Desktop or workstation video card?

We need to get a new video card for my wife's PC and don't know
whether to chose a desktop or workstation video card.

She has a PCI-16x (I don't think 2.0) and uses it for AfterEffects,
Lightwave, and other graphic and video editing software, pretty much
no games (aside from MSN type games).
She wants to run two monitors.

The main problem is our budget of $250. The good workstation cards
I've seen are the $450 Quadro cards. For less than $250, should we
still get a workstation card or would a quality desktop card work well
for her needs? If so, any chipset or pixel pipes or anything to
suggest?

Thanks for any feedback!
Liam

Mechphisto wrote:
We need to get a new video card for my wife's PC and don't know
whether to chose a desktop or workstation video card.

She has a PCI-16x (I don't think 2.0) and uses it for AfterEffects,
Lightwave, and other graphic and video editing software, pretty much
no games (aside from MSN type games).
She wants to run two monitors.

The main problem is our budget of $250. The good workstation cards
I've seen are the $450 Quadro cards. For less than $250, should we
still get a workstation card or would a quality desktop card work well
for her needs? If so, any chipset or pixel pipes or anything to
suggest?

Thanks for any feedback!
Liam

The major difference between "workstation video cards" and desktop cards
is certification and drivers that conform to some established CAD
standards. IIRC, some programs will interrogate the video card to see if
it meets the "approved" list of "workstation video cards".

Some users in the past have reported that they "converted" various
Nvidea vidcards to Quadro cards (as far as reporting as Quadro hardware
to software that does that.

It was done by flashing the card with a relevant Quadro flash for the
basic card family involved.

http://www.google.com/search?q=flashing+to+Quadro&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS272US273

You may want to peruse the "alt.comp.periphs.videocards" newsgroups.

In article , nobody
says...

Mechphisto wrote:
We need to get a new video card for my wife's PC and don't know
whether to chose a desktop or workstation video card.

She has a PCI-16x (I don't think 2.0) and uses it for AfterEffects,
Lightwave, and other graphic and video editing software, pretty much
no games (aside from MSN type games).
She wants to run two monitors.

The main problem is our budget of $250. The good workstation cards
I've seen are the $450 Quadro cards. For less than $250, should we
still get a workstation card or would a quality desktop card work well
for her needs? If so, any chipset or pixel pipes or anything to
suggest?

Thanks for any feedback!
Liam

The major difference between "workstation video cards" and desktop cards
is certification and drivers that conform to some established CAD
standards. IIRC, some programs will interrogate the video card to see if
it meets the "approved" list of "workstation video cards".

Err, no. Workstation cards do CAD etc WAY faster than a desktop card
designed for 3D gaming.

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On May 11, 3:37*pm, Conor wrote:
In article , nobody
says...



Mechphisto wrote:
We need to get a new video card for my wife's PC and don't know
whether to chose a desktop or workstation video card.

She has a PCI-16x (I don't think 2.0) and uses it for AfterEffects,
Lightwave, and other graphic and video editing software, pretty much
no games (aside from MSN type games).
She wants to run two monitors.

The main problem is our budget of $250. The good workstation cards
I've seen are the $450 Quadro cards. For less than $250, should we
still get a workstation card or would a quality desktop card work well
for her needs? If so, any chipset or pixel pipes or anything to
suggest?

Thanks for any feedback!
Liam

The major difference between "workstation video cards" and desktop cards
* is certification and drivers that conform to some established CAD
standards. IIRC, some programs will interrogate the video card to see if
it meets the "approved" list of "workstation video cards".

Err, no. Workstation cards do CAD etc WAY faster than a desktop card
designed for 3D gaming.

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

So, in your opinion, in the service of AfterEffect, Lightwave, etc.,
if I just had $250 to spend, would I be better off getting a low end
workstation card or a mid range desktop?

* nobody :

The major difference between "workstation video cards" and desktop cards
is certification

Yes.

and drivers that conform to some established CAD
standards.

No. "Quadro drivers" are generic ForceWare drivers that like the cards
have been certified for certain application. "Quadro drivers" work fine
with Geforce and vice versa.

With AMD, the "FireGL driver" is a generic Catalyst driver with modified
installation routine and a different OpenGL part (optimized for quality
and not for performance). The D3D part is identical.

IIRC, some programs will interrogate the video card to see if
it meets the "approved" list of "workstation video cards".

For example? I have never seen any application that does that. Most
professional programs run just fine with Geforce and Radeon cards.

Some users in the past have reported that they "converted" various
Nvidea

Nvid_i_a

vidcards to Quadro cards (as far as reporting as Quadro hardware
to software that does that.

It was done by flashing the card with a relevant Quadro flash for the
basic card family involved.

Nope. The hardware ID of Geforce and Quadro is different which means on
older cards you had to solder (moving some SMD resistors) and on newer
cards (GF4 and above) it isn't possible any more.

However, what is possible is to a) either modify the gfx driver to
recognize a Geforce as Quadro (and thus enabling all the Quadro stuff)
or b) using RivaTuner or other tools to make the gfx driver think your
card is a Quadro.

Benjamin

* Mechphisto:

So, in your opinion, in the service of AfterEffect, Lightwave, etc.,
if I just had $250 to spend, would I be better off getting a low end
workstation card or a mid range desktop?

Does your wife use AfterEffects and Lightwave for a living and thus is
dependent on the ISV support? Then get a certified board like PNY Quadro
FX or ATI/AMD FireGL (I'd get a FireGL as they often are cheaper than
comparable Quadro cards).

If your wife does it as hobby then get a Geforce desktop card. It will
do as good as the professional board.

Benjamin

On May 11, 4:19*pm, Benjamin Gawert wrote:
* Mechphisto:

So, in your opinion, in the service of AfterEffect, Lightwave, etc.,
if I just had $250 to spend, would I be better off getting a low end
workstation card or a mid range desktop?

Does your wife use AfterEffects and Lightwave for a living and thus is
dependent on the ISV support? Then get a certified board like PNY Quadro
FX or ATI/AMD FireGL (I'd get a FireGL as they often are cheaper than
comparable Quadro cards).

If your wife does it as hobby then get a Geforce desktop card. It will
do as good as the professional board.

Benjamin

If as good, why not just the GeForce?
Unfortunately, she doesn't currently have a job in graphics, but is
trying to build up her portfolio by doing small projects for churches
and whatnot so she CAN get a job doing it for a living.
Thanks for the replies.
Liam

* Mechphisto:

If as good, why not just the GeForce?

Because most ISVs only provide support for their software if used with
certified hardware. However, more and more ISVs now also certify
consumer gfx cards (Geforce and Radeon) with their products.

Benjamin

In article be1d062e-205d-4f57-83b2-47d8c09df0f4
@r36g2000vbr.googlegroups.com, Mechphisto says...

So, in your opinion, in the service of AfterEffect, Lightwave, etc.,
if I just had $250 to spend, would I be better off getting a low end
workstation card or a mid range desktop?

Yes. Tomshardware did some benchmarking a while back and gaming cards
fared poorly in the apps you mention. Workstation cards are optimised
for such applications as are the drivers.

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On May 12, 3:57*am, Conor wrote:
In article be1d062e-205d-4f57-83b2-47d8c09df0f4
@r36g2000vbr.googlegroups.com, Mechphisto says...

So, in your opinion, in the service of AfterEffect, Lightwave, etc.,
if I just had $250 to spend, would I be better off getting a low end
workstation card or a mid range desktop?

Yes. Tomshardware did some benchmarking a while back and gaming cards
fared poorly in the apps you mention. Workstation cards are optimised
for such applications as are the drivers.

So, in my price range are these two cards:
desktop:
GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 896MB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130434
and workstation:
FireGL V3600 256MB 128-bit
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814195048

On specs, the GeForce appears to not just blow the workstation card
away but obliterate it. Yet, the workstation card is theortetically a
better performer for, say, AfterEffects?

Thanks for advice and opinions.