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.

Similar Messages

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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 ?

  • Added 2nd, Quadro 4000 Card, Now Getting 5700::0 Error

    I have been using one Quadro card for a week or so now and just added a second one in my Mac Pro (
    MacPro5,1, 32 GB RAM, OS 10.7.4). I now have two Quadros and no other PCIe cards.  Now I am getting the "5700::0" error left and right. Any After Effects preferences settings I can try tweaking? Any system settings I can tweak for my cards?
    Here is my gpu info screen in preferences.
    Fast Draft:
    Available
    Texture Memory:
    409.00 MB
    Ray-tracing:
    GPU
    OpenGL
    Vendor:
    NVIDIA Corporation
    Device:
    NVIDIA Quadro 4000 OpenGL Engine
    Version:
    2.1 NVIDIA-7.18.18
    Total Memory:
    2.00 GB
    Shader Model:
    CUDA
    Driver Version:
    4.2
    Devices:
    2 (Quadro 4000, Quadro 4000)
    Current Usable Memory:
    - (at application launch)
    Maximum Usable Memory:

    So what are my options for GPU Acceleration on the Mac?...
    GeForce GTX 285 - Cost: $249  PCI Express 2.0  CUDA cores:240  Low price concerns me, old card, pretty hard to find, only works on older Mac Pros (08,09)
    Quadro CX - Cost $2000  CUDA cores:192 Too expensive
    Quadro FX 4800 ("Previous generation" according to Nvidia)  CUDA cores:192Discontinued
    Quadro 4000 for Mac  ("High end" and "new" according to Nvidia)   256 Cuda cores  (This was recommended in Lynda.com training video)
    This is sort omy only option as a Mac user.

  • 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.

  • Nvidia Quadro 4000 not working properly

    Hi all,
    I am really hoping that some one can help me with a very frustrating issue with my new Mac Pro and Nvidia Quadro 4000 card.
    I purchased my Mac Pro from an Apple store and added the Quadro 4000, I need that card as it is supported by Adobe Premiere CS5 to enable the GPU acceleration. The reason I went to the store to buy instead of online was to get advice about the card as I have not used a Mac for 5 years now. I was told that they are not familiar with the card, but put it in and run alongside the ATI card.
    When it arrived I put it all together, except for the Quadro 4000, and it all worked perfectly. I have 2 x 27” Cinema Displays attached. I installed production studio CS5 and then extremely carefully added the Quadro card.
    Without going on about all the drama with it not working with the ATI card and then removing that and installing only the Quadro, it is not doing what I bought it to do. Adobe is not recognising the device, I have updated to version 5.0.3 of Premiere Pro, which supports this card.
    I think I know what the problem is, but I have no idea how to resolve it. I put the Quadro in and then installed the drivers. My research says this is wrong (there were no instructions in the box and the read me file on the disc just said I need a specific cuda driver), so I removed it, put the ATI in and hunted down all the Cuda (Quadro stuff) files, deleted them, reinstalled drivers and reinstalled the card. No change, it drives one display and Premiere still cant see it.
    I have tried to find answers on the internet, Apple are not very helpful as it was a third party item they have no training on (although purchased from Apple).
    The only thing I have read is it may need to be on OS 10.6.5, I updated to 10.6.6 and/or because I installed the card before drivers. I have read that I need to sort out ‘Permissions’ but can’t find out how.
    Any help would be greatly appreciated, I really need to get this thing working as I have a very expensive computer I can not use.
    Thanks
    Phil
    Oh, one other thing, it is supposed to run two displays, one via display port and the other via DVI, but I am having no joy here either, and there seems to be no DVI male to MDP female adapter????

    You are making it (sounds like to me) harder than it is.
    You do not mention which ATI card, but you should use both side by side unless you have the 5870 which is using the two pci 6-pin power connectors on it.
    With Mac OS people generally never need to delete drivers by hand.
    ATI 57x0 and Quadro work better together. Or even ATI 4870 and GTX 285 in the past. Use the ATI for monitors and Quadro for CUDA and Mercury.
    FYI for Quadro 4000 Mac Owners upgrading to 10.6.6:
    Included in today's 10.6.6 related apple docs is one noting new Quadro 4000 owners need to Reinstall the Nvidia Quadro driver update after updating to 10.6.6.
    To save you a lot of clicks (the doc links to the nvidia product page) - here's the page with the current (as of this AM) Quadro OS X 10.6.5 Driver page which still shows the 11/16/2010 driver date/v256.01.00f03. But the file I downloaded this morning is named "Retail_256.01.00f03v5.dmg" (28.9MB) - dated Dec 17th. The file I downloaded back in mid-Nov does not have the "V5" in the filename and is larger (37.3MB). I don't own this card and not dug into the pkg to see what changed (i.e. did they remove the extra kexts for other models perhaps?) but just a FYI.
    http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/archives/jan11/010611.html#quadro4000
    http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4499
    http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro-macosx-256.01.00f03-driver.html
    Reinstall the 10.6.6 combo update manually is sometimes a good idea (some of us use only combo updates when it comes time to update OS X).
    Here: http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1349

  • Nvidia GT120 v/s Nvidia Quadro 4000 Xbench Performance

    I just replaced my GT120 with the Quadro 4000, I compared performance using Xbench 1.3 (probable not the correct tool) and I did not notice any difference in Quartz and Open GL performance, as a matter of fact I notice the results worse for the Quadro 4000 than the GT1200, do I have to use a different benchmarking software ?, I have installed the latest drivers (end of march) from the Nvidia/PNY site, do I have to install something like CUDA drivers ?, thanks

    Try “Cinebench” (free):
    http://www.maxon.net/downloads/cinebench/cinebench-115.html
    Or “Geekbench” (free demo):
    http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/
    I have replaced the GT 120 with the GTX 285...
    Using NVIDIA-Driver 1.3.4.0 (256.01.00f03)
    and CUDA-Driver 3.2.17 (the new version 4.0.13 should be available soon)
    http://www.barefeats.com/wst10g9.html
    http://www.barefeats.com/wst10g10.html
    Regards
    Nolan

  • Nvidia quadro 4000 or 5000 in Mac Pro

    Hello all,
    I have this question that I already make to a sale advisor in a Mac store and he do not know what to answer and also I do it to a technical Mac sales agent and again nothing.
    I do not own a Mac pro yet, I am looking to buy one becuase is the only system that can hold (in a stable way) both Mac OS X and Windows 7.
    I am a professional working with 3D content creation, CAD design and digital video and I want to be able to do pro 3D content with Windows 7 and also working in pro videos in Mac OSX. The actual graphic cards for the Mac pro 2010 are intended for video games instead of professional production (this is the info posted in the AMD/ATI website when one do the search for Radeon 5770 and 5780, of course they can handle some 3d content but not as the latest generation of Nvidia cards)
    My question is:
    Can I use a Mac pro with one of those ATI cards installed in the 1st PCIe 2.0 16x port for the MAC OS X and then install a Nvidia Quadro 4000 or 5000 in the second PCIe 2.0 16x port for Windows 7? (given the fact that Nvidia do not have even beta drivers for Mac OS X for those types of cards yet)
    Im thinking that I can use the Mac with the ATI and then when swiching to Windows (trough Boot Camp) using the Nvidia Quadro but I am not sure if this is possible and if installing another card will created probs. and if is posible how to relate each card to each OS.
    I ask this before having the Mac becuase I am planing to make a huge inversion on it and I want to be sure about this. (The specs. will be 32gb ram, 512gb ssd, 3x2tb hdd, 2x2.93ghz6c xeons)
    Thank you all and I will be pleased to heard any comments or suggestions.

    The Quadro FX 5800 is launching at $3,499, and its spec sheet looks well furnished: 240 stream processors, fill rate of 52 billion texels per second, 128-bit precision, true 10-bit color support, 102GB/s memory bandwidth (which should translate to an 800MHz GDDR3 clock speed, if my math is right), and "interactive 4D modeling with time lapse capabilities." Nvidia says the Quadro FX 5800 should be well suited to applications like "oil and gas exploration, medical imaging, styling and design, and scientific visualization."
    http://techreport.com/discussions.x/15866
    First announced fall-winter 2008
    http://www.nvidia.com/object/productquadro_fx_5800us.html
    If you wanted to use nVidia's Quadro CX to speed up CS5, it is Windows only, and the Mac only has TWO 6-pin connectors. So even though Quadro 5800 power is under 200W there are no more aux power connectors. Though you can try to add a small 450W PSU for graphics 2 x 8-pin./2 x 6-pin) it gets messy running from the 2nd optical drive bay and tight fit-impossible for cables. Not designed for dual graphic card power.
    The GTX 285 EVGA came out for Mac last year but drivers have been a problem with performance and a year later 10.6.4 and nVidia rushed to post a patch but there has been no word now that the GTX 285 went EOL. What's up with that?

  • NVidia Quadro 4000 First Impressions

    I've seen some questions and some discussion regarding the nVidia Quadro 4000 card. Mine arrived yesterday, I figured I would share my initial experiences with it to help give others guidance so they can make the best decisions for their own needs.
    First off, if your primary interest (or a significant interest) is playing games, than a Quadro card is not for you. nVidia's high end cards are fine-tuned on both a hardware and software (driver) level in the needs of pro apps and manipulating very large data sets. It happens at the expense of some performance stats that matter to gamers. Quadro cards aren't designed to get you a higher fps in your favorite shooter, they're designed to get you better performance with ray-tracing, real-time 3D environments, and scientific use. I'll leave you to surf to nVidia's web site for more marketing speak on that. In my initial tests, I found that to be completely true. I don't do much gaming, but the couple games I tested performed no faster than the GTX-285 I had in the machine before.
    Attempting to run some more tests, I found that RealTech VR's OpenGL extensions viewer (which has some decidedly gamer-centric benchmarks) showed little to no improvement over the GTX-285 (as expected).
    Running a few test renders in Cinema 4D, I found only about a 5-7% increase in performance. That might be due to immature drivers, but it may also be due to C4D renders being more about CPU mucle (Maxon doesn't have any specific CUDA-support or acceleration). What I did notice was that moving/camming around in the app was much improved. I couldn't say if that had to do with an extra gigabyte of vram, or if it was some kind of 'Fermi' magic (Fermi's the name of this generation chip technology from nVidia).
    I have not yet gotten the chance to give Adobe CS5 (and specifically Premiere Pro and After Effects) a serious workout, though just playing around I noticed that the Quadro card had much more capacity for handling multiple layers of video in real time (I threw a dozen videos onto a main track in varying sizes of 'picture-in-picture' display, and arbitrarily adjusted the speed of some and color corrected others). It handled everything I could throw at it without appearing to break into a sweat, and I haven't yet had time to give it a proper performance test.
    Being an early adopter, I have the expectation that on initial release there will be kinks and hiccups, and that as the drivers mature the performance will improve dramatically. Based on discussions with colleagues and what I've seen in reviews, this has been the case with both the GTX-285 and the Quadro FX 4800 card, and probably was also the case on older nVidia cards as well. The Quadro 4000 met those expectations - it feels like this is still a work in progress. The drivers (version 256.01.00f03) are stable (no crashes, no kernel panics, no horrible situations to speak of), but based on my early results I'd guess that they're not optimized for speed, either. On the Windows side, nVidia has driver version 259 available as a 'certified' release, and a higher performance version 260 available, and performance under Windows 7 Professional (64-bit) seems better. To be fair, the card's been on the market for PC's since late July, those drivers are more mature.
    I still need to give the card a serious workout with Adobe CS5, but so far things look promising. Anecdotally, I've also noticed that system performance is greatly improved when I'm doing lots of multi-tasking. I often have several different apps running at once, and between the new technology and the additional video memory (my old card had 1GB, this has 2GB), I find I can juggle 20+ apps and dozens of Safari windows/tabs running without the Mac Pro batting an eyelash. That's hard to quantify in a specific benchmark, but it's very welcome considering the way I tend to work.
    As the drivers improve, and as my own workflow evolves to make more use of larger datasets and more complex 3D scenes, I see the Quadro 4000 really starting to shine. Heavy-duty CUDA users may be happy to know that this card only requires a single additional power connection, which means that you can install two of these cards into a single Mac Pro (for a total of 512 CUDA cores). If you're doing big scientific work or working with CUDA-supported ray tracing (or other plugins), or doing extremely elaborate things with RED camera footage, that may likely be a game-changer for you. For me, it'll likely be quite some time before I outgrow what this card can do.

    As I'd mentioned in another thread, the card began shipping last week. I expect that it will take a couple months before places like Apple and Amazon to dig through the large number of backorders they have (I don't think this card is produced in mass quantity, even on the PC side).
    My system setup is a Mac Pro 8x2.26GHz, 32GB RAM, 8TB HD storage, nVidia Quadro 4000 2GB driving the primary display, and nVidia GT120 driving a secondary display. I'm considering getting third party power supply unit that sits in the second optical drive bay, and would plug into the Mac Pro's power supply, and then provide additional power supply connectors that would allow me to plug in my GTX-285 as a secondary graphics card (since it uses 2 connectors, and the Mac Pro only has 2 total).
    Even when my machine was using a GTX-285 and the GT-120, I could see a difference in performance when dragging an application window (particularly if it's a 3D app) from main display to the secondary (the GT-120 is a significantly lower power card, with only 32 CUDA cores and 512MB video memory). With the Quadro driving my primary display the difference is much more noticeable now.
    From what I understand, there are some technical issues with using ATI and nVidia GPU's in the same machine, so attempting to use with a 5770 may not work. But if you were able to use them together, it would make more sense to have the Quadro card driving your primary display, since it's likely going to perform as well or better than any other card you might be able to pair it with.
    I've already given some thought to a second Quadro card down the road. As the drivers mature, and the apps I use evolve to make better use of CUDA and OpenCL, and my own workflow and skills improve to the point where I'm doing more 3D modeling/rendering (and stuff like ray-tracing), then having 2 of these cards in a single machine could really come in handy. Today it appears that all those CUDA cores and VRAM are serving to help make the apps faster and more responsive at design time, but rendering is still very CPU-centric. But tomorrow those apps will hopefully be able to tap into the GPU to help improve render times.

  • Nvidia Quadro 4000 is  Freezing / shutting down / Buggy with Mac Pro 2009

    I currently have two Nvidia Quadro 4000 mac cards and there causing my Mac Pro 2009 machine to kernel Panic and freeze or shutdown my machine.
    I dropped it off at the Apple store for them to diagnose the problem for 9 days and they went ahead and confirmed that it was the card which was causing the problem.
    NVIDIA PLEASE UPDATE YOUR DRIVERS FOR THIS CARD FOR MAC.
    Its ridicules that if you spend $1200 (apple store) that it will crap out your Mac Pro. I'm waiting for a updated driver in order to test the stability with the Mac Pro
    I'm almost 100% sure I did the 10.6.6 update with the stock card, then installed the most updated drivers from Nvidia website and then installed the Cuda Drivers, then finally installing the Video card in the machine. After two days, system was acting up.
    Once I get my machine back from Apple tomorrow, I will go ahead and give it one more last try to see if it works. I'm mean the cards are amazing with Adobe Premiere and Media Encoder (super fast), but at the cost that your machine will be very buggy.
    Lets wait and see what Apple, Nvidia or PNY will do about the big problem. I'm wanting to keep these babies, so make some moves people and fix the issues for the Professionals.

    I hadn't been experiencing the problems you have, but I have been having issues, and yes it absolutely is a case of immature drivers. When the card was released in December, nVidia merely did a simple patch job on the 256.01.00f03 driver that shipped with 10.6.5 rather than include an optimized driver that was comparable to the 259.x driver available on the Windows platform at the time.
    Since then, nVidia's engineers have been hard at work doing what appears to be nothing for the Mac. On the Windows side, the Quadro drivers have progressed to 267.11. Rather than provide Apple with updated drivers to include with 10.6.6 or this week's 10.6.7 release, they chose to sit back and wait for the 10.6.7 release and then release their own update.
    After 4 months, their best and brightest have brought us <drumroll> driver version 256.01.00f03. To be fair, they changed it from "v5" (the patch job to enable Quadro 4000 compatibility) to "v6". The idea was that it would add compatibility for the Quadro 4000 running under 10.6.7, Sadly for nVidia's Quadro engineers, that driver's installer didn't actually work. It took them nearly a full day to fix that, finally releasing 256.01.00f03v7. As expected, there are no improvements in either performance or stability. In fact, what happened to me is that the new driver actually broke compatibility with Adobe Premiere Pro CS5's Mercury Playback Engine GPU acceleration feature.
    Fortunately, I still had my GTX-285 card available, and this evening I pulled the Quadro and re-installed the older GTX card. I really wish nVidia would care enough to release a solid driver update, I really want to like the Quadro 4000. On paper the potential for video production and OpenGL rendering performance should be huge.

Maybe you are looking for

  • Cost price update

    Hi guys i have a problem in updating cost price for all finished goods we set in MM for all Raw Materials, process chemcials and packaging materials as moving average price and semi and finished goods  items as standard our raw material and packaging

  • Eclipselink issue on weblogic 10.3

    We have two different application using eclipselink file bundled as part of application. Application works fine if either of application deployed on server. If we deploy both application on server, the application which first accessed works fine othe

  • NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day & iCal

    I have set up an automator workflow to have NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) as my desktop image. It would automatically change each day via iCal. AWSOME PICTURES, by the way. I have a snag . . . iCal isn't running the workflow . . . I had

  • Top 1

    String query="select Top 1  from table" String query="select * from table"i know second one means All the records. whats the meansing of first one ? does the first one extracts 1 records only ? but i am getting all the records in my resultset. so i a

  • Newly restored Ipod will not sync?

    After just restoring my ipod and losing all my pictures, my ipod will not sync to itunes. Every time I try, an error message pops up saying: "iTunes was unable to load data class information from Sync Services. Reconnect or try again later." How do I