Jump to content
Dataton Forum
Andrew

What is better performance between ATI Firepro W7000 or ATI R295X2?

Recommended Posts

Hi all~!

 

I need a system that 4K output via WATCHOUT5.

 

so.. i will choose VGA card.

 

 

What is better performance between ATI FirePro w7000 or ATI R295X2 for 4k display via WATCHOUT?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks TomT.

 

I need ONE GPU-CARD, not two gpu-card.

 

 

in other case, HD7970 higher Benchmark scores than W7000

but DATATON recommanded W7000 in 'WATCHOUT-dpcspec rack 4U -2013 ar SB-E LGA2011 AMD FIREPRO.pdf'

 

I think W7000 has something special fucntion compared to HD 7970 for WATCHOUT.

 

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks TomT.

 

I need ONE GPU-CARD, not two gpu-card.

 

in other case, HD7970 higher Benchmark scores than W7000

 
For pro WATCHOUT use, FirePro W7000, is more appropriate.
For gaming, AMD Radeon HD7970 or R9 295x2 is faster.
Radeon cards were the most economical way to get 6 outputs, now harder to find in the market.
 
Higher benchmark scores won't help so much in video playback, WATCHOUT primarily use the
CPU for decoding, not the GPU. Especially in a multiple video-files playback scenario

 

 

but DATATON recommanded W7000 in 'WATCHOUT-dpcspec rack 4U -2013 ar SB-E LGA2011 AMD FIREPRO.pdf'

 

Yes, it might have to to do with the title of the document: 

WATCHOUT-dpcspec rack 4U - 2013 mar SB-E LGA2011 AMD FIREPRO.pdf 

 

There is a similar document available:

WATCHOUT-dpcspec rack 4U - 2013 mar SB-E LGA2011.pdf 

This includes a HD7970...

 

 

I think W7000 has something special function compared to HD 7970 for WATCHOUT.

 

What do you think?

 

Yes, it's a professional graphics card, built for stability. 
 
- 1-slot vs 2/3-slot for the Radeons.
- lower weight.
- frame-locking capabilities (with optional S400 sync card)
 
Other options: W8000/W9000 (6 x +2K-outputs)/W9100 (6 x 4K-outputs)
 
NVidia has a similar series, Quadro K5000/K6000 & QuadroSync card.
Capable, but a bit more expensive, though.
 
/jonas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"is more appropriate" and is much more expensive with less power.

"Higher benchmark scores won't help so much in video playback" Thats right, but wasn´t Andrews question. He asked for the perfomance! Maybe he wants to use the computer for other applications too?

"it's a professional graphics card, built for stability" Yes, price and the name -FirePro- making this card professional. I build up more than 100 Systems with AMD Radeons, no problems in stability.

Two things:

If you need performance in OpenGL the Radeon HD is a poor choice. But who needs OpenGL power in the times of DirectX ?

If you need an exact Framelock you need FirePro with S400 board. But I never had any problems with synchronicity even in systems with up to 20 Display-Computers. Watchout is doing a good job there.

 

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"is more appropriate" and is much more expensive with less power.

 

What power do you mean then?

More expensive, yes. Less power, in practice, for WATCHOUT use, I don't think so.

 

The price brings other advantages to the table, that I described, which may or may not suit everyone but are important.

 

"Higher benchmark scores won't help so much in video playback" Thats right, but wasn´t Andrews question. He asked for the perfomance! Maybe he wants to use the computer for other applications too?

 

What performance do you mean then?

I answered the question in relation to WATCHOUT performance, where video playback usually is a major part, not in general.

There are other forums for that.

 

 

"it's a professional graphics card, built for stability" Yes, price and the name -FirePro- making this card professional.

 

I build up more than 100 Systems with AMD Radeons, no problems in stability.

 

We have built and test quite few systems with these cards too, and I do not totally agree with you on the stability part.

I believe I'm not the only one either.

 

The 2 to 3-slot space requirements of some these cards sometimes creates a problem to fit capture cards etc.

Their heavy weight with all cooling required, is also a mechanical stability issue, when shipping equipment, too.

 

We have primarily used the 6-output Radeons in demo- and test-machines, but they are increasingly harder to find in the market.

Then FirePro is then the only remaining choice, without resorting to MST-hubs, that generates a lot of extra cabling etc.

If only 4 outputs is required, then there are more choices of course, even NVidia solutions comes into play.

 

BUT, one beauty with WATCHOUT being a software only, not a hardware PC box with software, is that you as a user can choose and verify 

every component yourself, to see what works best for you. WATCHOUT is not prohibiting this in any way.

 

As as always to each his own, and usually your mileage will vary in these matters.

 

 

Two things:

If you need performance in OpenGL the Radeon HD is a poor choice. But who needs OpenGL power in the times of DirectX ?

 

This had nothing to do with my answer, as I see it. WATCHOUT is DirectX/Direct3D-based, as the W7000 or the other FirePro or NVidia cards.

 

 

If you need an exact Framelock you need FirePro with S400 board. But I never had any problems with synchronicity even in systems with up to 20 Display-Computers. Watchout is doing a good job there.

 

I'm glad that that WATCHOUT works well for you in these cases. This is WATCHOUT's normal network sync, and it's very good.

Especially when you're doing projection and edge-blending, where some of the artifacts will be hidden.

 

But it's NOT absolute frame-lock, and that is critical for certain cases, like LCD- or LED-walls, so it should be mentioned and taken into consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Just been reading through all these threads.... all very interesting stuff.

I have 2 questions:

1: From what I understand, WO does 100% of it's video playback decoding on it's CPU, and none of it on the GPU. Is this correct?

2: Is this because of it's DirectX nature, as opposed to a system that would use OpenGL?

cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Just been reading through all these threads.... all very interesting stuff.

I have 2 questions:

1: From what I understand, WO does 100% of it's video playback decoding on it's CPU, and none of it on the GPU. Is this correct?

2: Is this because of it's DirectX nature, as opposed to a system that would use OpenGL?

cheers

James

 

Yes, correct, movie decoding is done in the CPU. (WATCHPAX has some exceptions to this,

but Dataton controls that hardware so it can be done with repeatable results.)

 

No, it is not DirectX, it is the nature of GPU hardware accelerated decoding. 

Hardware accelerated decoding may come with restrictions not encountered in CPU software decoding,

related to some tweens and compositing functions. This has improved over the years,

but that is still an issue, as not all GPU decoding is created equal. Software decoding

allows consistent results regardless of the GPUs hardware acceleration implementation variations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TomT, on 27 May 2014 - 11:02, said:snapback.png

"it's a professional graphics card, built for stability" Yes, price and the name -FirePro- making this card professional.

 

I build up more than 100 Systems with AMD Radeons, no problems in stability.

 

We have built and test quite few systems with these cards too, and I do not totally agree with you on the stability part.

I believe I'm not the only one either.

 

I'm with Jonas on this subject. Especially when the system is going to be used in the rental/event business, and therefor will be regularily subjected to transport, the big/heavy Radeon card pose a noticable stability risk. I've built many systems with both Radeon and FirePro and have had to repair/replace quite a few HD7970 and R9 cards. Except maybe for fixed installations nowadays I exclusively use FirePro. Most professional users can't afford the failure risk in relation to the modest (apart from the W9100) difference in price .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...