Not ideal as a scientific CUDA co-processor.Lower 64-bit processing than Fermi cards.For 3D rendering it can offer a valid contribution, but any application requiring double-precision grunt should be run on different hardware. As a CUDA or OpenCL co-processing unit, however, the K5000 isn’t such a clear winner. It’s the fastest card for modelling on the market in every test we’ve tried, by quite some margin. Overall, the Nvidia Quadro K5000 is a significant new release for 3D content creators.
#Nvidia quadro k5000 drivers#
So sticking with Windows 7 until drivers are optimised would appear to be the safest option.
Scores were mostly comparable, but a few SPECviewperf viewsets were behind the Windows 7 results, in particular 61.78 in catia-03, 12.42 in proe-05 and 53.45 in tcvis-02. However, the Venom took 72 seconds with the Tesla and Quadro 4000, implying that the K5000’s modelling abilities aren’t quite as stunning for CUDA-powered rendering. The test scene took 154 seconds with the CPU alone – almost the same as the Venom – which fell to 106 seconds with the K5000 helping out. We ran the same Bunkspeed CUDA-enhanced rendering test as we did for Boston’s Tesla-powered Venom 2300-7T. So the K5000 beats the W9000 across the board, and by significant quantities in the all-important 3D modelling viewsets lightwave-01 and maya-03. SPECviewperf 11 results were even more impressive, with the K5000 managing 77.33 in catia-03 compared with 21.14 75.41 in ensight-04 compared with 55.11 72.06 in lightwave-01 compared with 51.97 and 118.17 in maya-03 compared with 53.19. The K5000 managed 87.36 in the OpenGL portion of Maxon Cinebench R11.5, compared with the W9000’s 74.19.
We tested the K5000 in Armari’s Magnetar M32-AW750R, giving us a direct comparison with the AMD FirePro W9000 – which is a little more expensive but broadly comparable in the target market. 3D World tested Nvidia’s Quadro K5000 in the Armari Magnetar M32-AW750R workstation
0 kommentar(er)
