwave ... but NOT in the way they should.
My point was not to compare AMD and Nvidia, I was simply trying to answer the old question "Are pro gfx cards worth the extra cost ?"
I'm about to buy a new card to replace the V5900 and, for the moment, I don't see any reason to buy a pro card.

NB : If you want to see how a comparison between Quadros and Firepros, check the link in my first post ;)

01-30-2014, 03:07 AM
Did that. That is where the "there is no direct comparable Quadro for a V5900" came from. I know you aren't trying to compare AMD and nVidia. The point is that the comparison you are making doesn't really tell much that is concrete, because there are too many variables and inconsistencies between the two. That said, the frame rates that the V5900 got are definitely way below the GTX. How, say, a Q4000 compares with a GTX670 would tell more that you could hang your hat on.

Heck, between the V5900 and a Q2000 the frame rates in LW are 12 FPS and 91 FPS, respectively. The Q4000 that is only marginally close to a V5900 in hardware comes in at 160 FPS.

01-30-2014, 04:04 AM
Weird thing : I've downloaded the millenium falcon object from the review (1st post) and with my V5900 I get ... 50 fps !
There is definitely something wrong here.

01-30-2014, 04:47 PM
Smoothing, perhaps?

01-30-2014, 07:38 PM
also see >