The REAL difference between workstation and desktop GPUs

UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA:Redwood City, CA Icrontian
edited October 2011 in Science & Tech
«1

Comments

  • faunfaun UK
    edited December 2009
    brilliant and informative. A real conundrum for an art student/gamer such as myself, ive no idea what route to take now
  • lordbeanlordbean Ontario, Canada
    edited December 2009
    That was a good read. Clarifies a lot of things about workstation GPUs that aren't usually well known or understood by the general public.

    I have to say, if I was going into any kind of graphics production, I'd be thinking a lot more seriously about a workstation card after reading this article. Bobby has done an excellent job of shining the spotlight on what makes these cards worth the money.
  • photodudephotodude Salt Lake, Utah Member
    edited December 2009
    Another wonderful article discussing The reality of the difference in the workstation Cards vs consumer cards. This is a great follow up to the benchmark articles showing the difference with the DCC programs. too bad ATI and Nvidia's marketing departments haven't figured out how to explain this difference. If they did Businesses might quit wasting money on cheap junk that costs them more money in the long run with lost productivity and hardware replacements.

    With any type of engineering or Graphics related work, a Workstation Graphics card is a must. (if you game get a mobo that will take two cards have a workstation card for work and a gaming card for games)
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited December 2009
    Very informative, very interesting. Thanks!
  • edited January 2010
    I've recently purchasedIntel Core2Duo E4700 2.6GHz
    4GB DDR2 RAM
    Seagate 150GB HDD 7200RPM
    PNY Quadro FX 1700 512MB Graphics Card
    Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit
    19" DELL 1280x1024 LCD

    and play games just fine. L4D Maxed out 35-50fps,20 fps is the lowest i've sunk.
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited January 2010
    I take it you're a 3D artist, Peter? How's the performance of the FX 1700 in applications?

    I haven't been able to test any mid-range Quadros, but I've heard good things about the FX 1700.
  • edited January 2010
    There's one thing I've always wondered about that wasn't answered, can workstation cards play games? I've heard that they were incompatible.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited January 2010
    Yes, but at about half the speed of desktop GPUs that are 1-2 generations older.
  • photodudephotodude Salt Lake, Utah Member
    edited January 2010
    in some cases workstation GPUs will have issues running games because the drivers and hardware are not optimized for game performance.

    The reverse is also true that desktop GPUs will have some issues running DCC/CAD applications (maya, CAD, Photoshop, solidworks, premier, etc) because the drivers and hardware are not optimized for DCC/CAD performance.

    in both cases the cards are capable of running programs they were not optimized for, but like thrax said, there is a performance hit for running it in a non-optimized environment
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited January 2010
    I did some simple tests in games for our article on the FirePro v8750

    The FirePro v8750 ran at about 30-40FPS in TF2 at maximum settings while the GeForce 8800GTX rarely dropped below 60FPS at the same settings, despite the v8750 having significantly higher specs and is almost 2 generations newer.
  • U A
    edited January 2010
    It's the same chip.

    It's a digital output.

    It's artificial market segmentation.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited January 2010
    Cool story, bro.
  • ardichokeardichoke Icrontian
    edited February 2010
    He must work at Brool Story, Co.
  • edited February 2010
    One should understand that Alexis Mather, AMD Senior Marketing Manager, is in the business of doing exactly what his job title suggests: saying whatever he is paid to say. This is not to imply that what Alexis is paid to say is necessarily untrue, rather that the truth (or falsity) of his statements has nothing whatever to do with his making them. Marketers are professionals antithetical to the profession of the philosopher -- seeking truth. Our system relies upon marketers, in business, in politics... (ever hear of 'damage containment'?). The people who manage 'damage control' projects are, essentially, marketers in the business of marketing political 'spin'.

    Alexis was told to say some things that make a lot of sense (whether or not they are true). For example: 24/7 support; certification; rigorous tweaking techniques employed in the development of drivers; the costly maintaining of symbiotic ISV-GPU planning and development.

    But when it came to the GPU itself, Alexis was put by his puppeteers into a very tight spot indeed. For either the GPUs are the same, or they are not the same. Hardware, of the GPU sort, cannot be different, 'sort of'. Either they are different, or they are not different. In fact, Alexis never actually said they were different. Alexis simply said that if you removed the GPU from a workstation board and placed it into its Radeon counterpart, they would function 'differently'.

    What baffles me is why the representatives of AMD-ATI Corporation did not tell Alexis to say simply:

    'Of course the processors are identical! That is why the identical naming protocol has been applied to each. What IS different is... '

    And then go on about drivers, support, testing, etc. What's wrong with that? Why does the corporate community ALWAYS feel obliged to fudge the truth?

    The mystery of staggering differences in some benchmarks has a concise explanation, surely. Why does not ATI turn on the lights so that all can clearly see the cause? If the contentions about customer support and the research that goes into driver development, and so on, really are presenting honest reasoning for the vast price difference between the two boards (which, to me, seems entirely credible), the explanation concerning wide benchmark discrepancies would be received, not with anger but, rather, with fascination.

    In short, I really do not think that the question as to WHY certain benchmarks are paradoxically different has been answered, at all.
  • chrisWhitechrisWhite Littleton, CO
    edited February 2010
    I like that perspective Mausman, the more I've been thinking about it since this article first went live the less I really care if the hardware is identical (and I'm not saying it is). It's not like AMD or NVIDIA are going to reserver super special tech for their high-end professional cards and I really don't see why paying for very focused drivers and tweaks for pro performance is a bad thing.

    Then again, I've been quite happy running game cards on my personal systems for a while now. In a studio setup I do prefer workstation cards with the full support, there just isn't enough time to dick around with a gaming card when something goes wrong.
  • edited March 2010
    ATI does not give 24 hour support by mail at least.

    And why can't the FirePro or Quadro cards run the gaming drivers or emulate gaming drivers for other software? You should be at least able to play games on your Pro card just as well as the consumer card. Not loose the ability to play games. As far as I know there are several different profiles in the Command Center for different CAD 3D etc. programs. Why can't they make a profile that simulates the consumer drivers as well?
  • edited March 2010
    Of course there are differences between GPU's on professional and consumer graphics cards. The GPU on either platforms are "differently enabled". For a more detailed analysis, see this article: www.nvidia.com/object/quadro_geforce.html. It is sad that Alex didn't go deep into this.
  • edited April 2010
    I still think that they take advantage of people that need this cards the price is just too high compare to a regular gaming gpu. but its an exclusive market.
    and if u need a workstation card, u can probably afford it.
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited May 2010
    sfaz wrote:
    and if u need a workstation card, u can probably afford it.

    Exactly. Not to mention, these GPUs (espeically the high end ones) are not really tailored to individual users, but rather suited for professional use in studios and such, where a big company will probably buy in bulk.

    If a single user really wants a powerful workstation GPU, they're probably best off buying a full workstation with the GPU included, like the HP Z series workstations or a Boxx workstation.
  • edited July 2010
    Once the research and all the work of the engineers is done it can be implemented in all the cards with no aditional cost (it could be done by changing only firmware and driver).

    For me the real question is why they do not give the option of drivers and firmware for ALL the cards? This way, any one would have both options, games or DCC optimization and swap at anytime.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited July 2010
    Not necessarily, Miguel. If you read/watched the videos, you'd know that there are actual board level changes that go into workstation cards.
  • edited July 2010
    sfaz, Lynx, don't forget there are a lot of freelancers in this business for whom every dollar spent on hardware is a dollar that comes off their paycheque. Whether or not one can get away with a consumer grade GPU is important in that situation.
  • edited November 2010
    Miguel, you're absolutely right. He goes on to talk about "differences" at the board level and ASIC in that manner that makes him seem vindicated and the issue addressed, however: popping certain traces on an ASIC (which makes him feel smart to say) doesn't cost an extra arm and leg.

    If you want to quit hearing ridiculous junk "explanations" about "better support" and "more engineering" and "teams of people" then just "pretend" you're hearing this instead:

    "We don't do any of those things for the consumer boards."

    ^_^

    That should shut 'em up, but it won't bring the price down.
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited November 2010
    ISV certifications alone are a big reason for the higher price tags. Co-ops with software vendors that go well above what their consumer counterparts have in compatibility and functionality. Consumer graphics cards don't get tested on each individual game (just think back to how often there are problems with one model of graphics card on any game out there. It has happened to all of us).

    But you are right - consumer boards don't have those things. You don't have 24 hour support because to a gamer, they don't need it. They don't have expanded compatibility testing because there isn't millions of dollars at stake.

    Workstation hardware is for professionals. Environments where deadlines can make or break a company. Environments where needing tech support on a renderfarm at 4am can save a studio from losing an entire days worth of work. The places that need workstation hardware do things that you don't do, and because of that, their needs are far, far different than what all the gamers and enthusiasts of the world think they need.

    It's a night and day difference in what these cards are designed to do and who they're for. They're in entirely different markets, and entirely different leagues.
  • edited September 2011
    I'm still skeptical. I'm a game art and design student. I run maya on both a home gaming PC with an intel dual core CPU and one ATI 5870 card, and in the design lab at school where all the machines have xeon processors and workstation cards. Maya is a pretty light program for most of what we use it for, and if it runs any faster in the lab I can't tell. Granted I've never tried rendering out feature length films and comparing the times - maybe the lab would be faster there. But who cares, if I needed to do a long render at home I'd run it while I sleep. As I see it the real benefit of the workstation cards is the tech support. If you're a company or a studio, the extra cost for that peace of mind may well balance out. For a student, amateur, modder, gamer, go with your favorite consumer gaming graphics card - preferably one with a long warranty.

    Also the workstation cards can run games just fine - the lab has steam, and most of the valve games installed on every station. I've played Vindictus on it, and a lot of people used to play WOW and LOL in there between classes. Performance did not seem noticeably better or worse than on my home PC.

    Almost forgot - never had any problems with Maya crashing at home. At school crashes were frequent on some machines/for some users. Noticed during modelling class and then animation class the next semester (25-30 students doing the same thing on nigh identical machines). Professors had to waste a lot of time trying to figure out problems (which you really can't) when they should have been teaching. It was noticeably disruptive. So I don't know what they mean about having better drivers on workstation cards. The lab PC hard drives are actually VMs run off a server and get wiped and reset to default config on reboot (weekly if not daily). So I doubt it was a problem with the individual machines (they are all identical, and my own lab workstation had no crashes through either semester - and frequent crashes were in the minority I should clarify, maybe for or five out of thirty machines).
  • edited September 2011
    From my experience, packages like 3Dmax and Maya can get by on consumer gaming cards. However the second you step into CAE country and start running Solidworks or ProE you need a workstation video card. Solidworks in particular is rather picky when it comes to videocards and drivers.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited September 2011
    michael wrote:
    I've played Vindictus on it, and a lot of people used to play WOW and LOL in there between classes. Performance did not seem noticeably better or worse than on my home PC.

    Games that would run just as well on a toaster.
  • SonorousSonorous F@H Fanatic US Icrontian
    edited September 2011
    Firstly, great article.


    Secondly, I think in the case of the gamer who dabbles in graphic design and animation and high end desktop card is more than adequate. I have been using 3DSMax for almost ten years for personal renderings and all of my desktop cards have preformed at least to my expectations with only a few problems here and there. That being said I have also used workstation cards to render some of the same scenes as well as different ones. I would consider myself to have a limited working experience with such software but I can tell you that workstation cards that I have used preform far better with the software I have used. I can't give you an exact figure on things like crashes and program lock ups, but the difference is enough to be noticeable. The data is there to support the fact that desktop cards and workstation cards preform better for different applications. The old adage "never mix business with pleasure" defiantly applies to your choice in picking a graphics card for your needs.
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited September 2011
    Glad you enjoyed it, Sonorous.

    This is the bottom line on the matter - If you're a gamer, and you're using your machine for at-home pro graphics uses in addition to hardcore gaming, then you're already outside the realm of customer base for workstation GPUs. Workstation cards don't care about the gamer, and consumer cards don't care about the professionals. It will never matter if one will play games better than the other, or if one will animate better than the other (they do, btw), it's about buying the right tool for the job. Giant studios and architecture firms buy workstation cards because the benefits that differentiate matter to them. They don't care about having fast OpenGL performance - they want things like perfect uptime and 24/7 support.

    This is like buying a Dodge Stratus and trying to enter it into a high performance motor sport rather than buying a BMW 320si. Sure, they're both cars with 4 cylinder engine and they both technically are capable of doing the same things, but one was clearly made for the track, and the other was clearly made for the commute.
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou Icrontian
    edited September 2011
    LOL at Stratus vs 320si

    I think UPSLynx means:

    Workstation GPU =
    Dodge_Ram_1500_2009_Laramie_rfq_EX.jpg

    Gaming GPU =
    dodge_challenger-5993.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.