Published in Graphics

Benchmarks show FirePro cleaning Nvidia’s clock

by on06 February 2014

Cheaper and better

Update: The V4900 did not beat the K6000, but rather the entry-level K600. We apologize for any inconvenience this error may have caused.

benchmarks are starting to show that Sapphire’s AMD’s FirePro cards are not only much more affordable to similar offerings from Nvidia, they are also faster.

Normally benchmark suites like 3DMark are used to gauge performance of standard video cards, they are a chocolate teapot when it comes to assessing professional video cards, like the AMD FirePro series and Nvidia’s Quadro. However, a benchmarking utility endorsed by both AMD and Nvidia called SPECviewperf is up to the task and it starting to show clear differences between the two. SPECviewperf includes a host of graphics applications that test all major facets of a card. These tests emulate the real world usage of a card, and feature viewsets for widely used animation suites like CATIA, CREO, MAYA, SNX and Solidworks.

Ihe test features eight categories over which different cards from both AMD’s FirePro and Nvidia’s Quadro series were tested. In the entry-level segment, Sapphire’s AMD FirePro V3900 was pitted against an Nvidia Quadro 410. Both cards are available for under $200, but when it comes down to the performance, the FirePro V3900 wins by a huge margin, and achieved 3.6 times better performance in the Maya test.

It can be seen with the FirePro V4900 and the Quadro K600, with the V4900 beating the K600 in all eight tests conclusively. It is the same with the mid-range segment. The FirePro W5000 edging out the Quadro K2000 in all tests and the W5000 was 2.3 times better than the K2000 in the SNX 02 viewset. When you get to the mid- to high-end segment, the difference between the FirePro W7000 and the Quadro K4000 is not as noticeable, but the W7000 is slightly better in seven of eight tests. 

Unless AMD is designing the cards to detect the test and alter performance, which seems unlikely, then Nvidia is clearly lagging behind.

Last modified on 07 February 2014
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Read more about: