gautxori wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 3:50 am
I think I'm somewhat older than you, and although I'm not into building computers I could rebate some of your assertions:
- quadro cards have been into market for more than 20 years, and they have been used by pros since then. Me myself, my second computer (Pentium III) had a quadro GeForce which by then could be tweaked to behave like a quadro, and when tweaked there were improvements to be noticed (in particular when working with Solidworks). If I were a pro user (I'm not by now) I would go for a quadro indeed.
As I said, beyond the VRAM Quadro cards dont actually have any advantages over their Geforce counterparts. (Enterprise features be damned, ive never seen anyone actually utilize them even in larger studios).
If you are a professional using enterprise level software, the answer is obvious.
IF you do need that VRAM then go for a Quadro....but the chips are effectively identical or weaker than their Geforce counterparts so in most... GPU dependent situation, the added cost of the Quadro card doesnt add up when you can get a 3080Ti or 3090 that will do the job just as well.
Which is why I pointed out alot of professionals and studios actually use Geforce cards in most situation the Geforce will perform better than an equivalent Quadro.....let alone in this case where its a Quadro from multiple generations ago.
2GB of VRAM.....Indigo will eat through that in no time.
Heck im sure your DCC could eat through 2GB of VRAM with ease.
But just for arguments sake lets do a GA comparison real quick.
For instance the RTX 3090 vs a Quadro A5000?
Both use GA102 chip in different configurations.
Advantage 3090:
Faster Pixel Fill Rate.
Faster Texture Fill Rate.
Faster Memory Bandwidth.
Higher Single precision FLOP.
Higher Half precision FLOP.
Nearly half the price.
Advantage A5000:
Higher double precision FLOP.
Lower TDP?
Drivers that may may benefit specific application performance.
And thats about it.
Unless under very specialized situations where you will be using double precision maths....there no logical reason to pay almost double the price for a GPU that doesnt actually do anything better.
gautxori wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 3:50 am
- I've always used computers with Intel processors, I'm not an expert on that subject, and I think AMD manufactures excellent chipsets, GPUs, or CPUs. If those ASUS laptops have the motherboards based on AMD chipsets, they might have excellent performance, even on pair with Lenovo or Dell Intel based ones. But I'd like to see a real benchmark, perhaps with latest Indigo version. (Can you manage that?).
- the controversy on Intel and AMD performance is also ancient: not only when the Dell M6800 was in the market, but even when the first Pentium processors came to market, AMD was already there. In fact I hesitated to buy an AMD instead of the Pentium III... But even then Intel were clear winners in the market.
Ive been an Intel user for a long long time, even when Ryzen launched I didnt feel a need to jump ship till the 5000 series.
By then Intel were taking a piss and hadn't really been going forward for so long AMD managed to not only catch up, but surpass them between Ryzen 3000 and Ryzen 5000.
The Ryzen vs Intel debate in laptops space is pretty much equal right now.
AMDs top chips and Intels top chips will give you very very similar performance.
This wasnt the case with Ryzen 1000 and prior.
Pre-Ryzen the last time AMD was competitive was around the Athlon era....which I actually had over the Pentium IIIs, and P4s, thats like 20 years ago.
So obviously alot of people forgot AMD was ever really competitive.
With Alderlake im actually contemplating upgrading my CPU because it looks like some real gains have been made.
Otherwise Intel vs AMD was neck and neck for quite a while.
We have to waiting for the 3D Cache CPUs from AMD to see if the can claw back any of the deficite they have over Intels Alderlake.