Quadro FX 1400 vs FX 3400

Discussion created by Guest on Nov 1, 2006
Latest reply on Dec 1, 2006 by Stefan Hamminga

Like • Show 0 Likes0
Comment • 3

I agree. I paid too much for the SLI capability. I'm only using 1 video card to drive 2 monitors. However, my 3400 has been a great performer.

Gerald Davis CSWP
SW07 SP1.1 Office Professional
2GB / Opteron 175 / FX3400 / ASUS A8N32-SLI
http://www.cosug.com Colorado SolidWorks User Group

Outcomes

3 Replies

Guest Nov 1, 2006 3:39 PM
3400 is a discontinued card and should be priced accordingly. Depenting on your needs also look at the 1500 which is faster and cheaper than the 3400. Unless you need SLI and Stereo3D. Compare at Nvidia.com and make your choice.

on 2006 1 12:39 Nick wrote:
> How drastic is the performance gap here? I assume both are Realview graphics
> capable. The 3400 is nearly twice the price, and I could use that money towards
> my 24" screen >=)
EditDeleteLike • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Guest Nov 1, 2006 3:39 PM
How drastic is the performance gap here? I assume both are Realview graphics capable. The 3400 is nearly twice the price, and I could use that money towards my 24" screen >=)
EditDeleteLike • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- Stefan Hamminga @ Guest on Dec 1, 2006 10:57 AM
  If your current setup is exhibiting 'stumbling' when doing operations on complex assemblies you could be running out of video ram. Using rivatuner you can diagnose it. I wrote a small guide on how to check this here .
  
  When I did some back to back testing of my FX-1400 and my FX-3500 the 3500 was about twice as fast on an Opteron 175 @ 2.6GHz and about 3x as fast as the 1400 on a Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.4GHz. So if your setup is slower than the opteron, expect less gain.
  
  The FX 1500 is a very good middle of the road card, unbeatable at price/performance.
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions

Quadro FX 1400 vs FX 3400

Outcomes

Related Content

Recommended Content