Benchmarking the Quadro FX 4800

[barefeats]

I ran both Pro Apps and 3D Games on the Quadro FX 4800. Here's a Memorial Day Weekend peek for those not slaving over a hot barbeque:
http://barefeats.com/nehal10.html

It's impressive but I predict, at a fraction of the cost, you hard core gamers will opt for the Radeon HD 4870 or soon-to-be-released GeForce GTX 285.

 

[carlosbutler]

you are probably right. although if you are a proper hard core gamer you would most probably go for a windows computer.

but yes, i wouldnt pay that much for the card because i have the 8800GS in my imac and when playing WoW, the results are fairly close and the 8800gs is way cheaper.

still, i cant change much in the imac - not that i would want to...

mainly play WoW or PS3

 

[netkas]

>192 parallel processor cores
>384-bit memory interface with 76.8GB/s bandwidth (33% faster than GeForce 8800


in win games, 4890(works in macpro, without flashing) will beat quadro 4800 , even 4870 will do

well, it all depends on tests u use, check it out (gtx260 there has 216 sp, not 192 like quadro) - http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3804457&postcount=24

 

[Umbongo]

As I suspected the Quadro FX is only really a logical choice if you are going to also be using it for windows 3D apps.

 

[barefeats]

As I suspected the Quadro FX is only really a logical choice if you are going to also be using it for windows 3D apps.

Good point. Under Windows, it supports OpenGL 3.0 as well as DirectX 10. Mac OS X only supports up to OpenGL 2.1. Also, as I understand it, under Windows it supports 32x FSAA at resolutions up to 1920 x 1200. I only see up to 4x under Mac OS X.