FirePro V5700 vs Quadro FX 1700

Greg Corke and Martyn Day of Develop 3D magazine recently supervised a series of side-by-side performance benchmarks in CATIA comparing the FirePro V5700 and the Quadro FX 1700. The models were all high-polygon, high complexity (i.e. requiring lots of culling in shaded view) from CATBench. Both cards included 512 MB RAM and both were running on identical HP xw6600 workstations. A handheld digital video camera recorded the performance on both systems.

The test runs through three models (1.5 million, 3.9 million, and 3 million polygons) and has each rotate, tilt, and zoom in shaded, shaded plus outline, and outline-only views.

For low-polygon, low-complexity models, the Quadro FX performed as well as or better than the V5700. But as model complexity increased, the v5700 outpaced it using VBO.

Source: email

5 thoughts on “FirePro V5700 vs Quadro FX 1700”

  1. Lina

    The curious question is who really uses that card…. in general i mean the nvidia based workstation i have doesnt use one of those it uses a higher end quadro… So saying FireGl/FirePro is definitely better is kinda off… Considering the price point is 60-80 dollars more expensive then the Nvidia counterpart… Most people i know would use the 3700 and up as far as the quadroFX goes so its not a real good test since they are testing a clearly lower product… GDDR3 vs GDDR2 prime example… Also variation in architecture and stream processors etc… I think you also need to take into account that the program they used might of been better for one card… Either way they are easily comparable cards but i do think its unwise to use one of the lower end QuadroFX cards for any serious work =/

  2. Jello

    I don’t understand why you people would even compare workstation graphics with gaming cards in the first place, they are just two very different markets all together. The biggest difference in the two markets is one has buggy drivers which are constantly updated until the products life cycle, for workstation graphics the drivers are designed bug free from day one so that the designed hardware lives up to its cad related work.

    Unless you own a $2000 to $3000 or up card (minus your super sexy quads core systems) then yes that thing beats the snot out of anything even related to uber gaming if such a thing even exists, why you ask?? Simple something that creates next gen titles spanning computers and consoles is obviously designed to handle graphics a way that normal line gpus do not. Unless your like gates and can afford licensing deals you won’t be using high end workstation graphics, so speaking entry to mid range products for both workstations and gaming. It simply comes to a fifty fifty speaking purely on one vs another, but a closer look at what each is designed for reveals very different output so I conclude why bother comparing??

    I own a Nvidia 9600gt and a ATI Fire Pro V3700, their both good cards in their own ways.

  3. Melvin

    I don’t know if it’s just me, but the two monitors are not equivlent. The FX 1700 is working harder to encompass the extra pixels and therefore will be slower. It figures that Firepro’s need lower resolutions to perform, but I like my higher resolutions. Gullible people Rock!

  4. John

    The monitors are not the same size and therefore the FX 1700 will be working harder. The previous posting that was removed stated this, but they must have not liked stating the obvious.

Comments are closed.