lucidium said:
GTX760 mars - $650 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121839) Last time i went to school, 540 was 110 less than 650, and 673 was only 23 more. So do I spend $100 less for better performance and the failsafe of having a card left if one GPU dies?
Let's take their flagship quadro shall we, the K6000 RRP $5999.99 - Currently ON SALE at newegg for $4999.99, even ON SALE, it is 5x the price of a Titan Black, lets see how much bang it gives you for your buck. Quadro K6000 So what do I get if i spend 4-5 times as much for a Quadro? 0 more cores Totally worthwhile right?, the K6000 IS better than the titan, and it IS better than the titan black, but not by much, and certainly not enough to be worth the 4-5x price difference when three titan blacks both costs less and outperforms it.
Because I have a $4K display anyway for work purposes, why wouldn't i set my games to run at that resolution if I can?, and again, when I am sat there gaming at 4K with a silky smooth 60fps never dipping below the vsync, do you think i think to myself "man i spent so much money to experience this, it looks so pretty, and its so smooth, but i could have just spent $500 on a "next gen" console and settled for sub 1080p and occasionally scraping 60fps"? I certainly do not. This is no different from someone buying an expensive car, boat or house, you could argue (i.e. your tone on the topic), "but a cheap car would work too", "but a wooden rowboat floats on water too", "but you can live in a 1 bedroom flat if you really want to. Indeed you would be right, in all such cases, however those with the means, can go out and buy the things they actually want, and enjoy them. I work my ass off in my jobs, i find enjoyment in being able to close an application i am working in, and fire up a game to kick back and relax, so to me the very idea that someone else would call it a waste is the epitome of a joke.
To put it bluntly, hes arguing because he recommended a pointless card, got told it was pointless then went on the defensive, tried to call bullshit on me, got proven wrong then got all salty about the topic. Essentially this thread was to help you find a card for your comp, so having people recommend expensive (and redundant) cards then scoff at other peoples suggestions is detrimental to your thread, and to anyone else who is in the same boat as you and comes across this thread. To be blunt, bad advice is bad advice, no matter how he bends the argument. |
I am in the UK so this is actually a good point. The Mars is considerably cheaper than the other options.
As for quadro V titan - it is about what they are designed for and the drivers used. The quadro is optimised for cuda core use in its design and the drivers reflect that, along with extreme periods of running. The titan is not. It is made for games, nothing more. There is a reason why the price difference is so large, plus why would Nvidia release a card which would cripple their pro range?
So now money that could have been spent on many other things is either £450 or £2500+. What happened to the normal middle ground? Taking extremes is always the way with a naff argument.
If you couldn't access race tracks, then yes, what you said would be true about cars etc. But unlike games, you can access them. Games, like it or not, are limited horribly by the consoles. Heck, they have just moved over to DX 11 after how many years? I like games too, but I would not spend that much money when the hardware has out performed games for close to a decade now.
