Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
Getekha

opengGL, Laptop Stationy, qq

This topic is 3681 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Laptop: Dell XPS M1530: Core 2 Duo T9300 (2.50GHz), 3582 MB RAM, GeForce 8600M GT 256MB (Running Vista) Vs. Stationary: Dell Precision T7400: Intel Quad-Core Xeon E5420 / 2.5 GHz, 3069 MB RAMO, Quadro FX 1700 512 MB (We've got 2 of theese one with vista and one with XP) We're devoloping a couple of small demos for a touchscreen which is running 1920x1080. We're programming in python and are using pyglet which let's us write openGL commands. The thing that is surprising us is that the laptop is giving us a higher framerate then the stationary. Is this to be expected? Since we're looking to up our framerate is the right thing to do just throw away the Quadro FX 1700 and get a (or two) gaming cards and we'll be seeing improvements? Atm we're trying to get about 60 semi transparent textures to be drawn @ 60 fps with 4xAA, the laptop can handle it but the stationary only gives us 40-50 fps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Quadro Chart
GeForce Comparission

EDIT2: My apologies!!! I was reading the 8800GT!! This is the real comparision (It's still superior!)

OK.... if that's correct, the 8600GT is far superior than QFX 1700
8600GT has 128-bit memory interface vs Quadro's 128-bits
8600GT has 22.4 GB/s memory bandwith vs Quadro's 12 GB/s
8600GT has 8.64 b/s texture fillrate vs Quadro's 7.36 b/s

Due to the high resolution you're using, I bet it's the texture fillrate what will make the big difference.

Overall, Quadros won't perform faster than Geforces. This is a common missconception.
Quadro has more functionallity Geforce lacks, and in OpenGL such functionality ought to be emulated in the GF, which reduces performance. But if you don't use it, you won't lose performance.
Also Quadros are far better at handling multiple D3D/OGL instances, windows clipping, and mixing GDI+acceleration, which is very used in applications like 3DMax, Maya and others (Therefore, they're recommended for "video editing", "3D artitsts", and such).
So, unless you're using Quadros for what they're specifically designed, you won't see superior performance.

Hope this helps
Dark Sylinc

Edit: An example: If you use fullscreen applications (like 99.9% of games) you'll go for the GeForce. If you use a tool that handles 7 independent OGL windows (even if they all belong to the same process), has GDI buttons for the GUI interface, and God knows what else you mix, you'll go for the Quadro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 3681 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!