On Passmark Performance Test, a W7000 3D score near but not the top is about 4300 and 2D at about 1000 while the K4000 scores near the top at about 3000 3D and 1100 2D. and 1280 stream processors against the K4000's 192-bit 3GB, 134GB/s and 768 CUDA cores. Both about $750, but the W7000 is 256-bit, has 4GB. A better comparison would be to consider for example, the W7000 and Quadro K4000. These cards may have the same applications, but for the W8100 to be better value than a K5000, it should have a consistent 56% performance advantage. The buyer's quest is more often based on how much performance is expected combined with how much is possible within the budget. The logic is to say, "If you're thinking of buying a Quadro K5000, you should know that for 56% more you can have 25-50% higher performance in several important but not all categories." These purchases are most often budget driven- how many have unlimited funds- and the buyer of a $1,600 card will be a different person from someone with a $2,500 budget. The use and expectations of performance and quality are different. On a marketing-basis a $60,000 car that is 50% faster is not a direct competitor to a $38,000 one. The W8100 is 56% more expensive- the price difference of $900 is more than enough to buy a K4000 (About $750). The W8100 does outperform the Quadro K5000 is some important ways, but to be in marketing competition, the performance should be to be in the same general league. The focus on the Firepro W8100 and Quadro K5000 being competitors as something to directly compare is a bit misleading and distracts attention from the impressive features of the Firepro W8100. Ps: Am I asking too much if I ask from any reviewer on Tom's to test this cooler on a R9 290? (if its compatible ofc.) How do we know that the cooler used in W8100 wasn't approved for R9 290(X) cause of its higher cost perhaps?
VIDEO CARD BENCHMARKS ATI FIREPRO 5800 PROFESSIONAL
I don't believe in coincidence, but they decided to use it on a more expensive professional GPU with great success. I think the real reason might come from your review. And we have seen in the past (especially at CPU coolers) higher TDP rated coolers to loose against lower TDP coolers for a lot of reasons (better quality, better tech, better materials, heatpipe placement etc etc). We know how this rated works, the number is not by any means absolute. It might be higher TDP rated but that doesn't mean that its better than a lower TDP rated. This cooler type can handle up to 190 watts more or less ok, but the R9 290(X) produces more heat due a more expensive power consumptionWell this doesn't approve that the cooler they used is superior. 13836269 said:It is the same cooler, but the power consumption of the W8100 is a lot lower.
0 kommentar(er)
