geforce titan or quadro k4000?

[axeminster]

Hello all -

I'm hoping to get a little help/clarification on which card would better suit my needs, and appreciate any/all help. I'm probably at an intermediate level of understanding when it comes to the technical aspects of computers, so some of the finer points escape me.

In short, i'm looking at two graphics cards to purchase as an upgrade: the geforce titan http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-titan/specifications or the quadro k4000 http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro-desktop-gpus.html  .

Currently, my setup is as follows:

Intel Motherboard Dual Socket Xeon S5520SC

Intel Xeon CPU Fan Heatsink STS100C

2 x 2.26GHz Intel "Nehalem" Xeon Quad Core [8MB]

12GB 1333MHz DDR3 Triple Channel SDRAM (6 x 2GB)

1TB High Speed Hard Drive [64MB Cache, 7200RPM]

StormDrive Dual Layer CD/DVD Writer

850W Silent Power Supply

Windows 7 Pro [64-bit]

NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 Workstation Graphics Accelerator [1GB]

PCI 3 Port FireWire [TI Chipset]

(additional) 1TB High Performance Drive [64MB Cache SATA 3 6GB]

I use my workstation for projects and not gaming. And i used CS5 and Toon Boon Harmony as my two mediums for editing/creation. With CS5, it's my understanding that the quadro cards are preferred as they utilize some useful functions (such as mercury playback), and that they handle after effects better for the 3d issues. Conversely, Toon Boom Harmony suggests a geforce card over a quadro, as it corresponds with their software more "inherently" than a quadro. Granted, both programs would work well with either type of card, but is there one that is better fit to run both? And given my setup listed above, would the Titan card be massive overkill/be bottlenecked by slower components? Additionally, can anyone testify to a head to head matchup between these two cards?

Thanks.

[ECBowen]

Yes I was referring to Premiere and AE mainly.

Eric

ADK

[forgottenrebell]

Blind faith, Wow. What experience is this you speak of? Sorry to inform you of this but Geforce cards were indeed neutered via both hardware and driver to not perform at full potential. You were misinformed. To prove this is quite simple, all one needs is either of two certain GTX cards and a bit of solder and a tweek on the driver to turn there GTX cards into a full on Quadro cards. Unfortuately, Nvidia has fixed this oversite now. And further,  to equate brute cuda core power as the only important factor is in error as I stated previously quite clearly. As far as direct X goes , you are correct with regards to 3Ds max although I did already kind of touch on that earlier as I did already mention Direct X. I noticed you did not mention any software that indeed specifcally requires the use of Quadro cards? I can asure you it is best to be fully aware of what these cards can do in other applications before haste in judgement. I have already listed qute a few show stoppers that would indeed prevent anyone running a geforce card ( titan or otherwise) from submitting there results for visual effects or scientific computes in some (but not all cases.) To disregard this most important fact is completely misdleading to all readers of this tread. Two titan blacks may work perfect in resolve for example ( and they do indeed ) but they are totally unuseable in Flame for example where the Quadro K6000 will work in both flame and Resolve. There is a reason Quadro cards cost twice what a gamer card costs and if you do not agree that is indeed your choice. Myself I realize the true benefit and far superior interaction that Quadro cards supply ( especially running 2 K6000's !) and I also realise after many of my own short cut attempts over the years to save money in most cases you get what you pay for.  I do want to touch on what you mentioned also regarding black magic and AJA cards, I find the AJA kona 3G is far superior for output. Stability and sandards may not be important to yourself but in my work environment it is parmount. As I stated earlier, If some one at home wants to use a non Quadro card it will indeed work but thats not the entire story ( but the ATI w8000 is a good alternative). Quadro cards were never designed to be fast, they were designed to be the standard amoung high end graphic and scientific applications giving consistantly highest order results and they still do. The gap between gamer and Quadros have significantly lessoned of late to be sure ( its not like the old 3Dlabs days / SGI onyx systems at a million dollars each ) , but it isint closed just yet. Simply put, anyone can build a go cart that goes a 100 mph in a straight line ( like a game card) but some people need to turn safely and have dependable brakes and thats a Quadro !

[ECBowen]

I listed observations and testing results. The editing applications that have GPU acceleration and perform better with Geforce cards are professional applications used in all the media content creation industry. Davinci and Adobe are far more prevalent now than what few applications that benefit from the Quadro Open GL plugins. GPU acceleration in general has supplanted Open GL as the primary GPU processing. Since it has, the raw specs of the cards decide the performance. This has been tested and shown with results by far more people than myself. So these are not opinions. The 700 series cards are showing greater performance than the previous gen Nvidia cards so obviously the cards were not limited that much if at all. The applications caching models are currently limiting the performance of the current cards as are the CPU's available. The CPU's themselves have to decode the data first that get's GPU processed and create all of the buffers that transit the data down to the GPU for processing. That is where the current limitation is for the GPU processing load. GPU-Z is reflecting this when monitoring the GPU load during application processing. Only certain codecs with resolutions greater than 2K such as red are using enough frame data to really push the cards. This points to applications limiting performance and not the hardware. There are far more applications now using GPU acceleration that gain the benefit from the specs of the cards than there are applications that take advantage of the Quadro Open GL plugins

Nothing you have mentioned supports any professional stability argument for the Quadro cards. I actually listed a current problem with the Quadro cards that effects any processing unit and that is heat. That has been observed in testing and long term support here with failed video cards. The Quadro k4000 series due to the single slot profile, limited cooling, and poor fan control has the highest failure rate. Those cards are averaging well over 80+C with GPU acceleration applications especially since they are using lower end GPU chips that are often at 75% load or greater. Time, experience, and results show the higher end Geforce cards have a higher stability probability due to heat generation and constant long term load percentage. The only reason scientific, medical, and engineering GPU acceleration applications are used with the Quadro cards is the ECC ram option. When processing data sets that take weeks to complete or have extremely high cost involved in research, errors due to GPU ram is not something those R&D entities want to risk. In those scenarios the Quadro cards are the best choice. That is the only stability based advantage the Quadro cards bring to the table. That however no real impact on media content creation which we are discussing in this forum.

Results and observations don't require a resume of experience to validate. Simply perform the testing as other have done like myself and list them here. I am stating results and observations that have been reported by many others so the validation is the simply the number of results that reflect the same data. If you disagree then report your results and let others either duplicate or disprove. That is not blind faith but simply data. Listing a bunch of marketing material as facts does nothing to validate your argument and are not facts as you state. They are marketing points that can be interpreted any number of ways hence the lack of any real value to the actual editors or content industry in general.

[forgottenrebell]

I call B S. 700 series, i never mentioned what series I was referring to and if you knew anything about Quadros you would  have known that a Quadro 6000 is not even in that series. I already stated very clearly that for photoshopping or a bit of color correction a game card would be just fine. I also specified some examples of when a Quadro would be advantageous and you unwisely think ECC is the only apparent stability advantage.  Just try comping a hundred or more 2k film layers in 16 float in Flame or Nuke with any kind of usable interaction with a gamer card and see what happens. I'll tell you what happens, nothing, the bloody car wont even start. This is a normal everyday work flow for myself so in my world a gamer card is a none starter. In your opinion blank screens, popping pixels , anti aliasing issues and real time interaction to name but a few are none issues but in mine they would be a real disaster especially given clients pay a few grand per hour billable. In both commercials and feature vfx these are very real concerns and time and mistakes cost money in my world. As far as heat issues with the K4000 you may indeed be right in this matter but i would not know as our current Z820's run dual K6000's each with zero issues. We agree to disagree, you stick with the gamers cards and ill stick with the Quadros.

[ECBowen]

You assume the gamer cards produce drawing out anomalies versus the Quadro cards and they don't. I hate to break it to you but the Open GL code is updated with the drivers and is not on the machine code. If the Geforce cards draw out with anomalies so would the Quadro cards unless its simply a version difference in the 2 driver sets. The processing for the compositing of 200 layers as you mention is CPU side and not GPU side other than the draw out on the screen. So once again the Geforce cards would have the same stability or quality as the Quadro cards. The only difference with the applications that use the Quadro Open GL plugins would be acceleration on panning or movement. You really need to understand how the applications process and work before you assume how the cards will perform. I suggest you also try the Titan cards before you assume they perform differently than the K6000 cards. If the Geforce cards performed that poorly do you really think film productions would use them with Davinci, Vray, or Eyeon Fusion among others besides Adobe. I hate to break it to you but someone sold you marketing and you bought into it well beyond the actual results. I am sure the K6000's perform for your needs. However many have found that the 3 Titan's they can buy and still spend less than 1 K6000 offers far better return on investment without any anomalies or drawbacks. The K6000 is a 700 series GPU. The Quadro 6000 is not but has no chance of outperforming a Titan.

[forgottenrebell]

Firstly, doing color correction on davinci resolve is magnitudes easier than compositing the same resolution and color space footage in 100 plus layers. There is no comparison whatsoever and you were foolished to even try using that comparison.  Secondly, Flame for example wont even boot up with a gamer card installed so you must use a Quadro card to even initiate the software so why would you even suggest a titan here? Thirdly, we have compared titans and 700 series cards to various Quadros in Nuke, Max and Maya and other vfx related applications and the Quadros in most but not all cases were indeed superior for many reasons especially ones already listed.  In heavy scenes there was just no comparison period, end of debate. Also, in production the software venders like autodesk for example will only help in a support case when both hardware and software configurations are supported so once again in the majority of cases advantage Quadro.  I simply do not have the time nor patience required to exchange numbers or "findings" in any further detail with you as I have already given my advice pertanent to the topic of this thread and if you choose to ignore it,  thats quite fine with me. I for one will not lose any sleep over this fact.   I will re-state the obvious that the drivers for Quadro cards are both updated and optimised long before any geforce cards as this is by design and agreement and is a major part of their advantage and stability, although as I have also clearly stated  this advantage is dissapearing or has already dissapeared in some cases. In sofar as the industry using geforce as you said, I can assure you that in the commercial and film vfx industry most everyone I know still use Quadros except the very small boutique places and only then when on budget constraints. In the large professional facilities Quadros still reign supreme. With regard to Davinci resolve usung Titans etc that is only very very recently and is an acception to rather than the rule ( since black magic bought davinci and started giving resolve "lite" away free so now the masses mistakenly think their qualified color graders ) and again thats simple color correction and this case it works very well.

Will Quadros loose their advantage? Yes. Have they yet? No. Would I use one at home for fun. Yes, I actually do currently but in all honesty id be fine with a titan as its just for fun and experimenting. Would I use one at work? If it did the job required yes.  Does it fill that requirement now? Absolutely not.

You sound like the mechanic telling the driver that it should go fast when as a driver im saying its clearly not. You can spout your "facts" all you want, as you have ignored mine I will now decidedly ignore yours. Oh yes , you said the process of rendering out in my case was CPU and not GPU based, hmm, well then Einstein explain to me why I can render twice the footage / speed when I render with the second K6000 pluged in and turned on in the flame menu? Whats that, cat got your tounge? Thought so. Well, I have clients to get back to and earn some of that ROI.  Good day and good bye.

[ECBowen]

Stating such in such is fact with no actual information, observations, and results does not make it so or the end of the debate at all. If you don't feel like wasting your time then simply don't respond. However the debate will continue whether you agree or not and your beliefs do not change that at all.

Compositing applications and grading applications such as Davinci are different animals. Stating Davinci's processing especially since it has GPU acceleration in the mix is magnitudes easier is also a matter of opinion and not fact. Considering grading is done with layers upon layers there is similar complexity in the application buffering ie player buffering and processing. The difference is often the render engine which would be player based in Davinci. Whether Flame will initialize with a Quadro is not the cards but the application programming limiting the device initialization. Why they chose to do that is beyond me other than Nvidia likely offered them some concessions if they did so. There is nothing specific to the cards that would cause them to program the application that way. Hence why Maya and solid works all function with GeForce cards but there may be a feature not available without a Quadro card present. Solidworks for example turns off 1 feature without a Quadro card but there is no real reason beyond what was agreed to by the company with Nvidia. The performance is the same for everything in solid works whether you have the Quadro or Geforce card. Once again this is marketing based and not due to the hardware.

Actually the Geforce card drivers are on a much faster update cycle than the Quadro cards and the Geforce cards are always available first in distribution when a new series releases before the Quadro cards. So no the Quadro cards are not optimized first. The reason Autodesk and other companies only offer support if you have a Quadro card has to do with what they are given by Nvidia for in house testing and development. Nvidia gives them Quadro cards so that is why they only support them in configurations. However do you really believe a Quadro K2000 has any prayer of outperforming a 780Ti card in any application? Please list 1 single application where you see that result. Yes somehow the Quadro K2000 is supported but the 780Ti card is not. Please it doesn't take any serious amount of sense to realize the reasons behind such non sense and none of it has to do with the hardware.

GPU acceleration does not handle the Decoding and encoding of data/media. GPU acceleration handles other aspects. That means the compositing applications are processing all of the data at the CPU including the layer data and then send to the GPU for other processing such as scaling and interpolation. After that the data is sent back to the CPU for final encoding. The aspects handled by the GPU's require a tremendous amount of CPU power to process on CPU's where as GPU's already have the machine code and other such coding besides the parallel processing to handle those frame aspects far more efficiently. So once again yes the compositors are CPU processing the data as I stated above and the GPU processing itself could be done on any card that supports the GPU acceleration standards. As you can see I did have something to say about this. Maybe you should have more of an open mind instead of the earth is flat syndrome.

[ONeillSG]

I agree with Eric. I run a very old GTX 560Ti, and it works just fine with AE, Premiere (MPE working just fine), Maya, Cinema 4D, TFD (fire and smoke simulation plugin for C4D that uses CUDA), and RealFlow. Most CG software today will use most GTX and Quadro cards just fine. I see no need to purchase a Quadro unless you require a feature that they come with, like 10-bit out, stereo-out, SDI-out, Sync, or perhaps there is certain software that requires a Quadro in order to work. I remember MARI once required a Quadro, but now it can use a GTX. Octane renderer (along with other CUDA renderers) generally recommends a high end GTX (like 780 or Titan) for GPU rendering.

[forgottenrebell]

Everything you just mentioned as an advantage or requirement for a Quadro card I had already listed as a reason and advantage for using the Quadro. So you just proved my point thank you.  My comments were both on what can work and what would be optimal. ( Gamer cards can work but Quadros are simply in majority of cases optimal). Given always present time constraints in my industry Quadros still reign supreme.  And AE / Premier are actually the home DIY version of softwares and are not by any means the prevailing softwares in use at professional vfx facilities. Having said that most facilities have at least one AE system and artist for vector related design graphics and treatments etc. There are of course different levels of facilities out there and I am talking solely high end commercials and vfx as that is my only experience. Premier on the other hand I have never seen used in a professional environment anywhere. I remember when for almost a deade the lists Premier outputted were not even frame accurate. For off lining I've seen Avid, light works , final cut and now smoke used but never Premier.

Adobe photoshop is the one Adobe software and standard used en mass everywhere for still frame touchups, matt painting and texture manipulation / creation etc. PersonallyI have been using it since release version one and remain both a fan and user. Although I must mention there was a program called "live picture" that was far superior to photoshop that unfortunately never made it because of price. Bottom line is cheap always wins eventually. This does mean Quadro cards will eventually loose their advantage but as I said, not just yet.

[ECBowen]

Avid had their time and their current state including removal from public trading was the lack of fruits of their labor. I don't believe too many houses are that enthused with the current progress of Media Composer. Pro Tools atleast has some innovative features that justify it's place in the Pro Audio industry but Media Composer brings very little innovation to the current market. Avid's financial situation reflects the current state of their core editing application. The only reason many media content creation industry business's have not walked away from them yet has to do with the massive investment they made with Avid already. They have yet to get the return on that investment and would take a significant loss to re-train staff and update systems to move to Adobe or another editor. So they continue to wait and wait for Avid to finally catch up to where the market is going. I believe FCPX and the debate of it's current status has been exhausted. How many are moving to FCPX versus how many are moving away. Lightworks is the 1 shining light that you mention and I hope the competitor Adobe requires to keep them innovating at the current pace. If Adobe doesn't have real competition then that bodes ill for everyone. Smoke is facing a serious problem with Autodesk's pricing model when compared to other applications out. Autodesk really needs to consider this before they end up down the same road Avid has. To big to fail doesn't exist in this industry and applications such as Fusion or even Blender to some extent are really giving alternatives that provide more than enough for 90 to 95%. You cant have a pricing model that high when the alternatives are half the price or even free but still handle most compositors, or FX editors needs.  Now add into that AE and you have far less reason to make those large license purchases anymore. The business's that are adjusting to the tech investment and options are thriving. The ones who are not are facing major challenges. With 4K to 12K frames starting to evolve for production the tech investment and roll over at a faster pace is becoming far more important than the reputation of applications used in the past. If a company has to buy new systems and software licenses every year then expect the far cheaper solutions that work to by far dominate the content industry.