Quadro fx 4600 vs quadro 2000 vs 5870

are you using TurbulenceFD with C4D ? It only supports Nvidia GPU acceleration. Otherwise I'm not sure ATI vs Nvidia matters but want to point this out in case.

qwarkas said:

What to choose? For working on the Cinema 4d , Photoshop , final cut on mac os lion x64

Prise = 500$ = Quadro fx 4600(second hand, new=2000$) = new quadro 2000 = new radeon 5870.

Click to expand...

I would ask MAXON and see if they can offer you some advice.

I use Maya and the difference between a 5870 and a Quadro 4000 can be the difference between 5fps and 300fps in some high poly scenes. Not sure if it translates to C4D the same way.

Wow that's quite a difference, and confirms what I have read elsewhere for Maya.
Out of interest is that running Maya on OS X or Windows 7?
The reason I ask is that OpenGL support is somewhat problematic on OS X.

The CINEBENCH 11.5 GPU results I have seen suggest that the performance would double from a score of around 30FPS to 60FPS. The biggest advantage would be with fluid simulation plug-ins that use CUDA.

strausd said:

I use Maya and the difference between a 5870 and a Quadro 4000 can be the difference between 5fps and 300fps in some high poly scenes. Not sure if it translates to C4D the same way.

Click to expand...

You should mention some context with that, as you previously stated it was under Windows 7. Google turned up a lot of complaints with the 5870 in general under Windows with things like Maya. NVidia's cards in general seem popular. In general the Quadros seemed to come out on top overall especially when it came to bugs/stability, but I'd avoid any abandoned cards.

The Quadro 4600 is ancient. It's like a grandfather to the Quadro 5000 if I recall correctly. I don't know how the OP would fair getting that to work under Lion. The price doesn't seem too great either. Anyway wasn't that from 2006ish?

With the Quadro 2000, I haven't seen any tests of that one under OSX. That would be an issue. If he's going for a quadro under OSX, the Quadro 4000 Mac edition at $700-750ish would probably be the way to go. Unfortunately it doesn't have some features I'd like at that price like OpenCL support and 10 bit displayport functions (mostly an problem).

24Frames said:

Wow that's quite a difference, and confirms what I have read elsewhere for Maya.
Out of interest is that running Maya on OS X or Windows 7?
The reason I ask is that OpenGL support is somewhat problematic on OS X.

The CINEBENCH 11.5 GPU results I have seen suggest that the performance would double from a score of around 30FPS to 60FPS. The biggest advantage would be with fluid simulation plug-ins that use CUDA.

Click to expand...

Strausd writes a lot of (genuinely) interesting stuff, but I think he's annoyed with Apple right now on graphics cards (not that I blame him). He mentioned this in another thread too. It was under Windows 7. If you do a search, the 5870 is terrible within maya under Windows 7. Now that doesn't mean that the Quadro 4000 isn't superior under Windows 7 isn't still superior to the 5870 under OSX. It's just that discussions over the AMD thing are all over the net and Autodesk even tests a 5870 machine under OSX as it's one of the more common configurations. They do not certify the Mac Pro under Windows 7.

OpenGL seems to be poorly implemented since SL or so. As for Maxon, that's a separate issue. There are different things to it. If it was between two cards, I'd usually pick fewer annoying bugs over fastest possible speed (meaning typically workstation drivers).

I am also quite frustrated with Apple regarding both the GPU hardware that they offer in the Mac Pros and the way they have implemented OpenGL 3.2 in Lion. The implementation of OpenGL 3.2 in Lion has made it very hard for software developers to support, to the extent that most 3D applications are still using OpenGL 2.1 on OS X 10.7.

Both HP and Dell only offer professional graphics cards in their workstations, in my opinion Apple should be doing the same. But that is very much from the point of view of someone engaged in 3D/VFX.

For these reasons I am unlikely to purchase one of the "updated" Mac Pros and am considering windows alternatives. In addition with the possible exception of the 6-Core these updates appear to offer remarkably poor value for money compared to the Xeon e5-16xx and Xeon e5-26xx alternatives from other vendors.

For those of us that use CINEMA 4D we are fortunate that MAXON produced CINEBENCH allowing an assessment to be made of both CPU and GPU independently.

I would again urge the original poster to discuss this with MAXON direct, as they will have much better information on this than anyone else. For running under OS X I believe that the Quadro 4000 is the way to go, as Apple sell this card as an after sales upgrade for the Mac Pro. About 50% of CINEMA 4D customers are on Mac (source MAXON).

24Frames said:

I am also quite frustrated with Apple regarding both the GPU hardware that they offer in the Mac Pros and the way they have implemented OpenGL 3.2 in Lion. The implementation of OpenGL 3.2 in Lion has made it very hard for software developers to support, to the extent that most 3D applications are still using OpenGL 2.1 on OS X 10.7.

Click to expand...

It's only hard in the sense that they have to re-write their code to get rid of depreciated features. If they can't be bothered doing this, and cleaning up their apps, then fine. Stick to 2.1+extensions.

Tacking on new code to an old foundation is not the way to go forward.

Making a clean cut and going core profile only was the right thing for Apple to do. Even though there will be people who will complain about it.

JordanNZ said:

It's only hard in the sense that they have to re-write their code to get rid of depreciated features. If they can't be bothered doing this, and cleaning up their apps, then fine. Stick to 2.1+extensions.

Click to expand...

I think that is unfair. In my experience these companies are committed to providing the best possible user experience on Mac OS X, Windows 7, and in some cases Linux. With the exception of Autodesk these companies are generally small and have small teams of exceptionally skilled developers. Rewriting 10s of thousands of lines of OpenGL code is a non trivial task.

Apple need to take the development community with them if they want a good experience for users on OS X.

24Frames said:

I think that is unfair. In my experience these companies are committed to providing the best possible user experience on Mac OS X, Windows 7, and in some cases Linux. With the exception of Autodesk these companies are generally small and have small teams of exceptionally skilled developers. Rewriting 10s of thousands of lines of OpenGL code is a non trivial task.

Apple need to take the development community with them if they want a good experience for users on OS X.

Click to expand...

I completely understand where you're coming from.
And I agree that it will take them time/money to re-write their apps.

But they are going to have to do it at some point anyway.... Compatibility profile will be a nightmare to maintain in the long run. Both for the developers, and for Apple.

Just look at the legacy profile (2.1+ multiple extensions). There's a reason why we were stuck on that for so long. And there is a reason why they're not going to be adding much to it.

How does the PNY NVIDIDA quadra 4800 (1.5GB) compare to the quadra 4000 (2GB)---and then how does these compare to the shipping version of the ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB

rhapsodyosx said:

How does the PNY NVIDIDA quadra 4800 (1.5GB) compare to the quadra 4000 (2GB)---and then how does these compare to the shipping version of the ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB

Click to expand...

It will be easier for you to google them if you spell it correctly.

"QUADRO" is the name, not "Quadra"

Quadro 4800 is detuned GTX285.

Quadro 4000 is a VERY detuned GTX480.

Wow.

Oh my, let me extend my deepest heartfelt apologies for offending you for using an "a" instead of an "o". I know misspelling online and in a forum, is such a grave offense. Perhaps you can overlook that mistake as some of us legitimate issues (i.e. Dyslexia).

But above that, thank you for setting the record straight for me when you spoke about the real reason of my post (AKA card performance issues, etc.).

rhapsodyosx said:

Oh my, let me extend my deepest heartfelt apologies for offending you for using an "a" instead of an "o". I know misspelling online and in a forum, is such a grave offense. Perhaps you can overlook that mistake as some of us legitimate issues (i.e. Dyslexia).

But above that, thank you for setting the record straight for me when you spoke about the real reason of my post (AKA card performance issues, etc.).

Click to expand...

No need to get your panties in a bunch.

It is a common error and I really did mean that you will be able to find info on the cards much better if you spell it right in the search bar.

24Frames said:

For these reasons I am unlikely to purchase one of the "updated" Mac Pros and am considering windows alternatives. In addition with the possible exception of the 6-Core these updates appear to offer remarkably poor value for money compared to the Xeon e5-16xx and Xeon e5-26xx alternatives from other vendors.

For those of us that use CINEMA 4D we are fortunate that MAXON produced CINEBENCH allowing an assessment to be made of both CPU and GPU independently.

I would again urge the original poster to discuss this with MAXON direct, as they will have much better information on this than anyone else. For running under OS X I believe that the Quadro 4000 is the way to go, as Apple sell this card as an after sales upgrade for the Mac Pro. About 50% of CINEMA 4D customers are on Mac (source MAXON).

Click to expand...

Maxon is actually pretty cool. I looked at C4D a long time ago, but I decided against it for a few reasons, mainly that maya skills were a more common requirement. You can get the PNY Mac Edition Quadro 4000 for $700 or so if you don't buy from Apple. I don't know if it's the same one. I'd just make sure you get the right drivers.

JordanNZ said:

It's only hard in the sense that they have to re-write their code to get rid of depreciated features. If they can't be bothered doing this, and cleaning up their apps, then fine. Stick to 2.1+extensions.

Tacking on new code to an old foundation is not the way to go forward.

Making a clean cut and going core profile only was the right thing for Apple to do. Even though there will be people who will complain about it.

Click to expand...

Apple really doesn't work with their developers enough. You are under estimating the amount of development resources they might need to plan for such an undertaking when we are talking about a really large application. You can't just say they're all lazy. What annoyed me was when developers were criticized for being late on OSX 64 bit versions when Apple's in house apps were still running on x32.

rhapsodyosx said:

How does the PNY NVIDIDA quadra 4800 (1.5GB) compare to the quadra 4000 (2GB)---and then how does these compare to the shipping version of the ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB

Click to expand...

The Quadro 4000 will probably be supported longer. My issue is missing features like OpenCL. Also none of them support 10 bit displayport on OSX under SL or lion which annoys me. I can get another year out of SL if mountain lion doesn't become fully stable. I've skipped lion entirely.

MacVidCards said:

No need to get your panties in a bunch.

It is a common error and I really did mean that you will be able to find info on the cards much better if you spell it right in the search bar.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification. I didn't mean to get so upset.

Are any of the shipping quadro cards better for the mac? More specifically I wonder if some of the regular PC quadro cards can be made to work on the mac pro-- or if should just get a 4600 off hand or something.

Speaking of the 4800 is the 4000 inherently better?

Apple sell the Quadro 4000.

http://store.apple.com/us/product/H3314LL/A/nvidia-quadro-4000-for-mac

I would suggest that you look at NVidias website for details of specific cards to get some background information.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/workstation-solutions.html

You also need to assess whether a workstation card will do anything for your workflow, which will depend on which application(s) you are using, and how you are using them.

In some situations a consumer card will do the job just as well or better at a much lower price point.

Thank you. My curiosity prompted the question because what i found on those sites was limited with regards to running other quadro cards on the mac besides the 4000.


Is there inherently pros and cons of the 4800 over the 4000?

24Frames said:

Apple sell the Quadro 4000.

http://store.apple.com/us/product/H3314LL/A/nvidia-quadro-4000-for-mac

Click to expand...

http://www.amazon.com/PNY-DisplayPort-Profesional-Graphics-VCQ4000MAC-PB/dp/B004CRS78O

You can get it without the Apple tax. I'm partially kidding. The price used to be that high no matter where you bought it. Apple just doesn't do price breaks even if the cost goes down. Yes one says PNY, but you can google that if you like. PNY offering them is typical.

That version also claims OpenCL support, but I'd make sure you research it first.

Or receive an Apple subsidy!

http://www.dabs.com/category/components-and-storage,graphics--tv-tuners-and-i-o,graphics/11137?q=nvidia%20quadro%204000

PC - 846 GBP
MAC - 721.99 GBP