Nvidia Quadro 4000 for Mac Pro 3,1 (2008)

[stepka]

Hi, I'm planning to add the nvidia 4000 to my mac pro 2008 (3,1).
The processors are 2x2.8 ghz
I've 14gb RAM and two graphic cards: ATI 5770 (1gb), connected to a Cintiq 22hd, and an ATI 3870 (512mb) connected to a cinema display 23".
I mount three hard disks (SATA).

I mostly use:
(cs6) Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, Premiere, After Effects, Soundbooth
(Apple) Apple motion 4
(3d software) Daz Studio (I'd like to use CUDA for installing OCTANE for the rendering), Cinema 4d, ZBrush.

Do you think that comparing to my actual setup, could I see good benefits (more speed) in using the apps listed above, if I would mount the quadro 4000?

Thanks in advance to everyone that will post a reply!

 

[AlexMaximus]

The nvidia cuda advantage..

This might be interesting for you since the quadro 4000 has cuda cores:

However I would advise against it (if you have a choice). The EVGA 680 mac edition would be a much better choice from a cuda point of view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8nUuHzxv-U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL3NaSYU16w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGiale6nf9o

videos are older though, but you will get the idea...

 

[stepka]

Hi, first of all thanks for the super fast reply!

So you're approving my possible upgrading to quadro 4000... but you suggest a better EVGA 680 mac edition: I did not know this card was supported by the macpro 2008 3,1! And, to be hones, I did not know this card either

It seems very much more powerful in terms of cuda cores: 1536 cuda cores of this card compared to the 236 of the quadro!

It also has 2gb vRam... so why a pro should buy a quadro 4000 instead of this one? I'm really trying to understand it... from what I got till now, the geforce should be more gaming oriented, while the quadro should keep better the usage for the rendering, that can overheat your card too much if the scene is too high in details. Is that right? So this should be the reason for buying a quadro instead? The power consumption?

As a matter of facts, I see this card has a higher power consumption than the quadro...

This might be interesting for you since the quadro 4000 has cuda cores:

However I would advise against it (if you have a choice). The EVGA 680 mac edition would be a much better choice from a cuda point of view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8nUuHzxv-U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL3NaSYU16w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGiale6nf9o

videos are older though, but you will get the idea...

 

[AlexMaximus]

Professional is a matter of drivers & marketing

The quadro 4000 card is an older card that has been introduced years ago.
The big difference in cuda cores tells you that. You are right with your assessment that the EVGA 680 is more of an all-good-around card and not dedicated only to the "professional" market.

However in my personal opinion, this is all pure marketing. Only a very small amount of people need that bit of unique features from a quadro card really. If you do heavy CAD stuff, than you shoot for the quadro, especially when you use Catia V5/V6 or ProE from various companies such as Dassault. If not, you may go another smarter route. If money is not an obstacle have a look here:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...ption=Nvidia+Quadro+K5000+mac&N=-1&isNodeId=1

The smart-underground-geek route would be this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nvidia-GTX-...880?pt=PCC_Video_TV_Cards&hash=item4d20028538

A review from 2011 (!) of the Quadro 4000:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/0...-nvidias-sole-mac-offering-a-promising-start/

 

[Macsonic]

Hi, first of all thanks for the super fast reply!

So you're approving my possible upgrading to quadro 4000... but you suggest a better EVGA 680 mac edition: I did not know this card was supported by the macpro 2008 3,1! And, to be hones, I did not know this card either

It seems very much more powerful in terms of cuda cores: 1536 cuda cores of this card compared to the 236 of the quadro!

It also has 2gb vRam... so why a pro should buy a quadro 4000 instead of this one? I'm really trying to understand it... from what I got till now, the geforce should be more gaming oriented, while the quadro should keep better the usage for the rendering, that can overheat your card too much if the scene is too high in details. Is that right? So this should be the reason for buying a quadro instead? The power consumption?

As a matter of facts, I see this card has a higher power consumption than the quadro...

Hi Stepka. The Quadro 4000 you are referring to is the model that came out in 2011 with 2 gig ram? http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/0...-nvidias-sole-mac-offering-a-promising-start/

It's the single slot card that only requires one power cable. To compare with the Radeon 5770Hd as reference, for Photoshop, illustrator, Flash the difference will be minimal or sometimes not too noticeable. But for After Effects, Premier Pro the Quadro 4000 will be faster. I don't work on 3D graphics or Cinema 4D but I think the Quadro 4000 performs well with 3D work. This card's strength is in 3D rendering.

The Nvidia 680GTX Mac Edition card mentioned is a good card and will work on your 2008 Mac Pro. It's quick and responsive. When I work on large posters or streamers or multi layered Photoshop files, the Radeon 5770 sometimes struggles when I edit or navigate thru the layout. While the 680GTX provides a smoother flow with the same large layouts

From a price point, some are saying the Quadro 4000 is expensive for little gain in performance that most people go for the GeForce series. I think generally the 680GTX is faster than the Quadro 4000

 

[fuchsdh]

I've got (as my sig testifies) a 5770 driving my monitors and a 4000 for compute. It's an older card, so for certain stuff like CUDA newer cards will definitely smoke it.

However one big pro of the card that I count as a plus in my rig is that it's only a single slot compared to basically every card that's usually a 2-slotter.

If you're going to swap out your current 3870 and keep the 5770, I'd go for the 4000 if you get a good price (mine was free, since I'm using a sample Nvidia sent us to work and never wanted back )

But if you want to swap both cards a GTX seems a solid and substantial replacement.

 

[stepka]

Thanks for your suggestions: you exactly hit the spot I'm struggling onto: the RESULTS after you upgrade to another card with spending a lot of cash.

As I wrote in my first post, I use a LOT of photoshop and, for doing animations, After Effect (that would improve with quadro 4000) and Apple Motion. I guess that AE would benefit a lot from quadro (because of CUDA) while Motion will remain more or less the same (because of OPEN CL)... right?

But if it's all about CUDA cores, as you say, I begin to not see (if I don't understand other features) the reason for spending 700 eur / $$ for an old card when I can get another with a lot more of CUDA cores for the same price (or maybe even a bit less?).

Plus, I see that the EVGA 680 has two dvi port, that is good 'cause I use a cintiq and a cinema display 23", so I could connect both without adapters.

UPDATE: I noticed just now that the other connection is a DVI DIGITAL... so the adapter is required anyway

Thank you so much for your suggestion

giovanni

The quadro 4000 card is an older card that has been introduced years ago.
The big difference in cuda cores tells you that. You are right with your assessment that the EVGA 680 is more of an all-good-around card and not dedicated only to the "professional" market.

However in my personal opinion, this is all pure marketing. Only a very small amount of people need that bit of unique features from a quadro card really. If you do heavy CAD stuff, than you shoot for the quadro, especially when you use Catia V5/V6 or ProE from various companies such as Dassault. If not, you may go another smarter route. If money is not an obstacle have a look here:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...ption=Nvidia+Quadro+K5000+mac&N=-1&isNodeId=1

The smart-underground-geek route would be this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nvidia-GTX-...880?pt=PCC_Video_TV_Cards&hash=item4d20028538

A review from 2011 (!) of the Quadro 4000:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/0...-nvidias-sole-mac-offering-a-promising-start/

----------

Thank you very much for your analysis: if I have to be honest I didn't noticed almost any upgrading since I installed the 5770... but I spent a lot less than I would for a quadro... and if I'd have the same experience my disappointment would be a looooot worse

Yes, I refer to the 2gb quadro... again, if the CUDA cores in the EVGA 680 are more than in the QUADRO I could use OCTANE RENDER at better speed, and performance in AE and Premiere would be good as for the quadro, right?

I'm almost convinced to take the EVGA 680 instead of quadro... now I can't really tell the differences if not the power consumption, that seems lower in the quadro.

Maybe the CUDA CORES in EVGA 680 can't be used as native in bootcamp (maybe I could use it for some 3d app that runs only on windows)?

Hi Stepka. The Quadro 4000 you are referring to is the model that came out in 2011 with 2 gig ram? http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/0...-nvidias-sole-mac-offering-a-promising-start/

It's the single slot card that only requires one power cable. To compare with the Radeon 5770Hd as reference, for Photoshop, illustrator, Flash the difference will be minimal or sometimes not too noticeable. But for After Effects, Premier Pro the Quadro 4000 will be faster. I don't work on 3D graphics or Cinema 4D but I think the Quadro 4000 performs well with 3D work. This card's strength is in 3D rendering.

The Nvidia 680GTX Mac Edition card mentioned is a good card and will work on your 2008 Mac Pro. It's quick and responsive. When I work on large posters or streamers or multi layered Photoshop files, the Radeon 5770 sometimes struggles when I edit or navigate thru the layout. While the 680GTX provides a smoother flow with the same large layouts

Image

From a price point, some are saying the Quadro 4000 is expensive for little gain in performance that most people go for the GeForce series. I think generally the 680GTX is faster than the Quadro 4000

----------

Hi, thanks for the suggestions... I didn't know that I could keep my 5770 to let it live with the Quadro... I thought the driver would go mad together with a lot of conflicts... did you ever experienced anything like that on your mac mounting both cards?

p.s. So you got a quadro 4000 for free? You're a lucky fella!!!

I've got (as my sig testifies) a 5770 driving my monitors and a 4000 for compute. It's an older card, so for certain stuff like CUDA newer cards will definitely smoke it.

However one big pro of the card that I count as a plus in my rig is that it's only a single slot compared to basically every card that's usually a 2-slotter.

If you're going to swap out your current 3870 and keep the 5770, I'd go for the 4000 if you get a good price (mine was free, since I'm using a sample Nvidia sent us to work and never wanted back )

But if you want to swap both cards a GTX seems a solid and substantial replacement.

----------

So do you guys think if I mount the EVGA 680, could I keep my ATI 5770 in another slot?

Or the fact the EVGA 680 requires two slots means that I have to keep only this one as card?

Thanks for all the help

 

[MacVidCards]

Only 2 power cables

 

[stepka]

Ok, so I'd have to get rid of the other cards for the EVGA 680

Anyway, I discover just now in this post that I could keep the quadro AND the radeon 5770, just as fuchsdh does

This could be another point to think about

Only 2 power cables

 

[MacVidCards]

Do some digging at Barefeats.com. He has tested all of these cards. You might have to dig pretty far to find 4000 as it was a few years back

 

[stepka]

I will! Thanks

Do some digging at Barefeats.com. He has tested all of these cards. You might have to dig pretty far to find 4000 as it was a few years back

----------

The only thing is that the one on Barefeats.com is from 2011 and from what I learned there have been big improvements with the new CUDA drivers release that should have been solved the majority of the problems the users complained about: if you read about quadro 4000 and mac pro from 2011 till early 2013 it really seems to be a card you want to avoid: kernel panic, black screens, flickerings, blue screens (as you have just connected a screen) every few minutes, etc..

Do some digging at Barefeats.com. He has tested all of these cards. You might have to dig pretty far to find 4000 as it was a few years back

----------

COME ON!!!!! Here you can see as not only AE or MOTION have better results with the GTX680... but even in Octane render!!!!

I'm totally confused now. Why people then spend 2000k for a quadro 5000?
Anyway, I think I'll take the gtx680 instead of quadro4000!!

Thanks so much for the suggestions guys

I will! Thanks




----------

The only thing is that the one on Barefeats.com is from 2011 and from what I learned there have been big improvements with the new CUDA drivers release that should have been solved the majority of the problems the users complained about: if you read about quadro 4000 and mac pro from 2011 till early 2013 it really seems to be a card you want to avoid: kernel panic, black screens, flickerings, blue screens (as you have just connected a screen) every few minutes, etc..

 

[stepka]

I'm about to cry...

Just when I was almost ready to order the GTX 680, I've read this...

this card is slower (I think slower than a quadro) on mac pro 2008 (like mine).

Sadness...

 

[OS6-OSX]

A couple things to try:
1. Perform a web search for the lowest price for a Q4000 Mac. Compare final price to the GTX680 and other cards
2. Read return policy of the Q4000 from that dealer.

Get the Q4000 and test drive. Throw at it everything you would need a card to do. In Premiere, make sure you select the option like in the attachment. Run R3D 4K and 5K if you have it. See what the limits are!

See what the limits are for all the apps you use. If the card passes the tests you have your answer. It not return it!

 

[stepka]

Hi, I was thinking about it... maybe I'll take it from Amazon, so I know I've about 7 days to send it back at their expenses... I read you have a macpro 2008 with the Quadro 4000... can you give me your feedback on the card?

Which kind of applications do you run most (apart Premiere)?

Do you do 3d renders? Did you installed Octane render?

thanks in advance!!!!!!

A couple things to try:
1. Perform a web search for the lowest price for a Q4000 Mac. Compare final price to the GTX680 and other cards
2. Read return policy of the Q4000 from that dealer.

Get the Q4000 and test drive. Throw at it everything you would need a card to do. In Premiere, make sure you select the option like in the attachment. Run R3D 4K and 5K if you have it. See what the limits are!

See what the limits are for all the apps you use. If the card passes the tests you have your answer. It not return it!

 

[fuchsdh]

No issues to report with the 5770 and 4000. The 5770 is driving the displays, but I've put one display on the 4000 at times and haven't experienced any issues.

I haven't been using the card earlier than July 2013, but I'd say CUDA hasn't given me trouble (using the latest drivers). It's pretty steady even on my older, cruddier and far more error-prone Quadro 4800 FX.

If you give me a day, I'll try running a AE render test between just using the 5770, with both, and with the Quadro, see if that helps clear things up for you. (I'm not a 3D guy.) My gut feeling though is that unless you can find a Quadro 4000 for cheap you're better off just going whole hog on a more recent card unless energy efficiency is particularly important.

 

[Macsonic]

I'm about to cry...

Just when I was almost ready to order the GTX 680, I've read this...

this card is slower (I think slower than a quadro) on mac pro 2008 (like mine).

Sadness...

Although the test shows the 680GTX to be slower on 2008 Mac Pro the results are not too far behind on some tests. If you prefer the 4000 Quadro and run it at the same time with your Radeon 5570 I think it will work. I visited a client and they had both the Quadro 4000 and 5770HD running at the same time though they were using a 2010 Mac Pro. You may consider a used 4000 Quadro as an option to keep your expenses down.

 

[OS6-OSX]

can you give me your feedback on the card?
thanks in advance!!!!!!

Which kind of applications do you run most (apart Premiere)?

Actually I use Avid Media Composer. I downloaded the 30 day trial of Premiere 5 a couple of summers ago. Avid does not use CUDA. On the PC side of Avid there is minimum use of the 4000 pertaining to efx. I don't use MC in Windows.

Do you do 3d renders? Did you installed Octane render?

Zero 3D work so Zero Octane

I replaced the ole gt8800 with the 4000 years ago. The most notable thing was the colors on the LaCie 324. I do a little color correction now and then.

 

[stepka]

Hi Fuchsdh, thanks for your feedback;
If you could do an AE test would be terrific! Lemme know if you can!

Basically I'm oriented to the CUDA cards cause of the CS suite and OCTANE render, that I'd like to use for a project I'm working on.

I'm not a 3d guy too, but I'm beginning to take a peek in this world (after 15 years of compositing and motion graphics) and I'm beginning to experience the limits of my cards (I can't run octane, Lux render takes AGES to do one rendering, Zbrush can't take so much details in the model you're sculpting and I'm seriously stressing my cards that are not made for 3d pro apps rendering).

I found the Q4000 at about 850€ and it's still high for me... the GTX 680 have would been very good in terms of quality / price... but the fact it runs so slowly on mac pro 2008 vanishes this option. I couldn't choose another if not the quadro in this moment... do you have any other card in mind?

No issues to report with the 5770 and 4000. The 5770 is driving the displays, but I've put one display on the 4000 at times and haven't experienced any issues.

I haven't been using the card earlier than July 2013, but I'd say CUDA hasn't given me trouble (using the latest drivers). It's pretty steady even on my older, cruddier and far more error-prone Quadro 4800 FX.

If you give me a day, I'll try running a AE render test between just using the 5770, with both, and with the Quadro, see if that helps clear things up for you. (I'm not a 3D guy.) My gut feeling though is that unless you can find a Quadro 4000 for cheap you're better off just going whole hog on a more recent card unless energy efficiency is particularly important.

----------

Hi Macsonic, thanks for your reply;
The fact is that I compared the same tests done by Barefeats with the ones made with the quadro, and in some cases the 680GTX is slower than quadro on mac pro 2008, and both are slower than 5770 card in openGL test (like apple motion preview or Photoshop). Plus, the 680GTX has a higher power consumption, and I think that this could be important for longer rendering. For these reasons I'm considering again the quadro4000 even if the price is so higher, also because I could use it along with the 5770 I already have.

Since the rendering is something that stress the cards, I would not buy an used quadro: if I'll go for it, I'll try it and if I'm not satisfied, I'll send it back (for example to Amazon) within a week from arrival.

The new doubt I've now is the problem is the same, and the quadro could be not completely exploited by the older mac 2008...

This is the first time after six years (like a lot or almost everyone here, I use the computer to work) that I begin to feel the limits of this machine!

Although the test shows the 680GTX to be slower on 2008 Mac Pro the results are not too far behind on some tests. If you prefer the 4000 Quadro and run it at the same time with your Radeon 5570 I think it will work. I visited a client and they had both the Quadro 4000 and 5770HD running at the same time though they were using a 2010 Mac Pro. You may consider a used 4000 Quadro as an option to keep your expenses down.

----------

Hey OS6-OSX, thanks for your feedback;
Is your quadro stable or did you experienced problems like kernel panics, etc?

Which kind of applications do you run most (apart Premiere)?

Actually I use Avid Media Composer. I downloaded the 30 day trial of Premiere 5 a couple of summers ago. Avid does not use CUDA. On the PC side of Avid there is minimum use of the 4000 pertaining to efx. I don't use MC in Windows.

Do you do 3d renders? Did you installed Octane render?

Zero 3D work so Zero Octane

I replaced the ole gt8800 with the 4000 years ago. The most notable thing was the colors on the LaCie 324. I do a little color correction now and then.

 

[stepka]

In a spark of madness (or sanity?!) I could even think about waiting more and:

- Sell my mac pro 2008 (2.8ghz, 14gb RAM + ATI 5770 + ATI 3870 so I should at least do about 1000eur)

- Buy a refurbished mac pro 2010 on ebay (like this one)

- Buy the GTX 680 on amazon (less than 570eur)

TOTAL: almost the price of the quadro4000

 

[flowrider]

The 3,1 Mac Pro GPU bottleneck has been a known issue for some time:

http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,8206.0.html

Lou

 

[fuchsdh]

Yeah Stepka looking at prices I think you're better off skipping the Quadro. Surprisingly enough prices haven't really fallen all that much, so it's definitely going to get beaten in performance to price heavily. Can't vouch for your price comparisons because I dunno what the used Mac market is like over there but you should see a decent speed bump going to a 2010, and as pointed out by others there's less bottlenecks, faster RAM etc to go along with the upgrade.

 

[stepka]

Ya, I think I'll do like this. It's far more complicated and long but it's a lot more rewarding in the end... I've already seen a couple of mac pro 2010 on ebay, there are e shops that sells refurbished mac pro of the old school (alluminium) with free shipping and one year of warranty.

I hope to sell good my mac pro 2008 in the meantime!

After I've got everything (but this will probably happen after the summer, possibly before Christmas), I'll let you know about the results.

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions, this forum rocks!!

giovanni

Yeah Stepka looking at prices I think you're better off skipping the Quadro. Surprisingly enough prices haven't really fallen all that much, so it's definitely going to get beaten in performance to price heavily. Can't vouch for your price comparisons because I dunno what the used Mac market is like over there but you should see a decent speed bump going to a 2010, and as pointed out by others there's less bottlenecks, faster RAM etc to go along with the upgrade.