OK, bring on those benchmarks. I haven't seen any in this thread. I
simply am tired of AMD versus Intel debates. It's kind of sad really.
What *is* sad is that nobody can utter AMD around here without being
pounced on by you... and now you have the nerve to tell us you're tired of
the debate.....Ô_õ
Um, no. Look at the high prestige and high ASP products throughout
history:
Uhh we're talking about the Opterons & Xeons here as high ASP, with
Celerons & Semprons at the other end of the spectrum... the umm, sawdust of
the processor world.
VAX
Minicomputers
Proprietary RISC systems
Most pre-RISC designs
What do they all have in common? They're dying! Here's a hint, high
margin and low volume doesn't work when you have to compete with Intel.
Just ask DEC, HP, Sun, SGI or any number of other companies.
What they all have in common is that they're not even close to a "Personal
Computer" and don't have microprocessor CPUs apart from a couple of bottom
of range abberations. VAX has been dead for years and DEC hasn't existed
since they changed their name to Digital and got, first screwed by Intel
and then purchased by err, Carleton.
That depends. IBM basically gives away hardware to get consulting.
Profits on corporate desktops are surely higher than those on consumer
desktops.
IBM's strategy has nothing to do with the subject at hand; switching the
focus is not helping you here.
You mean the bad axe systems with 2 PCIe graphics ports?
So? Totally different drivers and optimizations. Why don't you try
and take two of these 'identical' GPUs, and then benchmark them against
each other. You might be surprised.
Contriving a quote of "identical" which I never used is worthy of the
Kentster... at his worst. nVidia has been coy about revealing specific
differences between Quadro and GeForce but they are both based on the same
chip with "feature" differences.
It seems like one of the differences is overlay planes, which is actually
an SGI legacy feature, which any software mfr can work around with zero
penalty. Another is number of clip regions and it appears that
Vista/DirectX 10 is going to require that more be added to GeForce
anyway... just another little scandalous "secret" of the video chip
industry.
They certainly did for a long time. It wasn't up until very recently
that the last of the professional graphics vendors gave up to ATI and
NV.
We live in different times now - an annual roll-out of premium GPUs with
defeatured product following in the schedule. That the video chip mfrs get
away with adding $1000. to the price for "CAD-enabled" for such a meagre
difference in feature set is a disgrace. Oh and another is that they offer
no drivers for Windows Server... !unbelievable!... that you're supposed to
spend more for a crippled version of the GPU chip, which has server
drivers.
Yes it is - it stimulates the CAD industry all around and keeps the big
guys on their toes if some guy can cook up the next big CAD app in his den.
Good luck getting expensive workstation applications qualified on a
geforce. Why don't you talk with a schlumberger engineer about that?
I don't need to - I know some of the guys in the trenches. They are
happily doing advanced surfacing and other engineering & design tasks with
PCs with mostly consumer-grade GPUs. Between Quadro and GeForce, the
hardware differences are minimal: if you have a "design center" with many
different, possibly unanticipated apps, you may have to get Quadro to cater
for the oddballs; for a single shop, you buy software which does not pander
to the video chip industry. The usual laws will dictate which software
mfrs survive.
Wouldn't it be cool for somebody to say "I'm