#QUADRO VERSUS GEFORCE DRIVERS#

But, I guess Nvidia needs to recuperate development costs somehow.Īnyway, the Quadro K2000 models have virtually identical specs and performance to the very low cost GTX 650 (a $100 card). IMO, it's a ripoff (needing to go with a dramatically higher cost Quadro Card to get features that the hardware in GeForce cards supports).

#QUADRO VERSUS GEFORCE DRIVERS#

But, with Windows, you'll need to spend dramatically more to get 10 bit per channel color by purchasing a Quadro card (since the Nvidia drivers for Windows don't enable that feature with GeForce Cards). That's not really a result of hardware differences, as the drivers available with Quadro models is what enables those kind of features.įor example, Nvidia uses the same drivers for both Quadro and GeForce models under Linux (so you get 10 bit per channel color with GeForce cards, too). The main benefit of a Quadro model for image editing is that you'd get features like 10 bit per channel color with applications like CS6. The GeForce GTX 650 Ti (not the standard GTX 650) is *MUCH* faster than a Quadro K2000 and even faster than the GTX 650, and I see it on sale for around $100 at regular intervals, too.īasically, you're going to spend around 5 or 6 times as much for equivalent performance if you go with a Quadro versus GeForce card. The Quadro K2000D is roughly the same speed (same number of cores, memory type, clock speeds, etc.) as the GeForce 650 (a card you can find for under $100 on sale). Would either one of the cheaper 2GB NVIDIA NVS 510 or 2GB PNY NVIDIA Quadro K2000D be sufficient for my needs? Since the Quadro K600 is too slow, would I be able to take advantage of a Lamborghini like the 3GB QUADRO K4000 or would it be a waste of money?

Thank you Pictus, nikoneed and Ron AKA for your new input.

Quadro versus geforce