Workstation cards nowadays

[zeph_solaris]

I was looking at nVidia's website for details on Quadro cards hoping to get some numbers on performance to compare against what I'm getting with GeForce cards for various jobs but couldn't seem to find anything beyond the typical whitepaper specs (compared to performance bench pages on GeForce card pages).  I'm currently looking at this from the perspective of a small game dev studio where a single machine could wind up working across multiple disciplines.  Typical offline tasks such as batch rendering historically tell me that I should look at getting a Quadro but there's such a wide array of work being done now.  For real time interactive tasks, 3ds Max now has a viewport rendering implementation that is GPU accelerated (not OpenGL/DirectX but those are still available as options) and some programs in the Adobe Suite are GPU accelerated where they could benefit from the parallelism.  Without up to date benches on these, or similar, types of tasks, I can't exactly see at what points using a Quadro over a GeForce would become cost efficient.

Fifteen years ago, you would see ATI/nVidia singing praises for their workstation line openly, but I don't see anything similar first party from them now at all.  The few scattered third party benches I can find on the matter don't seem verbose enough to be of use.  The last few big nVidia conferences showing off Quadro have seemingly been marketing them as expensive CUDA compute boxes.  Is compute pretty much all that matters?  If so, I guess the only real difference between GeForce/Quadro is the fp64 throughput?

[Electronics Wizardy]

A quadro these days isnt' worth it. The newer programs normally preform the same with geoforce and quadro. If you don't have a gpu budget of over 2K+ get a geforce, unless there are features that you need from a quadro like 10 bit color. I have a quadro 5000 and 3000m and there nothing special. The only real advantage i have is in avid, where a quadro is required for gpu acceleration.