Well I've reached the top of the 3 yr. curve (pretty much on the down slope actually) and need to pop for a new system.
Specifically is there a substantial difference between the Quadro FX1000 and the FX500 that makes the cost difference worth it?
Are users satisfied with the newer SATA drives v. SCSI?
Processors? P4 3.2 w 2Mb cache? v. plain vanilla P4 (sorry P4 only; old habits die hard).
TIA,
Hark
I ran an FX500 for a few days and was quite pleased. I had been using a Quadro 900XGL and figured that FX500 would be a step down, but I never did see that.
WT
I'll add, if you have the extra $400usd, get the FX1100. I've been working on some large assemblies and the FX500 barely cuts it, imho. I'm seriously thinking of selling my FX500 (only 2 weeks old if anyone is interested?) and getting the FX1100. If it saves me a few seconds, that's all I care about.
SATA is ok, but again, if you have the extra cash, get a super fast scsi u320! (just remember, fast scsi or sata are a bit nosier)
If you have to go for the P4, the extremes with more cache should help. Otherwise, break the habit and go for the new Athlon 64 FX chip if you really want the latest in speed!
..
Wayne Tiffany wrote:
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required