Menu Content/Inhalt
Home arrow Desktop PCs arrow Engineering Workstation arrow Benchmark results - SPEC

Benchmark results - SPEC Print
March 2011
Functional and Performance Tests
Performance benchmark was done using SPECviewperf 11 from the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. SPEC is a non-profit organization formed to create and maintain a set of industry relevant benchmarks. Its membership is made up of leading companies such as AMD, Intel, Nvidia, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, Supermicro and many more.
SPECgpc is a project group that focuses on testing graphical performance; SPECviewperf is a benchmarking application that uses viewsets from various CAD applications such as Autodesk Maya, SolidWorks and Siemans NX to simulate daily usage of a CAD application.

Various different system set ups were used to determine the main factor(s) affecting CAD application performance:

•    i3-540 / 6GB DDR3-1333 / Quadro 2000
•    i7-950 / 3GB DDR3-1333 / Quadro 2000
•    i7-950 / 6GB DDR3-1333 / Quadro 2000
•    Xeon 3430 / 6GB DDR3-1333 / Quadro 2000
•    Xeon 3430 / 6GB DDR3-1333 / GeForce GTS 450

The GTS 450 card was used as a comparison as it is the closest specced desktop card to the Quadro 2000 (they have the same number of active CUDA cores and the same amount of memory).
*AA which stands for Anti-Aliasing, the x8 multiplier is how many samples are taken per pixel to determine what shade it will be.
  %3td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt; background-color: #c0c0c0" width="64" align="center">32.68
  i3/6GB i7/3GB i7/6GB X/6GB X/6GB
Quadro Quadro Quadro Quadro Geforce
AA x8 AA x8 AA x8 AA x8 AA x8
CATIA-03 14.66 15.28 15.34 14.13 3.19
EnSight-04 13.05 13.31 13.31 12.72 15.9
LightWave-01 33.8 33.87 23.15 5.78
Maya-03 12.36 30.39 30.42 26.07 2.9
Pro/ENGINEER-05 6.4 7.33 7.21 5.16 0.89
SolidWorks-02 30.78 30.54 30.55 25.41 5.53
Siemens TCVis-02 12.13 12.52 12.55 11.8 0.61
Siemens NX-01 10.23 10.31 10.35 10.03 2.35


As you can see, aside from Autodesk Maya (which better utilizes the CPU), the various different viewsets performed similarly regardless of CPU architecture/speed or memory size. From this we can conclude that the testing application, for the most part, does not utilize multiple cores/threads and as such can only be used to compare the graphics card’s effect on CAD application performance.
The factor that produces the greatest difference in score was, as expected, the type of graphics card used. When using a similarly specced GeForce card, the performance dropped from 4x up to almost 20x compared to using a Quadro card.
There is an outlier in this situation: EnSight gained a performance increase when using the GeForce card; from this we can conclude that it is not optimized for use with the Quadro model card and relies on raw performance which the GeForce has more of.

Quadro2000Rear.PNG Quadro20.PNG
Feature Comparison with Previous Model
  Quadro FX1800 Quadro 2000
CUDA Cores 64 192
     
Memory Size Total 768MB GDDR3 1GB GDDR5
Memory Interface 192-bit  128-bit
Memory Bandwidth
38.4 GB/sec
41.6 GB/sec

     
Dual Link DVI-I 1 1
DisplayPort 2 2
# of Digital Outputs 3
3
# of Analog Outputs 1 1
Max Res. @ 60Hz 2560x1600 2560x1600
     
Shader Model 4.0  5
OpenGL 3 4
Microsoft DirectX 10 11
Architecture Cuda Cuda/Fermi
FSAA (maximum) 32x 64x
     
EnergyStar Enabling Yes Yes
Maximum Power Consumption 59 W 62
Image taken from CATIA Test 8 with AA x8
Image grab from CATIA Test 8 with AA x8 SPECviewperf 11 Results
  Quadro FX 1800 Quadro 2000
CATIA 23.56 29.59
EnSight 9.63 17.39
LightWave 53.44 53.62
Maya 14.95 19.18
Pro/ENGINEER 9.12 9.2
SolidWorks 37.68 40.79
Siemens TCVis 19.24 24.43
Siemens NX 17.38 21.56

Results taken from Nvidia website; due to having different system specs and an unknown screen resolution these results cannot be compared to our in-house benchmarks.

**Click Here to view benchmark comparison by nVidia comparing all the current and last generation Quadro cards.


Return to previous page