Dilemma?? GTX 570, 580 or Quadro 4000

hey guys apologies if im in the wrong place for this, its my first ever post online!  I have a slight dilemma, I have just recently ordered a new setup, however im confused as to which graphics card to go for. I will mainly use the system for HD Video editing (Sony HVR Z7) using premiere Pro CS5 and after effects. From what i have read the GTX range is more than capable of accelerating certain effects in premiere pro, but will the quadro be better?
My other main use of the pc is that I would like to hook it up to my Sim 2 Lumis host projector, via HDMI or DVI, now, since the Quadro has 10 bit video would this in any way re produce a much better image quality than the GTX range? Or is this only limited to the display port? Is the 10bit video sent through all ports even HDMI/DVI? I know that my projector has 10bit Video Processing. I would really appreciate some guidance on this, as im wanting to place an order for the card asap.
(Money is not an issue with regards to those cards)
Many Thanks guys.

BTW incase you need a reference this is from Nvidia.com
http://www.nvidia.com/docs/IO/102043/GTX-570-Web-Datasheet-Final.pdf
Page 3
Advanced Display Functionality
• Two pipelines for dual independent display
• Two dual-link DVI outputs for digital flat panel display resolutions up to 2560×1600
• Dual integrated 400 MHz RAMDACs for analog display resolutions up to and including 2048×1536 at 85 Hz
• HDMI 1.4a support including GPU accelerated Blu-ray 3D support, x.v.Color, HDMI Deep Color, and 7.1 digital surround sound. See www.nvidia.com/3dtv for more details.
• Displayport 1.1a support
• HDCP support up to 2560×1600 resolution on all digital outputs
• 10-bit internal display processing, including support for 10-bit scanout
• Underscan/overscan compensation and hardware scaling
Incase you need reference for what Deep Color is in the HDMI standard BTW:
http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/faq.aspx
HDMI 1.3:
Higher speed: HDMI 1.3 increases its single-link bandwidth to 340 MHz (10.2 Gbps) to support the demands of future HD display devices, such as higher resolutions, Deep Color and high frame rates. In addition, built into the HDMI 1.3 specification is the technical foundation that will let future versions of HDMI reach significantly higher speeds.
Deep Color: HDMI 1.3 supports 10-bit, 12-bit and 16-bit (RGB or YCbCr) color depths, up from the 8-bit depths in previous versions of the HDMI specification, for stunning rendering of over one billion colors in unprecedented detail.
Broader color space: HDMI 1.3 adds support for “x.v.Color™” (which is the consumer name describing the IEC 61966-2-4 xvYCC color standard), which removes current color space limitations and enables the display of any color viewable by the human eye.
New mini connector: With small portable devices such as HD camcorders and still cameras demanding seamless connectivity to HDTVs, HDMI 1.3 offers a new, smaller form factor connector option.
Lip Sync: Because consumer electronics devices are using increasingly complex digital signal processing to enhance the clarity and detail of the content, synchronization of video and audio in user devices has become a greater challenge and could potentially require complex end-user adjustments. HDMI 1.3 incorporates automatic audio synching capabilities that allows devices to perform this synchronization automatically with total accuracy.
New HD lossless audio formats: In addition to HDMI’s current ability to support high-bandwidth uncompressed digital audio and all currently-available compressed formats (such as Dolby® Digital and DTS®), HDMI 1.3 adds additional support for new lossless compressed digital audio formats Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio™.
Eric
ADK

Similar Messages

  • Quadro 2000 v. gtx 570 v. Quadro 4000

    Can anyone comment on the MPE performance difference between the Quadro 2000, the gtx 570 and the Quadro 4000?  I'll be using hacked GH2 footage with CBR intra-frame coding, which (I'm told!) can and should be put on AVC Intra time-lines (not AVCHD). 
    I'm concerned most with time-line responsiveness and playback performance.  DVD encoding, exporting footage, etc., won't be happening very often, so that's of less concern. 
    I'm aware that the gtx 570 is probably the best buy of the three; but that's not the question.  Many thanks.

    In any case, performance wise the Quadro 2000 is a waste of money: It costs almost $400, yet it performs equally as slowly as a $100 card. And in Premiere Pro CS5.5, the encoding performance becomes significantly slower with lesser GPUs. Look up posts by Bill Gehrke and you may find a list of GPUs along with their performance charts in the PPBM5 benchmarks. Bill tested a wide range of GPUs from a GTX 580 all the way down to an old 9500 GT. Pay particular attention to the MPEG-2 DVD scores. You will find that even on an overclocked i7-2600K system, the system with a GTX 550 Ti took more than twice as long (146 seconds) as the GTX 580 (60 seconds) or even a GTX 560 Ti 448-core (68 seconds) in that test. The Quadro 2000 would have performed even slower than the GTX 550 Ti in that same test (heck, the GTX 550 Ti itself is slightly slower than a first-generation GTX 260 in this test despite having an equal number of CUDA cores due to the 550 Ti's slightly lower total memory bandwidth). The Quadro 4000 would have performed roughly on a par with Bill's tested GTX 285 (117 seconds) in that same test.
    On the other hand, if you're encoding to H.264, then the Quadro 2000 would have been only slightly slower than the GTX 570; you would have had to downgrade further to Quadro 600 (GeForce GT 430) level to see a significant degradation of H.264 encoding performance.
    Secondly, the Quadro 2000 has only 1GB of RAM total. With your footage, it is possible that any effects that you apply will eat up more than the amount of memory on the card. If a scene needs 1.5GB of VRAM to render using MPE GPU mode, then the 1GB card will run out of RAM. And when the rendering job runs out of VRAM, that entire frame or scene will default entirely to the MPE software-only mode, which will result in slower performance and may also degrade image quality.
    And I strongly recommend avoiding the purchase of off-the-shelf PCs or workstations to begin with: Those systems are way too expensive for such bottom-of-the-barrel performance, and upgrading such a system via the manufacturer would have cost you three to four times more than if you bought those same parts elsewhere. If you can't build an editing workstation yourself (or find it too much of a bother), consider contacting a vendor who specializes in custom-configured editing systems such as ADK.

  • GTX 570/580 in C20/C20x

    Erik, which GTX 570 are you using? I am interested only out of sheer curiosity as I have a Quadro 5000 in my c20x, but was the card crashing with specific software or even with routine windows navigation or the like? Also have you looked into the larger memory 570 and 580 cards (i think they are 2gb, 2.5gb and 3gb)?
    Edit: And Happy New Year!
    (mod edit: split thread out of different discussion and changed title to match)
    Solved!
    Go to Solution.

    the short version is that i milled a pair of 6- and 8-pin sockets on the bridgeport, crimped pins with a molex tool, bent the card pins 90 degrees to fit the sockets, and covered the exposed parts with heat shrink.   i then removed the center brace from the chassis and tapped the PCI slots for 3mm chassis screws.   the access cover shuts with zero effort and doesn't bulge at all.   height of the sockets are a mere 2.5mm.
    i also modified an FX 4800/5800 rear support bracket to fit the GTX 570.   it's rock solid and fully supported at both ends.
    i plan to make a revised version of the power cable harness using shorter wires now that i know it works.   with my C20 up 24/7 i simply haven't been motivated enough to take it offline.
    these photos are pretty bad but should get the point across.   i'll take better ones when i have more time.
    here's a detailed shot of the sockets.   originally i planned to pot them with epoxy but decided it was safe enough to run as-is until i can shorten the wires.
    ThinkStation C20
    ThinkPad X1C · X220 · X60T · s30 · 600

  • Gtx 680 vs two gtx 570?

    I don't think I have enough inform to make a informed decision...
    How helpful can two gpu(s) be for affect effects?  Would you link those gpus in sli? 
    Anybody running two or more gpu's for after effects?
    How does the gtx 680 compare to the gtx 570 in terms of affer effects performance?
    Sorry if these questions have been answered a thousand times.. I've been having some trouble finding the info...

    You're looking for a simple answer that doesn't exist. In both scenarios the potential speed gains will be at best 10-15% compared to a single GTX 570/580 or whatever, which, given the overall slowness of the raytracing stuff is marginal, for all intents and purposes. A 680 may fare a bit better while you work - it is, after all, newer and more optimized - but that advantage may still evaporate when you crank up the quality for final rendering and enable DOF, motion blur and all those costly features. And as I said many times: I wouldn't base any purchasing decisions on CS6' 3D. All comparisons where people brag about rendering 5 seconds of some simple text animation in an hour make me go "So what? I've been doing that the last 10 years in my 3D programs." So in all fairness, as far as I'm concerned, you are looking to solve a very specific need on the wrong end using the wrong means. You can have much more fun using Video CoPilot's Element or a 3D program and neither will impose those outrageous hardware requiremnts to work their magic. If you feel you still need that raytrace stuff, then personally I'd settle for a single GTX570/580 right now. The simple truth is that a half year from now there will be much better Keppler-based cards than a costly GTX 680 and Adobe may even care to support them then, so you'd regret spending a lot of money for nothing. And did I mention that Element will burn like crazy on a GTX 580 in which you could invest the money saved in the process?
    Mylenium

  • GTX285 vs Quadro 4000

    Hi guys! I have a question about comparison GTX285 and new Quadro 4000. I'm working with Final Cut Studio, Shake and Cinema 4D. How do you think, does replacing GTX285 with new Quadro 4000 will make performance boost? How huge it will be in this particular applications?

    I tend to discount most of what I've seen on the blogger/review sites, they tend to either be game-centric, or not have a really great understanding of how a big machine (like the Mac Pro) gets used for pro video apps.
    Hatter, has there been any confirmation yet on a consumer-level GTX570 card for the Mac, or is that speculation (or via flashed/hacked drivers)?
    As Hatter said though, answers would have to be 'in theory' at this time, since the Quadro 4000 for Mac hasn't yet shipped (or at least arrived yet, I've got mine on order). Guessing/speculating can be extremely difficult, too, since it's a case of comparing Apples to Oranges (sorry, couldn't resist). The GTX285 is a 'consumer-grade' card which is hardware and driver-optimized for performance where it matters in gaming, and the Quadro series is 'pro-grade' and is hardware/driver-optimized for performance in pro apps (in this case, 3D rendering, data modeling, etc).
    According to representatives I've spoken with at nVidia, the Quadro 4000 should easily deliver at least twice the performance of the Quadro FX 4800 (and as much as 5-8x faster in certain operations). The Quadro FX 4800 card was considered to be 2-3 times faster than the GTX-285 (depending on the application you're using). I've never owned a Quadro card myself so I haven't done extensive testing with one, but from the demos and time spent playing around with other peoples' machines that had Quadro FX 4800's installed, I don't think it's a false claim.
    I can tell you that you won't see a huge improvement when it comes to Final Cut Studio... for now. There's an upgrade due in the spring that will hopefully be able to take better advantage of newer technology (not just in GPU's, but with your whole machine), hopefully then you'll see a massive improvement.
    Adobe's Premiere Pro and After Effects CS5 have support for nVidia's CUDA technology, which lets them perform certain functions up to 10 times faster than without hardware acceleration. And the part I like most, a lot of stuff that would previously have required rendering in order to preview can easily be done in real-time. That's with just the GTX-285, having the Quadro 4000 will increase both the complexity and the number of layers that I can have in my projects and still get real-time performance.
    The boost you see in C4D performance may depend on a number of factors, including what version you're using, what kind of work you're doing, and what plugins you're using. Octane Render is a ray-tracing plugin that looks incredibly promising, tapping into CUDA to boost the speed of ray-traced renders. I don't use C4D but some folks I consult with do (and have interest in ray tracing), for them the Quadro 4000 (or even better, putting two Quadro 4000's in a single Mac Pro) could be a real game-changer. But even if you don't have CUDA-optimized ray tracing plugins, the performance increase should be in the neighborhood of 4-6x (twice the speed of the older Quadro card, which itself is 2-3x faster than the GTX-285).
    Hopefully the card will start shipping soon, and we'll start to see the results first-hand.

  • Workstation with Quadro 2000 or GTX 570 HD 2,5GB, for PP CS 5.5?

    Hey there,
    I'm going to build up a new workstation for video-editing using the Production Premium Suite CS 5.5.
    But there is still one big question and I can't find a proper answer.
    What GPU should I take or which one will be faster? A Quadro 2000 or a GTX 570HD with 2,5GB?
    I know the Quadro has 192 cores and the GTX has 480 cores. So the GTX should be faster
    Actually? But would it really be faster? I can't find any Benchmark comparisons or stuff.
    Some say a Quadro 2000 is better, if it's only a workstation. But I also read that people
    Prefer the GTX-Models.
    I know the GTX needs more energy and it's getting warmer when used, but those two facts
    Wouldn't persuade me to buy the Quadro.
    The rest of my system would look like this:
    Intel Core i7-2600
    ASRock Z68 Extreme 3 Gen. 3
    G.Skill RipJaws-X DIMM Kit 16 GB
    Crucial m4 128GB for OS, Programms
    Western Digital AV-GP for the media-archive and the orginal videofiles
    WD Caviar Green for Export and stuff like that
    Fractal Design Arc
    Scythne Katana 3
    Super Flower Golden Green Pro 650 W
    So the only missing thing is the GPU.
    Thanks in advance for your help!

    For the most part, I second Harm. You see, the AV-GP is not compatible with PCs at all - but rather, it's a version of the WD Caviar Green designed specifically for set-top DVRs/PVRs. And in either case, the current WD Greens spin at far slower than 7200 RPM - in fact, most current WD Green drives spin at only 5405 RPM (with a few spinning as slow as 4200 RPM). The slower rotational speed negatively affects both sequential transfer performance and random seek performance.
    As for the non-K 2600, it is limited unlocked, not completely locked. There are two disadvantages to this limited unlock: Only the maximum single-core Turbo Boost multiplier is manually selectable, with the differing multi-core Turbo multipliers also increasing by the exact same number of steps as the single-core Turbo frequency (unlike on the K chips, the multi-core Turbo multipliers on the non-K chips cannot be set independently of the single-core Turbo multiplier). Second, the maximum Turbo multiplier setting is limited to four steps above the normal single-core Turbo multiplier: In the case of the 2600, the maximum single-core Turbo multiplier can be set at up to 42x (this will force the maximum quad-core multiplier to be boosted to 39x, which will result in a maximum quad-core overclock to 3.9GHz with the BCLK remaining at its stock 100MHz). The 2600K is so much easier to overclock the way the user wants it while costing only a few dollars more than the non-K 2600.
    As for the original decision between the Quadro 2000 and the GTX 570, definitely the latter: The Quadro 2000, as far as CS5.5 is concerned, is little more than a slightly underclocked GeForce GTS 450 with a huge heatsink attached to it and still only 1GB of VRAM. And as Bill's testing with the various GeForce GPUs (to be specific, Bill tested the GTX 580, GTX 480, GTX 560 Ti 448, GTX 285, GTX 260, GTX 550 Ti and the 9500 GT, from fastest to slowest - however, the GTX 560 Ti 448 is roughly equal to the GTX 480 in performance) in CS5.5 has demonstrated, the Quadro 2000 would definitely be slower than a GTX 550 Ti, especially in MPEG-2 DVD encodes.

  • Changed out Quadro 4000 for GTX 770 - no change in performance

    I had to reformat and reinstall Windows 7 and my CC apps last week, and I'd been planning on changing out my nVidia Quadro 4000 for a GTX 770, mainly for the boost in CUDA cores, figuring from all that I've read over the years that there should be a boost in render and export performance in Premiere Pro.
    Today I did the swap out. Just prior to pulling the Quadro, I noted the render time for a timeline that I was working on. I deleted all previews and cleaned the media cache, and rendered the timeline. which took 1:12. I also exported to a 720P(matching my sequence size) H.264 YouTube profile with Max Quality and Max Depth set. That took 5:28.
    I installed the PNY GTX 770 4GB ('Enthusiast Edition', I must add), and performed the same tests. The results? No difference. At all. With all factors remaining the same, I'd assumed that the increase in CUDA cores would have boosted performance some, actually a lot.
    Have I been misreading all of the advice both here and elsewhere on CUDA performance?

    Hi sebrame,
    You probably would not notice much difference between the two GPUs because exporting is primarily a CPU intensive process. Please check out this blog post: http://blogs.adobe.com/premierepro/2011/02/cuda-mercury-playback-engine-and-adobe-premiere -pro.html
    You may need to adjust your expectations.
    Thanks,
    Kevin

  • New GPU Issues (Geforce GTX 780ti vs Quadro 4000)

    Hey all,
    I recently changes from a Quadro 4000 1gb card to a GTX 780ti 3gb card and am noticing a drop in performance.
    Playback is slower and a lot more choppy.
    Rendering is about 50% slower.
    Is this normal? Shouldn't I be getting a much better performance?
    I've checked everything I can think of. Premiere is reading this GPU and using it.
    This happens in CS6 and CC.

    The top one is with MB on and the bottom one is with it off. It rendered in under 5 minutes without the plugin on. With the plugin on it was sitting at around 36 minutes remaining and was climbing up instead of down.
    The CPU seems to be working a lot hard without the grades on? Strange.

  • What are the advantages of the new Quadro 4000 over the GTX 480 for Photoshop?

    I am a photoshop user trying to decide between the new Quadro 4000 and the GTX 480. 
    We are building a machine around an i7 970 processor with 12GB ram.
    I've read here and other places that the GTX specs generally out do the Quadro card. 
    But I also have read that there can be disadvantages to using a gamer card for editing graphics.
    I am trying to understand why the Quadro card is suggested for photoshop users by Nvidia.  Why do they have this line of card?
    I do notice the Quadro card has two of the newer Display Ports.
    I want to make sure I can:
    Run two monitors each with its own, separate, ICC profile.
    Maintain a 10 bit color workflow
    Can I do these things with with either card?  If I go for the GTX card, how gamer-centric is the driver software versus the driver software that comes with the Quadro 4000?
    Thank you,
    Plum Parlor

    The Geforce cards are faster than the current Quadro cards right now. If you do not have an application that the Quadro has a plugin for then the Geforce cards are normally the better choice and far less expensive. In your case the question revolves around the 10Bit color. Both the Displayport and HDMi 1.3 standard or newer support 10bit color. The problem is finding the HDMI Screen that supports the 1.3 standard and Deep color. That requires more research than the Displayport option. Obviously the new HP 30 inch supports 10bit color with the displayport. It really boils down to whether it's worth your time to spend the extra money for the Quadro versus researching a HDMI 1.3 Display with Deep Color support.
    Eric
    ADK

  • What is better : Nvidia Quadro 4000 or Nvidia GeForce Titan ?

    Good morning,
    Right now, I use Premiere Pro CS 6 with the GPU Nvidia GTX 570, but I guess that it might be better to replace my actual GPU by Nvidia Quadro 4000. Is this a good idea or not ?
    Many thanks in advance.
    Jacques

    the encoding of pictures with some effects (zoom, pan, transparency), the encoding time is very long, even with Mercury enable, and I whish to shorten it.
    Encoding is a CPU/memory task, not a CUDA task. The video card does not come into the picture at all for encoding.
    What can help reducing encoding times is tuning the system, increasing memory to 24 GB and overclocking.
    What will help tremenduously is adding at least two disks/volumes to your arsenal. Only a single volume (raid10) is simply not enough.
    As to the system being balanced, IMO the disk setup is not enough with a single volume, the memory can be improved by going to 24 GB and the video card is already more than enough. No sense in spending anymore on that.
    Did you run the PPBM5 Benchmark ?

  • GTX 570s CUDA performance in PrP CS6?

    Any info on the GTX 570s CUDA performance in PREMIERE PRO CS6? Is it better /worse than Quadro 4000.

    Way better and especially BFTB wise at less than half the cost. See Benchmark Results and navigate to the MPE Gains charts.

  • ATI 8800 vs. Quadro 4000 / 5000 Rendering Speed

    Fellow Forum Members,
    I'm building a system to run Premiere Pro at an optimum level.  However, the conflict I'm encountering relates to Quad Monitor Support.  Every single CUDA card offered by Nvidia (i.e., GTX 580, Quadro 4000, 5000, 6000) seem to only offer Dual monitor support.  The third mini HDMI port is worthless since it doesn't run together with the two DVI ports.  Not happy with Nvidia about this decision.
    I'm building a Windows 7 64 bit system and It's my understanding that if I want to run Premiere Pro CS5 using the Mercury engine to speed  up rendering, then the only game in town is an Nvidia Quadro graphics card.  I wouldn't have a problem with this only if Nvidia would offer a video card with Quad Monitor support like ATI does with the 8800 card they sell.
    So my question is, "Does Premiere Pro render at the same speed on an ATI 8800 card vs. a Quadro 4000/5000?"  If the answer is yes, then I'm buying the ATI 8800 since this card supports  4 monitors.  If the answer is that the ATI 8800 is slightly slower with rendering, then I'm still buying an ATI 8800 since a slight difference in rendering doesn't matter that much to me.   However, if the answer is that Premiere Pro rendering on an ATI 8800 is serioiusly handicapped.  Then I have a problem, since I really want Quad monitor support and Premiere Pro to render fast.
    I hope to hear back from Premiere Pro users that have used Premiere Pro on platforms equipped with ATI 8800 and / or Nvidia 4000, or 5000.  Did you notice any performance change between ATI 8800 and Quadros? Thanks in advance.

    icegene wrote:
    Hi there,
    I was wondering if you have found an alternative solution to buying two quadros. I once came across a post in the nvidia forums about putting a Geforce Card and a Quadro in the same machine...
    Also, I've seen that GeForces don't need to be in SLI to give you more than 2 monitors but you will need more than one card. Two cards in SLI will only support 2 monitors while a third card can support another 2. giving you 4 ports. As seen on the link, you might be able to pull of up to 6.
    Alternatively, there is the Quadro NVS cards that have up to 4 display ports.
    Hope this helps!
    Heaven forbid SLI and Premiere together, do not even think about it.
    Here is my suggestion.
    Just for you I tried adding a GTX 550 Ti to my system which has a GTX 580.  I had two monitors on my GTX 580 and while I did not have two more spare monitor I did have of additional 1920 x 1200 monitor.  I powered up and it found and installed another driver for the GTX 550 Ti, I do not know why it did not install a second copy of the 267.59 driver but installed 266.58.  It all worked I then had three surfaces all connected and then I ran our PPBM5 benchmark and it was not affected by the the addition of the second board.  By default it used the CUDA of the first board.  Of course I cannot guarantee other drivers or other GPU's or for that matter other motherboards. Make sure you have lots of power available I would not mix Quadros and GeForce boards and why would you want to anyway.  After all that I suspect that when you add the other realtime software you probably will ruin any editing capability you might of had.
    I just took a look at the prices, the two board nVidia solution is about half the cost of your ATI V8800 solution!
    Message was edited by: Bill Gehrke

  • Power available for GPU/graphics card/Quadro 4000

    I need to upgrade to a Quadro 4000 GPU in order to use DaVinci Resolve on my Mac Pro.  DaVinci needs to graphics cards for full operation: the Quadro to process video and another card to actually run the displays (an Apple 30" Cinema Display and a 21" DVI monitor).
    Any of the decently powerful cards I'm looking at require power from the mainboard -- which has two power outlets.  The Quadro 4000 requires both of them.
    Is there another power source available somewhere inside the computer to run this second graphics card?  Or perhaps someone can suggest a good solid graphics card to run the two displays that does not require power?

    And your Mac running OS X will not accept the Quadro 4000.
    http://store.apple.com/us/product/H3314LL/A
    Same card on Amazon for $790 with MacPro3,1 or later
    http://www.amazon.com/PNY-DisplayPort-Profesional-Graphics-VCQ4000MAC-PB/dp/B004 CRS78O/
    There are some helpful comments there like this one:
    i work in 3D visual effects, post production, and graphics.
    this video card works fantastic under Windows 7. the Windows drivers for the Quadro are finely tuned and allow particular applications to take full advantage of the video card.
    under OS X, the card is NOT worth the premium cost. my ATI 5870 performs better in applications that the Quadro 4000 is suppose to work better with. for the life of me, i can't understand why Nvidia/Apple can't get these drivers right under OS X. its the same story, Quadro release after Quadro release. Nvidia and Apple just don't seem to care. my current 2010 12-core Mac Pro might be my very last Apple desktop. i just can't justify the Apple tax anymore if Apple isn't going to provide basic stuff professionals need. it just seems like Apple is drifting farther and farther away from the professional market.....so disappointing.
    another extremely annoying thing is that i can't have my ATI 5870 and Quadro 4000 running at the same time. the Mac Pro only has two 6-pin power cables!!!! what's with that!! are you kidding me??!!
    So you need to look at a new Mac. Or running Windows. Or... something.
    2008 brought with it EFI64 / UEFI which is what you would need right now. Had you waited back when you did buy your Mac Pro until March 2008.... you would really have been set as far as usiing Quadro or GTX 285 and having 64-bit EFI.  I just think this is another of those times.
    Not everyone is ready to and running Lion, but Lion does have some support for the GTX 580, which is more power.
    http://netkas.org/?p=1059
    http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,979.0.html
    http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,979.15.html
    This: support for GTX cards even in MacPro1,1 if you have 10.7,3
    http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,1897.0.html
    Why wait? Ivy Bridge from Intel in April will and has to arrive someday on Apple's desktop.
    the GTX 680 arrives on 23rd, and AMD has their new line of GPUs, so something there.
    Your GTX 285 no matter what, unless the seller isn't what he/you say they are, should work in Windows, Mac OR PC. I've used GTX 260 in my Mac Pro and in a PC with X58.
    Vendors are coming out with Thunder storage arrays more so now, more for laptops and other systems, but there and using optical.
    Given your needs etc I would find someone that wants your system and PowerPC etc and part with it. If you can't wait, or don't want "1.0" and want solid mature and known hardware, pick up one (you could even get the $2100 2.8 4-core ref'd model and do the W3680  6-core 3.33GHz  $599 yourself.
    www.macperformanceguide.com has a number of tips. The guy is now running 100% SSDs with a pair of PCIe controllers populated with 1TB SSD modules on each, and 48GB RAM. 2010 lets you use 3 x 8 or 16GB RAM also.

  • NVidia Quadro 4000 and early 2008 Mac Pro (3,1)

    Hi to all.
    I think my display card just died.
    I've been wanting to get the NVidia Quadro 4000 for a while now as I do editing professionally and would like to make the Adobe Production suite zippier.
    So now, I have no functional card for my monitors. Can I use the NVidia Quadro 4000 for my Dell monitors? One of the Dell's has a DVI-D2 input but the other has only VGA as far as I can tell. Or does it make more sense to get a different card? Or both the Quadro and a lower level card?
    Also, does the NVidia Quadro 4000 need extra power and if so, how easy is it to connect and would I be able to use the DVD burner?
    Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
    Running Snow Leopard, 18GB RAM

    So many questions and so little time... lunch!
    There is Wikipedia.
    AMD = OpenCL
    Nvidia = OpenCL and CUDA
    CUDA is part of every Nvidia card, GeForce GTX or Quadro
    Open source compiler to make CUDA and OpenCL much easier and better (OpenCL is 4-5 yrs old but a pain to code and optimize with a lot of micro management. Not today but AMD's support for just OpenCL is limiting. But something to support both technologies is a year away probably.
    Dual boot is a must! Clone your system / or install Lion on 2nd drive
    Setup Assistant to import from 10.6 to Lion so you have both.
    Clones as backup.
    Out of the box: the startup is missing on screen without the modification. The drivers are normally and only found bundled into OS X which is why you don't normally see or have to go to AMD to get the latest driver. Or downgrade to a better working driver. you have to rely on OS X and version.
    That is why GTX 5xx and 10.7.3
    OWC charges more than Amazon or Apple and charges for 6-pin cable. The 5770 does work - with 10.6.5 or later. It does not work with older OS - no driver. It does not allow you to boot from your 10.6.0 DVD and install.
    You could order the GTX 570 (I'd skp on 560, I have looked into both but up to you). And 680s are not supported yet, and still scarce. But great card for the $499.
    The GTX 570 2.5GB was the one recommended with its 2.5GB VRAM. $349.
    http://www.evga.com/products/
    To get a boot screen means modifying the card which means sending it to Calif and $100 + shipping.
    Some people use the GTX purely for CUDA and still use ATI 5770 for their monitor.
    Oh, yes, died. No card on hand as backup or spare.
    Shame. I'd toss coin and then go with.... Q4K but
    http://www.amazon.com/PNY-DisplayPort-Profesional-Graphics-VCQ4000MAC-PB/dp/B004 CRS78O
    You could wait and see. I'd over night the Q4K for $810, then see how that does, it does have 2x the VRAM. And you could use GTX 570 or 680 down the road when you do upgrade to Lion plus.
    Comparing 5770 to Q4K:
    http://www.jigsaw3d.com/articles/gpu-performance-review-nvidia-quadro-4000-for-m ac
    Quadro CUDA driver support
    http://www.nvidia.com/object/mac-driver-archive.html

  • 10.6.7 Update and Quadro 4000

    Heads-up - the OSX 10.6.7 update contains bad graphics drivers for the nVidia Quadro 4000 GPU. After using either Software Update or the Combo Updater, Quadro 4000 users will find that they're no longer able to use the 2nd display output on the card, screen capture, or record video directly from the screen, plus there appear to be performance problems and 'tearing' when scrolling up/down.
    Adding to the frustration is that when you download and try to install the drivers from nVidia's web site (256.01.00f03v5 as of this writing), you get an error message.
    nVidia will likely release an updated driver that will work with 10.6.7 soon. Until then, you can either hold off on the update, or follow these steps for a workaround to get your card working properly.
    1) Install the OSX 10.6.7 Combo Updater
    http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1361
    2) Download the nVidia drivers
    http://us.download.nvidia.com/Mac/QuadroCertified/256.01.00f03/Retail256.01.00f03v5.dmg
    3) Mount the .dmg file (if it doesn't automatically pop open after downloading)
    4) Right-click on the installer file and choose 'Show Package Contents'
    5) Go to the 'Packages' folder, and you'll see 3 drivers. Install each, one at a time.
    6) Restart your Mac Pro.
    That's it. Everything will work normally after that.
    Cheers

    Unfortunately, it appears that the 256.01.00f03v7 driver breaks the Mercury Playback Engine support in Adobe Premiere Pro CS5. After successful installation and restart of the machine, the computer runs normally until you get to Premiere Pro.
    In PPro, with MPE enabled you'll find that the video preview windows will only display garbled information and will not play back video (checked at multiple resolutions). Switching from MPE acceleration to software rendering and deleting the previews immediately resolves the problem, and video plays back normally. Turning Mercury Playback Engine back on and deleting previews again (in the hopes of 'jiggling the handle' so to speak) did not help. I also tried re-installing the latest CUDA driver, to no avail.
    No real workaround, except to use Time Machine (or whatever you use for backup) and revert the system back to 10.6.6, or just use Premiere Pro CS5 with the software renderer, and hope the nVidia Quadro team can get a real driver update in very short order. I'm still kind of shocked that in nearly 6 months they still haven't updated from the 256.01 driver code that was released on Mac in November - for comparison's sake, they're up to version 267.11 on the Windows 7 driver (some of those updates have offered big performance improvements that we've just been left out on). Of course, if you happen to have the now-discontinued GTX-285 card lying around, you could also swap out the Quadro card and be good to go in no time.

Maybe you are looking for