E6400 graphics question

+1 Rep. That is what I was trying to explain on my original post.. but notebookreview.com is filled with pro-Intel users. I hate to see people picking the wrong choice that doesn't fit their needs.
When I see a person pick the Intel GPU as he/she has been pushed by using scare tactics (other solution has faulty GPU, hot system, and so on) and try to play today games on it later on, as that's what he wanted... it's just sad. I try my best so that it doesn't occur, but I feel that I am sounding like a pro-Nvidia instead of being the least unbiased as I can, else I feel the other graphic solution is being over shadowed.

 

Why would I do that? They did not say that the Quadro chip can withstand higher temperatures or last longer .

 

On the hardware level there is not much difference, if any at all, between the Quadro and Geforce (for the GPU itself). Obviously when you are paying $$$$ for a Quadro, you're probably going to get a card with higher quality components (memory, capacitors, etc). That is not to say that a GeForce card cannot contain high quality components that are on par with or even exceed the quality of a Quadro. It is up the the "resellers" to package the GPU, PCB, memory etc so they choose the components.

The difference between the Quadro and Geforce lies in the drivers. GeForce cards can sacrifice precision for speed. Quadro cards, on the other hand, have to be very precise and accurate in a wide range of applications (CAD etc). A lot of time, effort and money goes towards this driver optimization, which largely accounts for the significantly higher prices of the Quadro cards compared to its GeForce counterparts.

So, the Quadro GPUs themselves are not more reliable than the GeForce CPUs nor can they magically tolerate more heat. Rather they are typically packaged with higher quality components that account for a miniscule amount of the price difference between the GeForce and Quadro families and make the Quadro cards less likely to fail overall.

 

You may want to check this tomshardware.com article:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/quadro-fx-4800,review-31555-10.html

Transforming a gaming card like the GeForce GTX 280 into an equivalent workstation model is something that Nvidia quite naturally wants to forestall. Attempts to use workstation drivers in gaming cards by consumers just to see "if they work" are inevitable because the hardware is only minimally different. Since Nvidia inserts special values into its video BIOSes to prevent dissimulation, such attempts are doomed to failure.

Technically, Nvidia offers significantly different drivers for its workstation cards as compared to gaming models. After the sale, Nvidia also offers significantly better product support for workstation models as well. Higher prices for the Quadro models also commanded from a lower number of products sold, higher support costs, and a longer warranty period. In return, buyers can expect swift responses when hardware defects are uncovered. In most cases an exchange will be made ASAP (in no more than 24 hours). Gaming card buyers, on the other hand, don't enjoy this level of service or support (but then, they don't pay for it, either).

In the past, there were some Geforce cards that took Quadro drivers. Nvidia has plugged that hole a couple of generations ago.

 

Now you are turning thing, you said Quadro -> Geforce, not the other way.

 

Perhaps a lack of comprehension on your part?

My argument with you is that you kept saying that the Quadro chips somehow can withstand higher temperatures and for a longer time. I have repeatedly said that the difference between Quadro and GeForce is in drivers, with the former optimized for business applications and not games.

Just in case there is confusion. I never said that the GeForce are more reliable than Quadro's. And I have kept saying that the two types of CHIPS have the same reliability if you compare similar parts, like the Quadro NVX160M vs GeForce 9300M-GS, because they are built on the same processes.

 

There is no possibility to choose a geforce branded version in the E6400 so this discussion is not so relevant, but it is quite interesting.

Im about to agree with what was said earlier about the quadros. Generally is the quadro cards more carefully tested and built too last longer (and more expensive drivers). In one way is that about the same to say that they can resist more heat (but that does probobly just marginally difference). And the quadros are sometimes built with "slower" hardware (memoryspeed etc) to make it cooler and last longer.

It actually feels comforting that the e6400 nvidiacard is branded quadro, it means they atleast try to put some focus on quality.

 

On the E6400, the Quadro chip is mounted on the motherboard. There is no separate Quadro "card". The E6400 has the Quadro because the chip is aimed for business (not games) applications, and the E6400 is marketed as a business-class laptop. If you think that the Quadro chip is any better tested or adheres to some higher quality standard, then you have been misled. If you read Nvidia's documentation, nowhere do they say anything about chip quality/reliability difference between Quadro and Geforce. In fact if Nvidia knows how to make chips more reliable, they would definitely apply that knowledge on the GeForce chips, because those volumes are so much higher.

If you want your laptop to be optimized for business applications and have the most stable drivers, Quadros are a good way to go. Just don't think that those chips could somehow withstand high temps any better.

 

I think you just didnt read my last post right. There may also be a confusion about a Quadro card and just a Quadro(Nvidia)GPU. I dont belive the core is any different when in the same series. But of course is there a big difference in making a graphicscard optimized for realiability and officework, or just max performance and gaming. Regarding both components and drivers.

If they would have built the E6400 mainly for gaming and performance they would have branded the GPU "Geforce" and had put in faster memory, more bandwith etc and we would have had a hotter laptop more likely to fail than now. Perhaps not by much, but still... Thats why i think the m160 seems to be a good compromize, atleast for me.

 

Like me! We just keep warning people about the downside of a more powerful GPU. It's a bit like getting a car with a big engine when all the driving is around town, so the key result is higher fuel consumption. [And my car does 50 mpg (UK gallon) ].

John