Radeon 5770 or Quadro 4000 or wait?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Honbe, Dec 8, 2011.

  1. Honbe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    #1
    Hi guys,

    I have currently 5770 in my Pro 5.1. I need to take advantage of CUDA for my work in Premiere and Cinema4D. Therefore I am about to purchase the Quadro 4000.
    The thing is that I do sometimes play games. So that how is the Quadro 4000 (which I know is not a gaming CPU) compare to the 5770 in gaming performance?
    Maybe it would be better to wait for new GPUs? Makes sense for me only if there will be new Nvidias again.
     
  2. The-Pro macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Location:
    Germany
    #2
    the Quadro 4000 should be have better gaming performance than the 5770, especially due to the 2GB GDDR5, but not all games can take advantage of that. Thing is because its from the quadro series you are paying a premium for it being a workstation graphics card, compared to a gaming card. I have informed myself a fair amount of how the performance differs between workstation and gaming cards, the difference is apparently only noticeable with certain tasks in certain applications. You can research that yourself, I dont have the links anymore :D
    I also read that mostly the gaming cards are quicker for a significantly cheaper price. So if you are up for it you can install something like a GTX 570 in your Mac Pro. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1269074
    There is another thread somewhere, a huge one. On instructions. "Cindori" on this forum, is the one who knows it all! :)

    According to latest rumours the new GPU's offically supported in the Mac Pro will be the the Radeon 7950/7970. So no one knows if nVidia will be available again, maybe another quadro version. No idea.
     
  3. Gonk42 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    near Cambridge
    #3
    CUDA is specific to Nvidia cards so will only run on the Quadro but I think the 5770 supports openCL so you should check with Adobe as to what acceleration is available with each.

    For games the 5770 is probably quicker than the Quadro and a lot cheaper but the Quadro should be more robust - it is more conservatively designed for continuous use such as rendering. The Quadro also has better double precision performance but I have no idea if this is used by Premiere or Cinema4D.

    Workstation cards such as the Quadro are very expensive but the price is not fully reflected in the hardware - much of the extra cost is for software drivers to give good performance in workstation applications, but if you're not using CAD you may be paying a lot for something that you're not going to make full use of.
     
  4. Neodym macrumors 65816

    Neodym

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2002
    #4
    If you need the card for your _work_ it is no question whether to wait or not.

    You need it - you buy it, simple as that!

    Usually workstation-class cards have a weaker hardware for gaming - they excel in specific non-gaming applications because they are optimized towards those scenarios. And they offer certified drivers, which is one of the key features you pay the premium for (well, at least in the Windows world - don't know whether that applies to the Mac as well).

    Get the card, make tests with the games you're interested in and decide, if you need the gaming performance of the 5770 or not. If you do, get yourself a PSU for the second optical bay and keep both cards - the Quadro for work and the 5770 for gaming. That's one of the advantages of the MacPro after all - you can add even graphic cards internally and have a far wider choice than on the closed systems iMac and mini...
     
  5. wonderspark macrumors 68030

    wonderspark

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Location:
    Oregon
    #5
    I got a GTX285 for Mac (CUDA card) thinking it was going to be amazing, but ended up going back to the 5870 for daily use of Premiere and After Effects CS5. The hardware acceleration doesn't apply to everything, and left me feeling quite 'meh' overall. It also had these occasional glitches, such as the screen going into full snow/static now and then. I'd have to power cycle the monitor to make it work again.

    The 5870 plays all my full HD footage with three layers and effects smoothly in real-time, but I also added 32GB of RAM and my media is on a very fast RAID. It even plays games better than the GTX285. I had Steam Counter-strike with all settings maxed and it was at 60fps during intense battles with smoke and 16 players on screen at once.

    I should sell the nVidia card, actually. It's wasted on me.
     
  6. Honbe thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    #6

    Hmm, this is interesting. I know where a workstation card like Quadro will bring a significant performance increase (3D apps, etc.), but I've thought the CUDA for Premiere and AE will work better than you say it does.
     
  7. The-Pro macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Location:
    Germany
    #7
    To run both the 5770 and the quadro 4000 you wont need an extra PSU as each GPU only requires one auxiliary power cable. So you can run both at the same time.
     
  8. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #8
    first, unlike what someone else posted, Quadros will not be any good for gaming. the memory is for complex 3D renders and the drivers are not optimized at all for high framerates.

    second, Mac Quadros have always sucked. the 4000 sucks less, but it's still a poor product. if you use it on Windows, it'll be fine, but don't expect good performance or even stability in OS X. go with a GeForce or 5870 instead. the GTX 285 was the last NVidia card released for Mac, so either get that or do some modding to use 4xx or 5xx cards if you want NVidia.

    Quadro 4000 review: http://arstechnica.com/apple/review...idias-sole-mac-offering-a-promising-start.ars
     
  9. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #9
    Part of it is they have a lot less driver freedom in OSX.
     
  10. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #10
    And Apples OpenGL implementation sucks totally. Almost as bad as Java. Used to be alright and even a source of pride.
     
  11. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #11
    This is likely the result of drivers (nVidia drivers for OS X tend to leave a lot to be desired...). Just dig around MR and/or follow up with Mac versions of nVidia cards (i.e. any GTX285 and Quadro 4000 reviews that exist for OS X), and see for yourself.
     
  12. BigJohno macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #12
    I have both a Quadro and 5770 in my machine. I have been going back and forth with having my 27" connected as my main display with the Quadro. I ended up using the 5770 for my main display and the second with the Quadro. I see worse performance with Quadro on the mac side. There are slight 1 -2 second glitches sometimes. Opening the launch pad is laggy.

    Counter strike doesn't even work when i have both card attached. I have to disconnect 1 monitor then run the game, change all the settings to high then back plug the other monitor in.

    I will however be using solid works in the next few weeks so I am going to see if I can see any difference between the Quadro and 5770. Im on the fence with just getting another 5770 and running crossfire in windows.

    Also the Quadro is really loud. I can hear the fan over 4 hard drives and the other fans in the pro even when I am not pushing the card. I kind of see it as a waste for my needs.

    I originally bought the card to use in sketchbook pro thinking it would solve my brush lag. It didn't at full res with my 27". I now just resize the window to about half my monitor and use the 5770 and it works great.
     
  13. Litework22 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Location:
    PDX
    #13
    5770 PLUS quadro 4000?

    Over the past year I put together a workstation for editing, originally intent on FCP. ...That didn't work out so well:eek: So I was left to find software that would work with the hardware package I'd put together, of which there was one: Premiere. Fortunately I like it. And I'm happy with the screen real estate I have -- a 30" ACD flanked by a pair of 2007 Dells in portrait -- as the CS5.5 panels detach so I can spread across three screens; love to keep it like this if I can.

    I don't do any gaming on the mac pro and I don't run apps outside the Adobe suite except Dragon Dictate for Mac and Screenwriter. No windows OS/apps. I have a 5,1 hex with a 5770. I don't have the Quadro 4k for mac YET. First I'd like to know if I can I keep my 5770 in the #1 slot running things as described above, and install the nvidia card in the #2 slot and use it strictly to drive Premiere's Mercury Playback Engine in what I believe is called a 'headless configuration'? From what I've read Premiere is about all the Q4k is good for.:rolleyes:

    I've stayed with OSX 10.6.7 (due to RAID considerations), which means I'll have to load Nvidia drivers before installing the Q4k, right? I haven't gone to lion as I have an Areca 1880x card in slot 4 with 16TB(8x2TB Hitachi 7K3000 6Gb), in a 6G Expander cineRAID box in RAID60. In slot 3 is the KONA 3g card with I/O via the KONA break out box; the box includes an HDMI out so perhaps I can get a program monitor feed out of that one?

    It's not mission critical yet as I'm still working through a couple of 300 page Premiere Tutorials :eek: but will soon be capturing 20+ hours of film. I've got OS and apps on an Intel 320 160GB SSD in the lower OD bay. For scratch a pair of 500GB Scorpio Blacks in RAID 0 in a Raidon Pro Drive mounted in the #3 HDD bay. It's all on an APC S15 conditioner/UPS. Only one last item -- I hope -- upgrading 6GB RAM to 32 or 48GB...? But that's another thread.

    ps. This is my first post. I've learned a lot from you guys over the last couple of years. Mac Rumors and this thread have been my morning paper and the evening news. I've spent the last 10 months putting this rascal together and I need to thank all of you. I could easily attach several names to every piece of gear I have (yes, I got the APC at Vann's!). And I'd mention Nanofrog by name but he's already notorious...I mean famous :p:eek::D
     
  14. wonderspark, Dec 10, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2011

    wonderspark macrumors 68030

    wonderspark

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Location:
    Oregon
    #14
    I have 10.6.8 and my Areca 1880ix-12 is very happy. I think it's safe to update, but I also understand the concept of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

    I find it interesting you have an x8 lane Areca card in an x4 lane PCI slot. What are your sustained read/write speeds like that? I suppose since PCI 2.0 supports 500MB/sec speeds per lane would mean you could still see 2000MB/second on x4, so it shouldn't matter until you hook a bigger/more boxes to it. I have a single 5870, so my Areca is in slot 2 with nothing better to stick there.

    The move from 16GB to 32GB of RAM helped me a lot for editing 2 hour movies shot on DSLR. (I'm using CS5, myself.) There is about 100+ hours of footage and sound to play with. :)

    Welcome, and I look forward to your contributions!

    I'm visiting cousins just south of Portland this holiday season. PDX refers to Portland, does it not? (Airport code)
     
  15. The-Pro macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Location:
    Germany
    #15
    Yes you could. both require one power cable so it will work.
     
  16. Litework22 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Location:
    PDX
    #16
    '5770 OR Quadro 4000?'

    I put the card in slot four as that was the instruction: "Slot4 is recommend to obtain the maxium performance for MAC PRO systems", (copied/pasted from page 2 of the EditPro 8x Manual). CineRAID loaded the box and burned in the array for me and shipped it up from L.A., I merely had to plug it in. I know slots 3 & 4 are x4 lane and 1 & 2 are X16 but I didn't know enough about what that means to realize that they dyslexed the slot numbers in the manual until you pointed it out. Thank you! I'm actually in over my head.:eek: I've approached this project with much trepidation...I'm a fugitive from a hot set and have a loooong overdue film project that needs finishing, so I'm building a system to do it.:eek: As far as the sustained read/write speeds I'll have to learn how to ascertain that once the system is up and running and I'M fully operational.

    Still on the thread's topic I hope. I've got the 5770 in slot 1 and considering the Quadro for slot 2. But now I realize I should put the Areca card in slot 2 if I'm to realize it's full potential, right? And if I want to do that I'm in the same boat as the OP -- albeit for different reasons -- and need to choose: '5770 OR Quadro 4000?'

    So could I live without the Quadro's CUDA benefit for Premiere if I beef up the RAM as you did? Perhaps 3x16GB RAM sticks? It certainly APPEARS that the Quadro 4000 has been a problem child full of glitches for everyone that's tried it in a Mac Pro. As mentioned, I really want to keep the three monitor configuration afforded by the 5770 anyway, and not having the Quadro would give me slot 2 for the Areca card...?

    Thanks The-Pro. So on the other hand, if I become convinced of the uber viability of the Quadro 4000 for Premiere, I could use it in a 'headless' configuration and feed the monitors from the 5770. That would mean leaving the areca card in slot 4 at reduced performance but, according to Wonderspark, I'd still see 2000 Mb/second. Is that still pretty good :confused:

    Thanks Wonderspark! Sorry my response was slow in coming, I had to find time to learn out how to grab/format the quotes (and find the CineRAID manual - the instruction didn't come from Areca). Yes, I'm in Portland. And enjoy your stay in PDX! happy holidays!!! :)
     
  17. Xenophyte macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2011
    #17
    Quadro: worth it for Premiere?

    :confused: Can anyone running a Quadro with Premiere and AE please chime in? I'm about to drop a hunk of cash for a Quadro in hopes that it will speed my workflow.
    Handbrake --> Premiere --> AE.

    I do a lot of resizing (from 1080p to 720p) from camera footage, and had been reading in an Adobe forums thread that CUDA "should" help with resizing jobs in Adobe Media Encoder. If this is NOT true, perhaps my money is better spent (scrimping and saving) to get a completely new dual-Xeon Mac Pro and trying to sell this one? Or I could just upgrade this one to a hex-core, I see the processors online for $1100 for a 3.46ghz Westmere Xeon.

    It sounds like people are pretty unhappy with the Quadro and Adobe suite on Mac - any real-world experience appreciated.

    Thanks!

    ---
    Mac Pro 5,1 2.8ghz quad-Xeon, 16GB RAM, OWC 240GB 6G as system drive, OWC 12TB ESATA RAID5

    ----------

    I have 16 and it seems like Premiere is not even using all of it when I'm working with 4GB clips totaling 20GB or more. Are you saying you're looking through 100 hours of footage to produce a 2 hour movie?
     
  18. gullySn0wCat macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    #18
    It "should" be faster, but between the horrendous price tag and poor Mac drivers, I wouldn't expect to be blown away.
     
  19. Xenophyte macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2011
    #19
    On the fence, bad reviews about this card - back to PC?

    Thanks gullySnowCat.

    I'm definitely on the fence... and starting to question my decision :confused: a year ago to come back to the Mac platform after many years away. My reasoning was that I have been frustrated by driver hell in PC-land, even though I'm tech-savvy and have built 5 PCs, I don't have time to waste fighting with driver problems.

    Bad reviews about the Quadro 4000 here on Apple store, they seem mostly driver-related and got a little better with Lion but now it sounds like a mixed bag.
    http://store.apple.com/us/reviews/H3314LL/A
    A few people seem to be running Adobe Premiere and AE without problems, but are they the minority? One guy says DON'T update the Cuda drivers???!! Sheesh, this sounds like a potential nightmare. :eek:

    Should I go back to a PC build? I just need a fast, stable workstation for Adobe products, gah! :mad:
     
  20. wonderspark, Dec 12, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2011

    wonderspark macrumors 68030

    wonderspark

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Location:
    Oregon
    #20
    Well, the Areca card in slot #4 (x4 lane) will be fine unless you add a lot more disks to the RAID set, so you can leave it there.

    Since you really want three monitors, I'd consider the Quadro card or another 5770 for slot #2. I got that GTX285 thinking it was going to be amazing, and I wasn't impressed, so I stuck the 5870 back in. It works great.
    The 3.46GHz (W3690) hex chips are still just over $1000, but I just swapped in the 3.33GHz hex (W3680) for $587 from Provantage.com. Seemed like a better deal. It still turbos up to 3.6GHz instead of 3.73GHz... so close for almost half, you know?

    I think it only seems like 100 hours, haha! :p Probably closer to 20 hours, based on 500GB of raw footage. I need to stop staying up all night! Anyway, I was happy with 16GB up until this project. I did three things total to improve the system: 1) 32GB RAM up from 16GB, 2) 3.33GHz Hex up from 3.33GHz Quad, and 3) rebuilt my RAID3 into a RAID6, where sustained read/write went from 700/760MB per sec to 714/816MB per sec. All together it means smooth sailing again.
     
  21. Xenophyte macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2011
    #21
    Thanks, very helpful! I may go with the 3.33ghz Hex as that does seem best bang for the buck with my single-proc Mac Pro. Any idea when or for how long Macs can sustain the turbo? When I'm crunching on a project I keep the Xeon chewing on files all night so it is pretty maxed out.

    ----------

    I just noticed one of the guys with a positive review on that Apple store thread is talking about his original review and Mudbox, saying the Quadro card is rock solid with Lion now, he is clearly the Arstechnica reviewer who did a very in-depth review when the card was released, so I am putting a lot more weight on his review. I don't know about the guy who is saying don't update the CUDA drivers, I wish he would post more info.
     
  22. Litework22 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Location:
    PDX
    #22
    +1 I recently loaded CS5.5 and will wait for the Q4000 drivers/feedback to improve -- or for another card altogether -- and just keep the 5770 in slot #1 for now and keep #2 open in hopes of CUDA acceleration for Premiere, (or move that ARECA 1880x into that slot?). Wish us luck eh?
     
  23. Litework22 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Location:
    PDX
    #23
    So...as I wait on a CUDA card I'm going to up RAM to 32GB as Wonderspark did. OR, would I get worthwhile gains in Premiere by upping it to 48GB (3x16GB from Superbiz is currently ~$540.00), and just forget the Quadro?
    I have the 5,1 hex for a film editing workstation - no 3D or rocket science.
     
  24. Xenophyte macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2011
    #24
    Are you noticing your RAM is usually maxed out? For me the bottleneck seems to be squarely the processor on rendering/resizing output... but I have the quad-core and 16GB of 1066mhz RAM. I'm wondering if I upgrade to the Hex-core which I see supports 1333mhz RAM, and swap out all my memory for faster, perhaps that would make a significant difference?

    I'm still hoping to hear of any real-world Premiere Pro resize/render (export) gains with the Quadro. Anyone? Bueller?

    ----------

    Can you share a link on that RAM? I can't find 16GB modules. All I found for hex-core 5,1 is:
    http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other World Computing/1333D3X8M32K/

    ----------

    Interesting article on Mac Pro RAM configurations:
    http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-OWC-16GB-MacPro-ClockSpeed.html
    "The Mac Pro motherboard downclocks 1333MHz memory to 1066 MHz when installing three 16GB modules. " ?? I guess I should hang on to my 1066 modules :\
     
  25. wonderspark macrumors 68030

    wonderspark

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Location:
    Oregon
    #25
    Actually, I suspect that the CPU is not using turbo much with Premiere or After Effects. The reason being that the CPU only uses turbo on less than 12 threads. If you look closely at Intel's specs, the W3680 will go to 3.6 (multiplier of 2) if only one or two cores are used. If 3,4,5 or 6 cores are used, the multiplier is 1, and the clock is 3.46. If *all* cores *and* threads are used, such as Adobe CS5 uses (mine "sees" 12 processors) then the multiplier is the standard of 133MHz x25 = 3.33GHz.

    Long story short, it runs 12 processes at 3.33GHz, and when it starts crunching hard renders, the Mac Pro fans keep the temps down no matter how long it runs.

    I have a program called Fan Control that lowers the stock fan speed to 500rpm intake/800rpm boost, and then quickly ramp the fans to max at 140F. The W3680 CPU normally hangs around 106F in my warm office at 80F. Ambient sensor reads 84F right now, for example. The fans are set to begin ramping at 111F, and the only time the CPU gets above 111F is during a render, so the fans are usually at their minimum speed. Hope that answers that question.

    I noticed that the 16GBx3 RAM modules will downclock to 1066 as well. My 8GBx4 runs at 1333MHz.

    Also, when I had 16GB 1066, it was almost always using it all, and I was getting page outs when I started editing DSLR footage (1920x1080 from Canon 5DMkII). Now that I have 32GB of 1333, I don't get page outs, and I don't use it all... only about 26GB or so. Maybe 24GB would be closer to a "perfect match," but I'd rather have more RAM than find out 24 is just slightly not enough.
     

Share This Page