<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Workstation/Desktop in Installation &amp; update</title>
    <link>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Installation-update/Workstation-Desktop/m-p/57419#M7110</link>
    <description>Someone like Stefan could answer this question with much more expertise than me, but I would say the 512Mb would definitely clinch it! That's a helluva lot of VRAM. Won't necessarily do much for your rendering times, but the 3D Window (OpenGL) will just fly. I have 256Mb on my laptop (Radeon X600) and it spins complex buildings faster than a disc jockey on speed. &lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Cheers,&lt;BR /&gt;
Link.</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2006 07:14:55 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Link</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2006-04-10T07:14:55Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Workstation/Desktop</title>
      <link>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Installation-update/Workstation-Desktop/m-p/57418#M7109</link>
      <description>&lt;DIV class="actalk-migrated-content"&gt;&lt;T&gt;Hi all,&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Does anyone know what the real difference between a gaming(desktop)  and a workstation video card is? I have compared the specs of 2 cards i am looking at but cannot see the advantages of the workstation card despite it being roughly the same price. I recognise card manufacturers (including Nvidia) state some workstation cards are better fro CAD applications but why is it better?&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
I am really interested in getting a card that has fast 2D graphics, i think most in this price range have suitable 3D graphics.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Some of what i think are the major specs below.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
nVidia 7900GTX (desktop)&lt;BR /&gt;
Memory 512mb &lt;BR /&gt;
Memory Interface 256-bit &lt;BR /&gt;
Memory Bandwidth 51.2 GB/sec &lt;BR /&gt;
Fill rate 15.6 billion/sec &lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
mVidia Quadro FX 1400 (workstation)&lt;BR /&gt;
Memory 128mb &lt;BR /&gt;
Memory Interface 256-bit &lt;BR /&gt;
Memory Bandwidth 27.2 GB/sec &lt;BR /&gt;
Fill rate 2.8 billion/sec &lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Desktop wins out as i can see?&lt;/T&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2006 02:09:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Installation-update/Workstation-Desktop/m-p/57418#M7109</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-04-10T02:09:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Workstation/Desktop</title>
      <link>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Installation-update/Workstation-Desktop/m-p/57419#M7110</link>
      <description>Someone like Stefan could answer this question with much more expertise than me, but I would say the 512Mb would definitely clinch it! That's a helluva lot of VRAM. Won't necessarily do much for your rendering times, but the 3D Window (OpenGL) will just fly. I have 256Mb on my laptop (Radeon X600) and it spins complex buildings faster than a disc jockey on speed. &lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Cheers,&lt;BR /&gt;
Link.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2006 07:14:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Installation-update/Workstation-Desktop/m-p/57419#M7110</guid>
      <dc:creator>Link</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-04-10T07:14:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

