Mid-Range Workstation GPU Shootout : FireGL V5600 vs. QuadroFX 1700 vs. FireGL V3600

Article Index

Testbed and Cinebench



Test System Details
Specifications and Revisions

  • Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (3.0 GHz) Quad Core (1333 MHz FSB)
  • 4 x Kingston DDR2-800 CAS 4-4-4-15 Modules (4 GB Total)
  • 1 x eVGA nForce 680i SLI LT Motherboard
  • 1 x Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10,000 RPM SATA Hard Disk
  • 1 x Plextor DVD+/-RW Serial ATA Optical Drive
  • 1 x Corsair HX620W 620W Modular Power Supply
  • Microsoft Windows XP Professional (32-bit)

  • ATI FireGL V3600 256 MB (Driver version 8.44)
  • ATI FireGL V5600 512 MB (Driver version 8.44)
  • ATI FireGL V7600 512 MB (Driver version 8.44)
  • ATI FireGL V8650 2 GB (Driver version 8.44)
  • Nvidia QuadroFX 1700 512 MB (Driver version 169.61)
  • Nvidia QuadroFX 5600 1.5 GB (Driver version 169.61)
     

Just as with our high-end workstation graphics card shootout, we’ve tested these mid-range cards with Windows XP. Both Nvidia and ATI claim XP to still be the dominant workstation-class operating system, and performance is fine tuned for this operating system in order to reflect that.
 

Synthetic OpenGL Performance
Higher Numbers Are Better




Our first test doesn’t bode well for Nvidia. Cinebench 10 shows a nice level of performance scaling between ATI’s low/mid/high-end workstation cards, although Nvidia’s mid-range QuadroFX 1700 card shows performance levels lower than that of the FireFL V3600 card, which costs half as much.


Related content

Comments

Show comments blog comments powered by Disqus