We compare the performance of the Quadro and Radeon Pro line with GeForce and Radeon RX1
We had access to a number of cards that don’t always make it here on Adrenaline: professional, work-focused models from AMD and Nvidia. In essence, these products are very similar to the video game cards so featured in our daily coverage here, but feature modifications that seek to focus on the specific needs of those more interested in work than play.
We compare a total of 4 player models with 3 professional models. Our battery of tests will include professional applications, consumption and heating tests and, of course, we also ran some games.
Quadro and Radeon Pro cards versus GeForce RTX and Radeon RX
For this comparison we have
– PowerColor Radeon RX 6600 Fighter
– NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Super
– ASUS ROG Strix GeForce RTX 3060 OC
-AMD RadeonPRO W6600
– PNY NVIDIA GeForce RTX A2000
-NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000
Differences between players and professionals
Our first comparison has a pair of slightly older boards. We are talking about the Nvidia Quadro RTX 4000 and the closest gaming model, the GeForce RTX 2070 Super, both based on the 12-nanometer Turing microarchitecture TU104 chip. The professional card has slightly fewer CUDA cores, but what catches the eye are the much lower clocks in both the base and turbo.
These reductions, on the other hand, greatly reduce power consumption and also make single-slot design feasible.
|updated price||$499.00||BRL 7,999.99|
Our comparison to more modern cards includes the RTX Quadro A2000, a model similar in technical aspects to the RTX 3060, all using the GA106 chip, from the Ampere microarchitecture. Here we have something much more interesting when it comes to price, with the professional card not getting much more expensive than its equivalent with a gaming-focused implementation.
Again, we have large reductions in operating clocks, including memory operating frequencies. But that pays for itself: the card is much smaller, more compact and consumes much less power than the gamer version of the GA106 chip.
At AMD, we basically get the same product twice. Both the Radeon Pro W6600 and Radeon RX 6600 carry variations of the Navi 23 chip, based on RDNA 3 technology, but now the stream processor count is identical and the pro card is clocked even higher.
Even so, the card still manages to bring a single-slot design and also more moderate specs in heat dissipation and power requirements.
Speaking of price, here too we have a heavy bill, with an increase from 300 to 600 dollars, comparing the gamer and professional versions respectively.
Video card gamer vs professional cards in games
Video cards for gamers vs professional cards in professional applications
The most relevant part of the test is SpecViewPERF 2020. This benchmarking tool seeks to create real scenarios of using hardware acceleration in actions ranging from medical, energy, 3D modeling and engineering applications. Many of the tests involve manipulating complex models. The strong point of this tool is the automation of tests, the organization of online results so that you can compare different hardware and, above all, it does not depend on installing professional applications. So you can test the performance of your system even if you don’t have these programs yet, some of them with very expensive licenses.
SpecViewPERF is free for non-commercial use. The only cost is finding where he lives on SPEC.org’s awful, time-trapped site, so to save your patience the link is here.
Since each of the work cycles has the goal of measuring performance in different software, we will talk about the results and describe what is tested, after all it is an area we rarely cover here at Adrenaline.
3ds Max View Set (3dsmax-06)
The first test involves the 3ds Max 2016 software, manipulating 3D objects with multiple rendering techniques. Here it’s not surprising that video game cards have done well, given that this work cycle still doesn’t appear complex or even very different from a game.
While the pro cards don’t stand out, it’s notable how the gap between the RTX 3060 and Quadro A2000 has narrowed. In games, he was nearly 60% behind. Now it’s only 20%. A nice victory if we consider the difference in consumption and heating of the two.
Showcase View Set (Storefront-02)
Our second test is Autodesk 2013, with a manipulated 8 million vertex model. Again, the gaming cards didn’t suffer a noticeable performance loss.
Mayan view (maya-05)
Testing using Autodesk’s Maya 2017, with multiple 3D image rendering, with features like ambient occlusion, anti-aliasing, and drop shadows. Again we have a similar duty cycle to what gamers’ graphics chips run in games, so the GeForce RTX and Radeon RX cards aren’t doing too badly.
Energy View Set (Energy-02)
Energy is a rendering workflow using the OpendTect open source platform, focused on earthquake analysis. The test analyzes multiple layers of a surface through a 3D grid, analyzing the volume and interpreting the data.
And in this scenario we have the first reversal, and in it pretty much all the cards, even the ones that cost double the player card. Even the Radeon Pro was able to justify its cost increase with an equivalent performance gain.
Medical view (medical-02)
The medical-02 test uses ImageVis3D rendering as a reference, which projects a 2D cutout of a complex 3D model and its multiple layers. Recreate data collected from a CT scan or MRI.
New advantage for professional graphics cards, especially Nvidia ones. This time around, however, the AMD Radeon RX didn’t drop that much in terms of performance, making it the more advantageous card in the comparison in terms of cost and performance.
Siemens NX (snx-03)
Testing with Siemens PLM software with NX 8.0 application works with complex modeling, manipulating models with 7-8 million vertices, focusing on mechanics and other detailed objects. It works with both wireframe vision, anti-aliasing, shading, edge shading and studio mode.
Player ballots have been crushingly dented here. We see advantages reaching 1000% in Nvidias, and even AMD presented a 300% variance between the Radeon and Radeon Pro model. Even the worst pro card in the test, the A2000, pays for itself compared to the much cheaper RX 6600, offering a performance boost that makes up for the difference in cost.
Creo View Set (creo-02)
Here we have 3D model manipulation, to the delight of fifth graders, in Creo 3 and Creo 4 software. Models from 20 to 48 million vertices are used. Lots of shading and anti-aliasing is applied throughout the workflow.
Again, we have work that is not far from what cards do in games, but even so, the professional models stand out, albeit with a less expressive edge. Here it makes more sense to pay less and choose the GeForce RTX and Radeon RX models, rather than the pro lines.
SolidWorks View Set (sw-04)
The battery of work done in SolidWorks 2013 SP1 handles models from 2 million to 21 million vertices. Maps tests multiple forms of rendering, from wireframe modeling to shading and complex maps.
The professional cards stand out, but we see that AMD again kept their Radeon RX with enough instructions and hardware to perform well in this test, making the RX 6600 the best in terms of cost and performance.
CATIA V6 R2012 (catia-05)
Finally, we have CATIA V6 R2012 software that handles models from 5 to 21 million vertices, with multiple display and trace modes, including additional graphical effects such as depth of field and ambient occlusion.
We again have an advantage over professional cards in this latest test, but the Radeon RX 6600 still stands out in terms of cost and performance.
Are professional cards better than playing cards?
There are scenarios where the player’s cards do not fare badlyand they can be an option for work, especially when we have a work cycle that involves actions similar to the games themselves, such as rendering, rasterization and other graphic effects. The player cards also perform well in video post-processing, in actions such as color correction, making them work well in video editing applications.
There are jobs where playing cards do well. In others, professional slabs make the difference
But pro boards have jumps to specific scenarios, where they have instructions that player boards lack.as well as targeted optimizations just for them. It’s at these times that, while costing twice as much, these models pay for themselves by delivering the job in even a fraction of the time.. The additional cost of these models is also related to this specialized and extended support, as AMD and Nvidia will ensure tuning between these cards and professional applications, as well as compatibility for a longer period of time. This is because working machines are replaced less often than a gaming system.
Professional cards also have configurations and even sizes that are more optimized for a work environment. While gamer cards consume a lot and use much more robust designs, thanks to their focus on low latencies for games with more aggressive operating frequencies, for example, professional cards offer much more stability, reliability and even ease of assembly, with power supplies less fiddly and much less need for closet space.
Despite the higher cost, professional commissions “pay for themselves” by delivering the job in a fraction of the time.
So the main point is to understand how the application and duty cycle you need interacts with different hardware.. Some jobs run very well on Radeon RX and GeForce RTX, but there are others where a Quadro or Radeon Pro is critical to having the performance you need, both to deliver more work in less time, and to make it possible to work fluidly and comfortable frames.
#Professional #Cards #Players #Battle #Models #Work #Cycles