I found this great link to Bench results. They used all version of 3DMARK to get their results although not all card are rated with all 3DMark programs. I believe most users can get slightly higher results than they show if you tweak your system for it but it seems to be a pretty good list of results.

Fill free to post any other results you may have here to help give an idea of what these GPU's can really do.

What justifies the cost of $200+ for the Quadro fx 2500m over the 7950GTX when the GTX scores higher?

The Quadro FX is a professional use card. It enhances the speed of certain applications. Its by no means designed for the gamer. Here is a link to a small article on the subject.

http://www.powernotebooks.com/articl...fullnews&id=42


Nvidia designed it specifically for professionals. Here is how they present their own card:

http://www.nvidia.com/page/quadrofx_go.html
http://download.nvidia.com/ndemand/Q..._QFX_APR06.pdf


More expensive doesn't always mean better. You have to always keep in mind what you intend to use the system for. Another example of this is with the laptop I just ordered. I jumped and picked the highest resoultion display availble for the 17" LCD. (1920x1200) Normally I'm smarter than this but I made a mistake when I did so. It dawned on me about 2 days after I palced my order and I had to call them back and have the display changed to (1680x1050). This delayed my order. The reason in my case that that resolution is a bad idea is that I play games in 1680x1050. I don't wanna play games in 1920x1200. The game will look best if you play it in its native resolution. There's nothing wrong with playing it at 1920x1200. For me 1680x1050 is fine and will generate less heat on the GPU. When newer games with higher demands come out, I'll be able to still play those in my native resolution and have less stress on my GPU. This maximizes the clarity of my games, applications and text for a longer time period. I don't plan on replacing my lappie anytime soon. Now when I said I'm normally smarter than that, I don't mean to imply that others are stupid for choosing the highest resolution display. For the person who plans to only use 1680x1050, the higher resolution display is a poor choice. For those who plan on using the higher resolution, its a great choice. For more on native resolutions go to here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_resolution

In conclusion, always consider what you are buying it for, and how you plan on using it to be sure to get the machine right for you.

I'd like to see what type of bench marks people are putting up for cards with more than 256 megs of memory. All the tested ones on that link have only 256 megs. I also don't know how accurate those tests are since they are made with different processors and main boards and different amounts of memory. Those results are not soley based on the GPU. I do believe for the most part that they do reflect the levels of power amongst the different GPU's but how accurately is another question.

-that link has been around this forum for a while

-while that site is nice, the 3dmark scores are off since future mark has changed the forumla for the past month, the difference between the x1700 and 7700 are not as big as the 3dmark 06 scores state

-what justifies the price for the 2500m is that it can run programs like auto cad better than the 7950gtx, not to mention the fact that it games just as well, note that this is not the case for most quadro cards

-you can get a laptop with the 2500m for a decent price if you find an m90 at the outlet with good specs

-your points are valid with the wsxga and wuxga sizes, but, the wuxga brighter and has a better contrast ratio
wsxga
wuxga