NVIDIA Quadro and Win Vista/XP ??

1600 and Vista or 2500 and XP?

  • 1600, Vista
  • 2500, XP

0 voters

I’m not sure what direction I should go in, so I would appreciate any advice or opinions you can give.
I’m choosing between NVIDIA Quadro 1600m on Vista or NVIDIA 2500 (maybe 3500, depending on funds) on XP.
I will be using this for the gamut of design school applications.
Will I need DirectX10 compat?
Is the Vista slowdown of OpenGl really that bad or did that get fully patched?

I’m leaning towards XP, but I don’t want to make a decision that in a couple years I’ll regret.

Thanks heaps,

Vista is slower than XP, proven test after test.

I was an early Vista adopter just about one year ago. I kept dealing with the problems, security issues, slow torrent download speeds, the overall lack of performance, and enjoying how it barely looks prettier.

My PC setup…
Dual core 3.4’s Ghz (6.8 Ghz total)
1 Terabyte of disk space
256MB NVIDIA video card

…and Vista is still a slow problem-filled dog.

I just switched back to XP this week, and everything in my life is better. Flowers were blooming in my front yard, I won ten million dollars tax-free, and I just found the fountain of youth… in my bathroom.

If someone defends it, they’re still in denial of the facts. XP is no shining savior, but comparatively, it’s a massive and note-worthy difference.

Good luck with the purchase.

Go with XP - or get the faster card and DOWNGRADE to XP. Hardware can’t be changed, but it’s easy to get Vista and install your old copy of XP on the same machine.

Plus this way if Vista stops sucking at some point in the future, your machine already has a legitimate software key for it.

The thing about the 1600 is that it’s not better, worse in some respects with a 128 bit interface compared to 256, but it’s Vista/DirectX compatible so . . . well screw it. Thanks, you guys rock face.

Don’t force yourself into a Quadro card if you’re a student. The truth is as a student you’d be much better off spending cash elsewhere - any decent gaming card will comfortably handle the CAD work you’ll do as a student - and Nvidia drivers tend to work fairly well for most software (Alias/Rhino/Solidworks). Think about how many people in your class are probably using onboard graphics on their laptops.

You’re right, using a bazooka to squash a bug is overkill, but it sure is fun . . . :wink:

Really it’s not even that big of a difference. It’s not like with the Quadro you get these incredibly detailed vivid graphics and with a Geforce card you wind up with blocky pixelated wireframes.

The hardware is THE SAME. Quadro chipsets simply have a driver specifically designed for workstation class Open GL programs instead of being optimized for playing Grand Theft Auto. In fact the Quadro cards are always SIGNIFICANTLY slower than their Geforce price point counterpart. In 80% of cases I’d say you’d be hard pressed to even notice the difference, and even then it’s usually related to number of shaded viewports or anti-aliasing - things that aren’t noticable or won’t impact your ability to do work.

A fast multi core CPU and a lot of ram however - that can be the difference between a 8 hour rendering and a 4 hour rendering.

Once again, you’re right, it was a poor choice in metaphor. :wink:
Would you consider the 8600 a good choice or overkill as well?

Thanks again.

The 8600 is a good middle of the road option. It’s a solid mid-range chipset thats not quite as hard hitting as the 8800 - but will still comfortably get you through anything you’re working on.

By comparison my home workstation has a 7900GS and I’ve been working all day on a rather complex assembly in Alias without as much as a hiccup.