• Blogs
• Forums
• Tradeshows
• Partners
• White Papers
• Podcast Show Notes
• Events

Test Drive: Nvidia Quadro CX and Adobe CS4, Part 2

Jan 26, 2009 12:00 PM, By Jan Ozer

Photoshop

As with all performance-related reviews, I looked to Nvidia for help in testing the CX. After all, the company knows its product better than I do and can make my efforts much more efficient.

In this regard, I was very happy to see a longish reviewer's guide with a DVD full of content. Unfortunately, at least in regards to Photoshop, the projects were designed to convince me that I needed a card with OpenGL, which I already knew, not to distinguish the performance of OpenGL cards such as the GeForce GTX 260 ($300) and the Quadro CX (around $2,000). I discussed this with my Nvidia rep, who focused on the benefits of the CX's capacity, which I detail below, not necessarily performance.

To chart a course for Photoshop performance testing, I looked back at tests I had performed in 2007 and 2008 to benchmark the performance of a range of multiple-core workstations. Specifically, to test the performance of the Quadro CX, I ran several of the same tests on an HP xw8600 workstation running 64-bit Windows Vista. First, I tested with the Quadro FX 1700 that came with the workstation, and then I installed the Quadro CX and tested again, finding that the performance difference was negligible.

This makes perfect sense, since there are two tiers of performance enhancement that relate to a product such as the Quadro CX. The first, and most significant, relates to the boost provided by OpenGL support as compared to a card without Open GL support. Since the Quadro CX 1700 comparison card also supports OpenGL, there was little difference in performance here.

The second tier relates to specific hardware-supported features relevant to Photoshop performance on the Quadro CX that aren't available on 1700. Again, when I asked Nvidia to suggest tests that would highlight these differences, the company didn't provide any; but it did provide several tests that highlighted the advantages of the CX over the 1700 when used with After Effects.

If you're running CS4 on a graphics card without OpenGL graphics support, the CX will deliver a very significant increase in performance—though it's likely that any card that supports OpenGL, such as the $300 GeForce GTX 260, could deliver similar benefits. On the other hand, if your current graphics card does support OpenGL and is reasonably current and powerful, installing the CX won't significantly change your editing experience.

If you read any other reviews of the CX that discuss Photoshop performance, be sure to identify the baseline comparison platform. If it's a computer without OpenGL graphics, expect the praise to be flowing. That's fine; just remember that if your current card supports OpenGL, as I'm guessing it does, you won't see the same improvement.

Otherwise, the Nvidia rep did point out that the 1.5GB of onboard memory afforded the Quadro CX a greater capacity than the 1700. Specifically, understand that Photoshop can open a maximum of 16 OpenGL-accelerated images at one time. When displaying on a 30in. panel at 2560x1600, the Quadro CX can support all 16 images, while the Quadro FX 1700—with only 512MB of memory—could accelerate only nine. Similarly, the Quadro CX could support 16 accelerated images on a 4096x1536 desktop, while the 1700 could support only six.

If you're a Photoshop power user who edits multiple images all day long, you'll find this capacity highly useful. On the other hand, if you use Photoshop primarily as an equal component of the overall CS4 suite, say to design Encore menus or Premiere Pro titles, the CX is probably more than you need.

Continue the discussion on “Crosstalk” the Millimeter Forum.
© 2012 NewBay Media, LLC.