So is the D300 decent?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by wesk702, Jan 6, 2014.

  1. wesk702 macrumors 68000

    wesk702

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Location:
    The hood
    #1
    Ordered the 6core|12gb|1TB|D300

    So are the D300s a bad, average, or good gpu set compared to other cards?
     
  2. deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #2
    For what software usage? If running MS Word sure it is decent. If trying to rotate a 45M polygon 3D model with complicated/subtle textures then maybe not.
     
  3. wildmac macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    #3
    But if you are using LR, PS, other Adobe CC, the D300 looks to be just fine right now, unless we get some other benchmarks showing otherwise.

    Or to put it another way, no one has show yet any real gains of the D500 over the D300... and potentially some losses right now.

    So...
     
  4. Enrico macrumors 6502

    Enrico

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Location:
    Milano / Roma
    #4
    Looking to order your setup for photography/Aperture, but wondering if 16GB ram and D500 could make a difference in a few years....
     
  5. keigo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    #5
    ram no issue, you cold always self upgrade down the road.

    D500 is more for computation rather then graphic. So for photography point of view D300/D500 is almost the same.

    I could still run my raw photo taken on my Nikon D3 using HD3000 after using it for 3 years and I don't see any question how D300 could not last longer
     
  6. wildmac macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    #6
    With current pricing, you save at bit at 32G going 3rd party with RAM, but not a lot.

    Unless we see some benchmarks that the D500 magically assist Lightroom, the D300 should be fine. And the D700 is way overkill, again, unless we see some new tests showing the latest Adobe apps taking advantage.
     
  7. ybz90 macrumors 6502a

    ybz90

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    #7
    For most things now, but it's not future proof at all, and it's actually already outdated. Get the D500, which is midrange, and if you can, the D700, which is pretty good (~7970).
     
  8. wildmac macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    #8
    What gain does the D500 offer? More computational math capabilities, and lower graphics benchmark scores sofar?

    Yet to see any evidence that the D500 isn't underwhelming for the price, with no discernible difference to the D300 for non-hardcore-rendering.

    D700 might be an option, but that is a $1,000 upgrade over the D300.

    Scroll down to the bottom of http://www.barefeats.com/tube04.html and look at the comparisons. Each benchmark a different card shines and fails.

    We need real world app testing.
     
  9. macpro2000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    #9
    This is crazy. For sure I'm waiting to see the final verdict on this 300 vs 500 before I order my 6 core. Sounds like people are waiting for BareFeats. I'll use that money toward a 1TB SSD if the 500 is virtually the same thing or less in performance.
     
  10. td2243 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2013
    Location:
    Santa Fe, NM
    #10
    Interesting thread. If I'm going to be editing HD video along with Logic and LR, are you guys saying the D500 isn't any better. Just when I thought I had my mind made up.....
     
  11. CH12671 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Location:
    Southern US
    #11
    Wouldn't the extra 2 gigs of vRAM (1 gig each) make a difference? I'm under the same conundrum. But I'm not ordering until March or April, so I still have time to let you guys figure this one out....:D
     
  12. VirtualRain, Jan 6, 2014
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2014

    VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #12
    They way I look at it, they share one thing in common and a few differences... whether any of these matter, is going to be unique to each person/situation:

    1. They both have very similar OpenGL performance
    2. They both have very similar OpenCL performance
    3. The D500s have 1GB more VRAM each
    4. The D500s have 4x the Double-precision performance
    5. The D500s costs $400 more

    Edit: Changed #2 to similar performance.
     
  13. krell100 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #13
    Same boat here, was thinking of going 6 core/12Gb/512/D500 but if the D500 adds nothing to Adobe (CS6) and Audio apps (Cubase, Logic, NI) then I'll save myself the AU$650.

    Plenty of D500 vs D700 info here but nothing on the D300…?
     
  14. td2243 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2013
    Location:
    Santa Fe, NM
    #14

    Which applies to what type programs exactly?


    Which only FCPX takes advantage of, correct?



    Which would help video editing..... IF the program was taking advantage of openCL. Otherwise no difference?


    No idea what this means. Or when that would be better.

    Please excuse my ignorance, but you are definitely helping me out. :eek:
     
  15. ybz90 macrumors 6502a

    ybz90

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    #15
    I agree, synthetic benchmarks alone are misleading without real word tests. Meanwhile, specs don't lie, the D300 is already basically outdated. It's just not that great of a card, period. If nothing else, the extra VRAM can potentially be hugely important, especially if the OP moves toward higher resolution displays in the future. The D500 upgrade is probably also not a great value based on how it compares to consumer cards in the decidedly mid-range area, but I was just responding to the OP's query on the D300 and in my opinion, it's not very good.
     
  16. td2243 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2013
    Location:
    Santa Fe, NM
    #16

    Why do you say this? I'm not arguing I'm asking. :). If the D300 and D500 are giving same results, does that mean both of those are outdated?


    That seems like it would make sense.
     
  17. ybz90 macrumors 6502a

    ybz90

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    #17
    The D300 is supposedly on par with a down-clocked 7870, likely to improve the thermals.
     
  18. CH12671 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Location:
    Southern US
    #18
    We're talking 360 US dollars here...so I'm not concerned about the added cost...I just hate to buy "up" and it actually slows the system down. I will be doing quite a bit of fcp stuff. Mainly 1080p, but diving into 4k once we get cameras. I'd go d700's, but that's a jump that does concern me financially. I could wait another month or two and make the financial commitment, but I'm still not convinced I'll see much difference....
     
  19. FredT2 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    #19
    Hmm, I missed that. Where did you see that difference? Bare Feats has something like a 4% difference, unless I misread something.
     
  20. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #20
    I was looking at the results browser on LuxMark where a few D300 results had been posted with scores around ~1500 - but I was probably misinterpreting something. I would go with Barefeats results, in which case, they are very similar in that regard as well.

    Edit: I edited my post above to reflect this. (Thanks!)
     
  21. wildmac macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    #21
    So both the D300 and the D500 are crap? :eek::rolleyes:

    Perhaps the case. Let's face it, Apple has never been good about putting good cards in it's workstations.

    But the real question is, what are the strengths of these cards, application wise, and in what cases are people actually going to gimp themselves because the cards underperform?

    Also, how much, if any of this, can be fixed with updated drivers?

    And really, what other options does the prosumer doing Adobe CC and some light gaming have? $1000 for the D700 is overkill, and still potentially limiting unless you are doing major 3D or video work. D500 doesn't seem to add any value.

    Sadly, we are stuck waiting for Barefeats to do some real world app testing.
     
  22. FredT2 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    #22
    How much VRAM is needed to run 4K displays? Would the D300s be able to run two of them?
     
  23. Dranix macrumors 6502a

    Dranix

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    Gelnhausen, Germany
    #23
    A 4K Screenbuffer needs 32 MB. Any card with fast enough outputs can deliver it.
     
  24. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #24
    If you're doing just regular 2D desktop work, yeah, the D300 is plenty capable.

    However, early tests of any 3D gaming on 4K has shown that 2GB creates issues and 3-4GB of VRAM is much better on 4K. This may be telling about how much VRAM would be needed for professional 3D work on 4K as well. IMHO, It would seem like a no-brainer to go for the D500's added 1GB of VRAM if you plan to use 4K displays... it's a $400 option.
     
  25. td2243 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2013
    Location:
    Santa Fe, NM
    #25

    Is it also safe to say that when other software companies 'revamp' their programs for opencl, that the D500 will be more noticeable? Right now, only FCPX makes use of this, correct?
     

Share This Page