Quadro FX 1800 vs Quadro 2000 - SCSI vs SSD

Hallo,
um Lightroom 4.3. und PS (CS6) etwas flotter zu machen, überlege ich, was dem Rechner nützen würde: Zahlt es sich aus von einer nVidia FX1800 auf die Quadro 2000 umzurüsten?
Den ACR Cache, den Katalog und die Vorschauen habe ich auf einem SCSI 10.000 rpm Laufwerk. Was bringt da SSD?
System i7, 12 GB Ram, Windows 8, 64 bit
Frohes Schaffen!
Martinuzzi

HI,
LR does not profit from gpu.
I will expect, that ssd will not affect the speed of your system, because you already have fast drive. Most time is use by rendering the image - and this needs a fast cpu.

Similar Messages

Strange: NVidia Quadro 2000 freezes after the 6th video mode switching

Asus P8P67 with NVidia Quadro 2000 and some 24" Asus monitor (SVGA/DVI/HDMI; DVI being used) and the most strange behavior:
1. if starting with display manager: after 6th sequence: Ctrl-Alt-F1, Ctr-Alt-F7 or 6th logout from my DE,
2. if starting with no display manager: after 6th `startx' and logout
my monitor and keyboard freeze (the monitor gets dark gray or black, sometimes with `no DVI signal' message). If I connect remotely and kill all GUI applications it unfreezes but I'm unable to start GUI once again. The most strange thing is that there are absolutely no error messages in logs.
Tried 295.53 and 295.49 drivers,
tried `vga=normal' boot option
tried `acpi_osi=Linux' boot option
tried changing USB ports and the keyboard
tried removing any `*hdmi*' modules
tried...
I have no idea how to deal with this problem. Seems like some video resource exhaustion but ...
*any* help welcome!

Solved by https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Nv … s.22_issue
A new file: /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/20-nvidia.conf :
Section "Device"
Identifier "Device0"
Option "ModeValidation" "NoTotalSizeCheck"
EndSection
fixed it.
Last edited by quayasil (2012-09-03 14:07:36)

Can the Quadro 2000 do HD editing?

According to the NVidia website the best it can do is SD
Do i really need to spend a fortune for the Quadro 4000?
Unfortunately my pockets are not as deep as I would like but this is my set up
Intel Sandy Bridge Core I7 3.4GHz 2600K LGA 1155 processor
Gigabyte P67A-UD3R B3 LGA 1155 Intel P67(Revised B3 stepping) DDR3 2133+ Ultra Durable 3
3X USB power support ATI CrossFireX DualBIOS SATA Raid Ready
Kingston DDR3 1600MHz Gaming performance Hyper X Memory 8GB X 2= 16GB
Western Digital 1TB x3 set to RAID 0
64M SATA2 HDD
COOLER MASTER GX 750W PSU SLI Ready Single+ 12V V2.31 Ultra silent Intelligent Fan
STlab F171 1394b 3-port Firewire
Blu Ray writer
So the above is gonna cost me a bit but I will be doing freelance videography, Im hoping I can cut some cost somewhere, can I use a Quadro 2000
or a GTX 580 or do I need a Quadro 4000 for HD editing as stated on the NVidia website?
Thankyou

To be honest, the Quadro 4000 is actually below the GeForce GTX 460 or GTX 560 (hardware-spec-wise): The Quadro 4000 is based on the original GF100 GPU that is relatively inefficient in terms of performance per watt compared to newer Fermi GPUs. In this case, the GF100 Fermi was supposed to have 512 CUDA cores (but only a maximum of 480 CUDA cores are ultimately enabled, as they were in the GeForce GTX 480) - but the Quadro 4000 has half of the GF100's CUDA cores disabled, resulting in only 256 CUDA cores being enabled. (For comparison, the most cutdown version of the GF100 GPU used in GeForce cards, the GeForce GTX 465, still has 352 CUDA cores enabled.) The GeForce GTX 460 series and the GTX 560, on the other hand, are based on newer and slightly more efficient versions of the Fermi architecture. The GeForce GTX 460 SE is the slowest of the 460/560 series GPUs, but still has 288 CUDA cores enabled. The full-blown GTX 460 and the GTX 560 (a cut-down version of the 384-core GTX 560 Ti) both have 336 CUDA cores.
Thus, the Quadro 4000 is still underspecced (GPU-wise) compared to even a GTX 460 SE, let alone a GTX 560 Ti that we've been recommending as a BFTB (Bang-For-The-Buck) choice. And even the top-of-the-line Quadro 6000 is only slightly faster than a GTX 470 but is still slower than a GTX 480, 570 or 580.

Quadro 2000 v. gtx 570 v. Quadro 4000

Can anyone comment on the MPE performance difference between the Quadro 2000, the gtx 570 and the Quadro 4000? I'll be using hacked GH2 footage with CBR intra-frame coding, which (I'm told!) can and should be put on AVC Intra time-lines (not AVCHD).
I'm concerned most with time-line responsiveness and playback performance. DVD encoding, exporting footage, etc., won't be happening very often, so that's of less concern.
I'm aware that the gtx 570 is probably the best buy of the three; but that's not the question. Many thanks.

In any case, performance wise the Quadro 2000 is a waste of money: It costs almost $400, yet it performs equally as slowly as a $100 card. And in Premiere Pro CS5.5, the encoding performance becomes significantly slower with lesser GPUs. Look up posts by Bill Gehrke and you may find a list of GPUs along with their performance charts in the PPBM5 benchmarks. Bill tested a wide range of GPUs from a GTX 580 all the way down to an old 9500 GT. Pay particular attention to the MPEG-2 DVD scores. You will find that even on an overclocked i7-2600K system, the system with a GTX 550 Ti took more than twice as long (146 seconds) as the GTX 580 (60 seconds) or even a GTX 560 Ti 448-core (68 seconds) in that test. The Quadro 2000 would have performed even slower than the GTX 550 Ti in that same test (heck, the GTX 550 Ti itself is slightly slower than a first-generation GTX 260 in this test despite having an equal number of CUDA cores due to the 550 Ti's slightly lower total memory bandwidth). The Quadro 4000 would have performed roughly on a par with Bill's tested GTX 285 (117 seconds) in that same test.
On the other hand, if you're encoding to H.264, then the Quadro 2000 would have been only slightly slower than the GTX 570; you would have had to downgrade further to Quadro 600 (GeForce GT 430) level to see a significant degradation of H.264 encoding performance.
Secondly, the Quadro 2000 has only 1GB of RAM total. With your footage, it is possible that any effects that you apply will eat up more than the amount of memory on the card. If a scene needs 1.5GB of VRAM to render using MPE GPU mode, then the 1GB card will run out of RAM. And when the rendering job runs out of VRAM, that entire frame or scene will default entirely to the MPE software-only mode, which will result in slower performance and may also degrade image quality.
And I strongly recommend avoiding the purchase of off-the-shelf PCs or workstations to begin with: Those systems are way too expensive for such bottom-of-the-barrel performance, and upgrading such a system via the manufacturer would have cost you three to four times more than if you bought those same parts elsewhere. If you can't build an editing workstation yourself (or find it too much of a bother), consider contacting a vendor who specializes in custom-configured editing systems such as ADK.

Workstation with Quadro 2000 or GTX 570 HD 2,5GB, for PP CS 5.5?

Hey there,
I'm going to build up a new workstation for video-editing using the Production Premium Suite CS 5.5.
But there is still one big question and I can't find a proper answer.
What GPU should I take or which one will be faster? A Quadro 2000 or a GTX 570HD with 2,5GB?
I know the Quadro has 192 cores and the GTX has 480 cores. So the GTX should be faster
Actually? But would it really be faster? I can't find any Benchmark comparisons or stuff.
Some say a Quadro 2000 is better, if it's only a workstation. But I also read that people
Prefer the GTX-Models.
I know the GTX needs more energy and it's getting warmer when used, but those two facts
Wouldn't persuade me to buy the Quadro.
The rest of my system would look like this:
Intel Core i7-2600
ASRock Z68 Extreme 3 Gen. 3
G.Skill RipJaws-X DIMM Kit 16 GB
Crucial m4 128GB for OS, Programms
Western Digital AV-GP for the media-archive and the orginal videofiles
WD Caviar Green for Export and stuff like that
Fractal Design Arc
Scythne Katana 3
Super Flower Golden Green Pro 650 W
So the only missing thing is the GPU.
Thanks in advance for your help!

For the most part, I second Harm. You see, the AV-GP is not compatible with PCs at all - but rather, it's a version of the WD Caviar Green designed specifically for set-top DVRs/PVRs. And in either case, the current WD Greens spin at far slower than 7200 RPM - in fact, most current WD Green drives spin at only 5405 RPM (with a few spinning as slow as 4200 RPM). The slower rotational speed negatively affects both sequential transfer performance and random seek performance.
As for the non-K 2600, it is limited unlocked, not completely locked. There are two disadvantages to this limited unlock: Only the maximum single-core Turbo Boost multiplier is manually selectable, with the differing multi-core Turbo multipliers also increasing by the exact same number of steps as the single-core Turbo frequency (unlike on the K chips, the multi-core Turbo multipliers on the non-K chips cannot be set independently of the single-core Turbo multiplier). Second, the maximum Turbo multiplier setting is limited to four steps above the normal single-core Turbo multiplier: In the case of the 2600, the maximum single-core Turbo multiplier can be set at up to 42x (this will force the maximum quad-core multiplier to be boosted to 39x, which will result in a maximum quad-core overclock to 3.9GHz with the BCLK remaining at its stock 100MHz). The 2600K is so much easier to overclock the way the user wants it while costing only a few dollars more than the non-K 2600.
As for the original decision between the Quadro 2000 and the GTX 570, definitely the latter: The Quadro 2000, as far as CS5.5 is concerned, is little more than a slightly underclocked GeForce GTS 450 with a huge heatsink attached to it and still only 1GB of VRAM. And as Bill's testing with the various GeForce GPUs (to be specific, Bill tested the GTX 580, GTX 480, GTX 560 Ti 448, GTX 285, GTX 260, GTX 550 Ti and the 9500 GT, from fastest to slowest - however, the GTX 560 Ti 448 is roughly equal to the GTX 480 in performance) in CS5.5 has demonstrated, the Quadro 2000 would definitely be slower than a GTX 550 Ti, especially in MPEG-2 DVD encodes.

Quadro 2000 vs 4000

Quadro 2000 vs 4000 is it worth the extrs $300+ for the quadro 4000 for Adobe cs5.5 in performance

Both Quadros are not worth their price. They are underspecced, underpowered and overpriced. It you compare them with the GTX line they are two generations old, and their price is nearly 4 times higher than the comparable GTX card. For instance, the GTX 460 for € 160, basically the same card with the moniker Quadro 4000 for € 750.

When I am open file with adobe Pro and reader the resolution in my computer failing, change the resolution from 1920x1200 to 800x600. my video card is nvidia quadro 2000. w7 & 32 bits

when I am open file with adobe Pro and reader the resolution in my computer failing, change the resolution from 1920x1200 to 800x600. my video card is nvidia quadro 2000. w7 & 32 bits

Hi fabiangs,
I'm not sure that I follow. Are you saying that when you open a PDF file in Acrobat or Reader, that the display resolution changes automatically on your system?
What version of Acrobat/Reader are you using? Do you see this same issue in other files/applications?
I look forward to hearing back from you.
Best,
Sara

Nvidia Quadro 2000: DisplayPort not working

Hello,
I have a brand new S30 with a Nvidia Quadro 2000 card (latest drivers from Nvidia installed). Output to one display (LT2452p) through the DVI port is ok, but the display stays blank when connected via any of the the DisplayPort outputs. Since I want to attach 2 displays, I need to use the DisplayPort connectors...
Any hint on how I could check whether the graphic card itself is faulty?
Thanks in advance!
--Pierre
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Hello pierrech,
Can you use another Display Port cable and another Monitor with a Display Port input to make sure it's not the monitor or the cable? If that doesn't work, the graphics card (possibly the system board if the graphics card is welded onto it), will need to be replaced. I hope that helps.
A+ Certified

Nvidia Quadro 2000

Is the PNY Nvidia Quadro 2000 a sufficient card to handle HD footage with Premiere Pro CS5 with Windows 7? If not, what is the lowest model Nvidia card that will work?

Have you used the Fermi 460 with Premiere Pro CS5 and HD footage? Does it handle the encoding and rendering well?

GPU/CPU Nvidia Quadro 2000

Hi community ! i recently bought an Nvidia Quadro 2000K. Ruining CS6 on windows 64 bits. I can´t access the CUDA options and certainly can not select GPU raytracer.
I found a tut to put manually the card name in a txt raytracer_supported_cards but didn´t work...
I do not care about the raytracer (i don´t use it) but my question is
by not being able to see/display the Cuda cores, etc... is after effects really using all the "power" in the graphics card ? the 2 gb ram, and all the cuda cores ?
Suggestions, advice, help is more than welcome ! Thanks Marcos.

The GPU is only really used in AE for acceleration of the ray-traced renderer. If you're not using it (and most people don't these days), I wouldn't worry about your GPU at all. (Unless you have a third-party plugin like Element 3d that uses the GPU.)
More info here.

W520 nvidia quadro power consumption

Dear community, I have a short question about power consumption. I did a clean install of windows 7 64bit on my W520 with a quadro 2000. Power consumption when idle with max brightness is somewhere at 18 watt, definitely highter than what I had with the Lenovo default installation. Checking Lenovo's energy software indicates that the GPU is running at full speed all the time so I thought this could be a source of additional power consumption. I installed the latest Lenovo graphics driver from the homepage, but I'm not sure if thats enough. Maybe there is a problem with Nvidias Optimus technology or the switchable graphics? I'd be glad about any feedback and, yes, I know that I'm a little bit on my own with a clean install. :-) Thanks, Branagh

I get these numbers from the basic view. The battery tab does not indicate power consumption when I have the power chord connected. If I'm on battery the wattage numbers match.
But the result remains the same no matter if I'm on battery or plugged, or what power settings I use (setting the display to max brightness and the machine idling): If I force the laptop to be on the Nvidia graphics, power consumption is at arond 18W, if I allow it to use the intel graphics, it goes up to at least 20W. GPU load in the power manager is always given at 100%.
GPU-Z gives more adequate numbers I guess. When I force the Nvidia GPU, the load is correctly displayed at 0% when idle and the core clock goes down to 50Mhz. When I use the intel graphics the load remains at 1% and the core/ram clocks remain at 650 / 533 Mhz all the time.

Nvidia Quadro 600, GeForce GTX 560 Ti or cheaper for Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3?

Hello,
I am a professional photographer and I am setting up a new PC (i7, Windows 7 64bit). But I have some troubles to choose the graphic card.
I use Lightroom and Photoshop CS5 3, no video editing.
Between the Open GL, Open CL, CUDA accelerations etc ... professional graphic cards models and consumer ones I am lost!
The Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 Ti seems more powerful and more versatile but I tell myself that if Nvidia has professional range there must be a reason.
So in Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3 what would be the best: GeForce GTX 560 Ti or Nvidia Quadro 600?
http://www.geforce.com/Hardware/GPUs/geforce-gtx-560ti/specifications
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-quadro-600-us.html
Any reason to get a Quadro 2000?
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-quadro-2000-us.html
Or the graphic card doesn’t matter much and I should take an entry-level GeForce to enjoy the HDMI and the silence? Which one then?
Does the Quadro 600 manages 10bits display 10bits? And the Geforce?
Any change announced with Photoshop CS6 and Ligthroom4?
The only 3D application I use is Google Earth in 3D mode, does it make any difference?
Thank you for your help.

You say "no video editing"... If that's going to be the case, and you won't use the Mercury engine in the Adobe Premiere Pro package, which needs the nVidia Cuda subsystem, then I recommend you consider the ATI brand over nVidia.
Why?
Because while neither brand's developers (ATI or nVidia) always release perfect drivers, I find ATI display drivers to be of consistently higher quality than that of nVidia releases. What this means to you is generally fewer crashes or quirks. ATI has also traditionally supported older cards into the future better than nVidia - this might matter to you in a few years.
People ask me what video card I would recommend, and right now that would be a VisionTek ATI Radeon HD 6670 1 GB GDDR5 card. I like this particular card because:
I've had 100% success with VisionTek cards in a number of different systems, not only initially but they have all run as long as I have used them, without ever breaking down.
The 6670 model uses very little power (under 70 watts) and as such doesn't stress your computer's power supply, need a separate power connection, nor make a lot of fan noise.
It's not the fastest card made for 3D gaming, but it's inexpensive and excellent for Photoshop. No matter what you choose, you should get a card that scores over 500 on the Passmark GPU benchmark, ideally over 1000: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/
The ATI Catalyst display driver implementations for the 4670/5670/6670 line of cards have been good and solid.
1 GB of on-card memory seems to be a good size, even for editing a lot of images, and GDDR5 memory provides faster access than DDR3.
You should know that besides using Photoshop heavily, I also develop OpenGL-based software as well, so I have some additional insight into driver implementations.
-Noel

Photoshop CS6/CC performance with Quadro 1000M/2000M vs. Radeon HD 7970M/8970M

I am trying to find any benchmarks on how these two GPUs compare for Photoshop work. Does anybody have any pointers to information or even subjective thoughts?
I am led to believe from my research that a number of the filters in CS5 are using OpenCL. For OpenCL the Radeon 7970M is far superior to the Quadros. However, I am not able to find information on the overall performance of the Quadros vs. the Radeons for Photoshop.
The work with Photoshop will be for static images - creation of images rather than manipulation of source.
I am looking to get a Thinkpad W530, but it only comes with the Quadro GPUs. If I do get it, will I be getting a slow machine for Photoshop 2D work, assuming that the Quadro's are really targeted at 3D CAD work?

I don think Photoshop will stress any GPU it supports. For Photoshop make sure Adobe tested the GPU with the version of Photoshop your using. http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/tested-video-cards-photoshop-cs5.html
http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/photoshop-cs6-gpu-faq.html
If your also going to use the machine for gaming get the fastest GPU that also works with Photoshop. I did not see Quadro 1000 listed Quadro 2000 was listed in CS6 . Radeons HD 7000 series listed in CS6 list of texted GPU.
You may want to read this thread http://forums.adobe.com/message/5483977#5483977

Quadro 4000 owners - Clock speed at maximum with Premiere or After effects

Hey guys,
I just upgraded my Quadro 2000 to a 4000 (latest driver 311.35, and I'm wondering if all your clock speeds jump to maximum when running premiere or after effects? Even if no editing or playback is going on and GPU load is at 0%? Or do they they throttle down when idle? I'm using GPU-Z to check.
Mine Throttle down once I leave Premiere (or After effects).... just wondering if anyone else is having the same experience. I know they run really hot when the clock pseeds are at maximum.
Also, I do have powermanagement set to "prefer maximum" and I'm using video editng mode for ny base profile.
Salud.

Yeah, nvidia got back to me and saud if you set your powermanagement to 'prefer maximum' any program that access the gpu (hardware acceleration for insrtance), the clock speeds will max out.
Thanks for teh reply!

The Tesla C2075 card & Quadro 6000 card + Nvidia Maximus configuration (CS 5.5.2 update)

Could somebody kindly discuss in more detail the improvement of the Nvidia Maximus configuration? The Tesla C2075 card and the Quadro 6000 card appear to be identical cards. If a PC computer had both cards installed + an AJA KONA 3G card + the Premier Pro CS 5.5.2 update, what would the advantage be in comparison to a computer that only has a Quadro 6000 card + an AJA KONA 3G card installed (no C2075?) Adobe Master Collection would be installed in this PC computer. Thank you.

Here is what one of the Nvidia folks said when a similar question was asked elsewhere:
"That’s right; a Quadro 6000 and Tesla C2075 are not identical but they are very similar and you can expect similar performance. There are a few reasons you might want to use a Maximus configuration for Premiere Pro rather than a single Quadro 6000:
1. Having both a Quadro and Tesla GPU in the system means when the Tesla is cranking full-out on Mercury Playback Engine the Quadro is unaffected, so you can, say, open After Effects or other application that may take advantage of the Quadro, and system performance on that app will be better than if it was competing for resources with MPE on a single GPU.
2. In the future, we expect many users will want to run an animation application (using the Quadro) and a simulation application (on the Tesla) at the same time to provide animators with a level of interactivity they don’t have without Maximus technology. Example video is here. (http://youtu.be/_LagqqsVO28)
3. It costs less. A typical Maximus configuration has a mid-range Quadro (e.g. a Quadro 2000) and a Tesla C2075, which in that instance costs hundreds of dollars less than a single Quadro 6000 and offers similar performance plus the workflow advantage listed above.Of course, some users may want to run a Quadro 6000 and a Tesla C2075 and get maximum performance, but others can actually get the best MPE acceleration for less money with Maximus technology."

Quadro FX 1800 vs Quadro 2000 - SCSI vs SSD

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for