Quadro FX 2500M, Go7900GTX or Go7900GS?

Alright, so finally the new Latitudes and Precisions are out. (only on UK site yet), and the XPS M1710 will be out soon.

The Precision M90 comes with NVIDIA Quadro FX 2500M with 512MB of memory and XPS M1710 will come with Go7900GTX.

Here are some questions:

-Does FX 2500 consumes less power than 7900GTX? On UK site I saw that M90 comes with the 130W adapter. Does it mean that FX 2500 isn't more power efficient than Go7900GTX?

-Will be an option of Go7900GS for the XPS M1710? (that would be the ideal case for me)

- and finally, what exactly I won't be able to do with FX 2500M?

Thanks in advance,
Sam

 

a quadro is NOT a gaming card. it has different drivers to make use of different things. please search the topic, and refer to my posts about the quadro.

out of the 7900GTX and 7900Gs, i would go for the GTX..more power = longer lifetime of the GPU.

pb,out.

 

The quadro is usually quite a bit WORSE in games due to the drivers being optimised for CAD programs.

 

technically, you could probably reflash the quadro bio to a 7900 bios.... but what's the point in buying a precision then? the quadro will still be able to play many games, but if your main purpose is to game, then i say wait for the upcoming xps m1710

 

quadro graphics are optimized for OpenGL graphic manipulation such as AutoCAD, 3D Rendering etc
they 'can' game but nothing compared to the GTX or the GS

 

Guys, thanks a lot for the replies.

Let me explain my situation a bit. I don't play games at all, so my ideal choice for a 17" should be 9400 but I found it really ugly. So I want a 9400 (read 7900GS) in a M1710.

Now that the M90 is out and it almost look identical to the M1710 (without the fancy lights) I was wondering if it will work for me. I might only load the Vista visual style on my XP. I think a 512MB VGA shouldn't have any problems with that.

Another thing is the power consumption. Which one consumes more power? 7900GTX, 7900GS or Quadro 2500M. And will the XPS M1710 have the option for 7900GS?

Thanks a lot,
Sam

 

Meaker is correct. The quadro doesn't do very well at gaming...even though it isn't bad, but it is designed for CAD programs.

I would go the 7900GTX. Like PBcustom recommended. For the game reasons and it is going to be a little more powerful than the GS.

 

In fact, i9400, XPS and M90 should have essentially the same chassis. The difference is only the color of bands on the left and right side of keyboard - they are white on i9400 and black on XPS and M90.

Rumors are that the new XPS will have a choice of 7900GS and 7900GTX.
But if I were not interested in gaming, I would take an i9400 with integrated graphics - it'll consume the lowest possible amount of power.

PS: To anyone interested in comparison of professional and gaming cards from Nvidia, I've found this article. Was an interesting read to me

 

danton47, thanks for posting that link..great read!

but i will sum it up, by posting the last paragraph..

"Final Words...

With its ability to master AA/AF much better than the GeForce series of graphics adapters, the Quadro did match or outdo the 6800GS in a couple of cases. Should you buy this instead of the 6800GS then? Most definitely not, unless you define yourself as a professional in the graphics field with a need for such a component. Despite the Quadro FX3400 doing a great job in our gaming benchmarks, it's not made for gaming. The price premium that NVIDIA charges for it will probably get you a 7800GTX 512MB, which is one of the top performing gaming cards in the market. Needless to say, this quick article has put a few things in right perspective, and that's the fact that NVIDIA's professional level graphics adapters can be considered all-rounders with a specialty in professional level rendering."

taken from: http://www.cooltechzone.com/Reviews/Video_Reviews/NVIDIA_Quadro_FX3400:_A_Quick_Look_200601302176/3/

pb,out.

 

Alright,

How about for video editing? 7900GTX or Quadro 2500M?

Sam

 

You don't need a video card to do video editing, so even integrated will be fine. But, I would get a low-end dedicated card anyway so that the video card isn't sucking up your system memory.

The only reason to get a Quadro is for rendering, and for a GeForce 7900, gaming. If those aren't your primary tasks, you can get away with less.

Chaz

 

It seems that Adobe After Effects support OpenGL acceleration, so Quadro might be better in this particular case. I'm not sure what real world benefit it brings though.
For most 2D graphical applications (Photoshop, Premiere etc.) 3D performance of the video card should not matter at all.

 

Would that include video rendering? Or only 3D graphics/CAD etc?

 

There is no point in gettting the Quadro card just for gaming. Its way pricier
than the gaming brothers 7900. But I think it will still blow you away in games.
And im talkink about go7800 performance here.

First lets look at this link: http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_11761.html
As we can see the stats are about the same if not a bit better than on the
quadro 4500 desktop card (and thats almost 2000€ card).

And if we look at this link: http://www.solosreviews.net/Reviews/Index/NVIDIAFX4500_01.html
we can see that the 4500 gets almost 8000 points in 3dmark05 with a
FX-55 amd processor. That means that I see no reason why the 2500M
would not score over 6000 with a decent core duo. And that kind of score
will mean that its usable for all the newest games with good settings & high
resolution.

 

Thanks for the great help guys. I'm down to the power consumption of the cards now. How does Quadro FX 2500M compare with 7900/7800 GTX regarding the power consumption? I know that the Quadro uses Power Mizer 6.0 just like 7800 and 7900 series, and the max. power consumption of Quadro is 100W. Anybody knows the max. power consumption of 7800/7900 GTX?

Also is the Quadro based on the 90nm technology or 110nm?

From what I've read here, I assume that the Quadro will be clocked lower than the GO 7900 GTX. Is that right? If so, the power consumption will be less too?

 

The FX 2500M is, AFAIK, based on the Go 7900 GTX, and thus 90 nm.

I am also wondering about the power consumption, though. Especially since the FX 2500M performs better than the desktop FX 4500....

 

Chaz? Anyone?

I've ordered a Precision M90 with the Quadro 2500M card. The heat issue is very important to me. I searched a lot but the only thing I found is that Max Power Consumption of 2500M is 100W and Quadro 1500M's is 45M. But how about power consumption under day to day normal tasks? And how does it compare to Go 7800/7900 GTX.

Thanks,
Sam

 

The review at digitalvideoeditiong.com states 2.5-3 hours of battery life. This seems to be similar or even better than the current XPSM170 with 7800GTX

 

Hi . M90 kicks ass pure and simple . 3d mark 03 near 18000 without tweaking . my xpsgen2 ultra 6800 only managed 12000 . runs very cool and quiet .

 

I think the thing most people miss about the good Latitudes and the Precisions are the fact that they have magnesium alloy chassis/lid and they have better build quality than Inspirons. I have yet to see many benchmarks other than the one stated earlier in the thread about the Quadro family (particularily the FX, the NVS has some out there of the 120M, which seems comparable to the ATI X1400). I'm considering getting a Quadro-based Dell because they don't offer the Latitude/Precision with ATI solutions.

 

Hi,
How would the Quadro FX 2500M compare to a ATI X1600?
Thanks