Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

NVIDIA Launches Quadro 4000 for Mac pro 2008, 2009 and 2010

I'm very excited about this card... I was hoping to get two for use in a multipurpose Resolve system. I'll be using other software that takes advantage of the GPU... not just Resolve, so having two cards makes sense.

The downside is that it has a single port, about the size of a S-video connector taking up another PCI bracket.

Without that bracket its a single slot solution.

I'm hoping that its optional and can be removed/not installed.

Aside from that caveat the card looks fantastic.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
I'm very excited about this card... I was hoping to get two for use in a multipurpose Resolve system. I'll be using other software that takes advantage of the GPU... not just Resolve, so having two cards makes sense.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to what software would support dual GPUs on the Mac? You will also need to pull additional power, like from a spare drive connector in the lower optical bay, and using a special adapter, to run two of these.

The additional port you speak of is a genlock connector. It is optional, not needed unless you want to sync display output from the system to cameras or other monitors or you want to connect 3D shutter glasses.

I'm kinda interested in benchmarks, but have to say the Quadro 4000 doesn't interest me much. It's nothing special over in the Windows/Linux world and with the GTX 285 Mac edition going for around $200 on ebay, I'm really wondering if there's any real logic to spending $1200 on a card that sells for $775 in Windows land and only beats the 285 by 15% in most CUDA tests...

Too bad they didn't offer the Quadro 5000 instead. Unfortunately, I don't think they could come up with the power to run it without forcing Mac users to creatively mod their systems -- something most of the Mac community is very oblivious of and resistant to do.

...Why they couldn't give us the GTX 480 has me quite perplexed. All the Mac Pro GPU offerings, with the exception of the 4000, are over a year old. All other nVidia offerings are over 2 years old. And it's not just Apple to blame here. It's a catch-22 situation that has been going on for years. The blame lies just as much with nVidia and ATI as it does with Apple. I'm still confused as to how one or the other video card maker hasn't stepped up to the plate to offer a full line of Mac products in an attempt to corner the Apple market... But whatever...
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
I'm really wondering if there's any real logic to spending $1200 on a card that sells for $775 in Windows land and only beats the 285 by 15% in most CUDA tests...
Click to expand...

Minus the Apple driver performance tax...
 
Stacey Spears said:
The Quadro cards run at a lower clock speed compared to their GTX counterparts. This is done to increase the life from 5 year to 10 year.
Click to expand...

Why would they even??
In 5 years the graphics chip in my phone will kick this card's ass never mind 10.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
I'm curious as to what software would support dual GPUs on the Mac?
Click to expand...

Resolve requires a dedicated GPU card for its own use, and a second card for running the GUI. The GPU card used for Resolve must not have monitors plugged into it, based on the Resolve configuration guide.

If you have a machine configured for Resolve, and wish to use another GPU accelerated application like the CS5 suite, motion, Storm, 3D OpenGL apps or anything else that might turn up you need two high powered cards.

The Quadro 4000 is a single slot card. The GTX 285 and older Quadro 4800 use up two slots if I recall correctly.

I agree I'd love to see a GTX 480 card for the Mac, but again its a double wide card. I think EVGA managed to make a GTX470 that is a single slot... but I'm not clear on that.

As far as the price, the card is a new release, and the Mac market, thanks to Apple's stupidity, is very very small for graphics cards. So, if you want or need OS X you will pay a premium for some things... and graphics cards head the list.

So, if Resolve comes to Windows at a price competitive with the OS X version... I may just build a dedicated Resolve computer. Honestly I prefer OS X, but I have more GPU options on Windows.

Since my non OS X options start at $40000 I won't complain about dropping an extra $500 for a video card that gets me the results I want.
 
IAN SUN said:
Why would they even??
In 5 years the graphics chip in my phone will kick this card's ass never mind 10.
Click to expand...

Well, I know of a lot of places that get stuck with old hardware. You should see the ancient crud you can find at government facilities.

Heck I still have a terribly outdated dual G5 2.7 I am typing this on.

So... its nice to have reliable hardware that can stick around for a while.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
Resolve requires a dedicated GPU card for its own use, and a second card for running the GUI. The GPU card used for Resolve must not have monitors plugged into it, based on the Resolve configuration guide.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you were talking about using two Quadro cards..? I was wondering which apps would actually justify such a purchase on the Mac. I know of none.

If you have a machine configured for Resolve, and wish to use another GPU accelerated application like the CS5 suite, motion, Storm, 3D OpenGL apps or anything else that might turn up you need two high powered cards.
Click to expand...

No you don't. You connect your primary display(s) to the more powerful GPU card and leave a third monitor or "tools" monitor connected to the lower powered card (GT120, GT160, etc..). When you run resolve, just power off the two primary displays. Or instead of that solution, use a switch to direct the display source from one card to another on the same monitor. If you're using the more recent model Dell, HP, Eizo, etc.. displays, most have multiple inputs anyway. Installing a second Quadro card for $$$ extra vs. a $100 video card and another $100 monitor or DVI-DL switch, seems a bit, uh, strange.

The Quadro 4000 is a single slot card. The GTX 285 and older Quadro 4800 use up two slots if I recall correctly.
Click to expand...

Those two cards are indeed a 2X form-factor. Acutally, there are single-slot variants of the 285 out there, but most require liquid cooling or other heat-pipe mods. Same with the 480 -- Just like EVGA is offering their single-slot GTX 580 with water-cooling hook-ups. Double-width cards for the primary PCIe slot on the Mac Pro is not a problem anyway. That slot has a double-width space. Plenty of other ways to run leads from capture cards out of the system without relying on that empty slot space for a slot-filler plate.

As far as the price, the card is a new release, and the Mac market, thanks to Apple's stupidity, is very very small for graphics cards. So, if you want or need OS X you will pay a premium for some things... and graphics cards head the list.
Click to expand...

The video card companies are just as much to blame as Apple. Apple has done little to actually restrict nVidia or ATI from making card offerings for the Mac. The aftermarket offerings from nVidia seem to be increasing a bit lately. Perhaps we'll see some more offerings soon. Actually I do know of one other nVidia Mac edition card in the pipeline, but I can't say more than that. I'm just hoping it does come to market with the next Mac Pro revision.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Yes, but you were talking about using two Quadro cards..? I was wondering which apps would actually justify such a purchase on the Mac. I know of none.
Click to expand...

Storm, Motion, Adobe CS5... others will turn up I'm sure.

No you don't. You connect your primary display(s) to the more powerful GPU card and leave a third monitor or "tools" monitor connected to the lower powered card (GT120, GT160, etc..). When you run resolve, just power off the two primary displays. Or instead of that solution, use a switch to direct the display source from one card to another on the same monitor. If you're using the more recent model Dell, HP, Eizo, etc.. displays, most have multiple inputs anyway. Installing a second Quadro card for $$$ extra vs. a $100 video card and another $100 monitor or DVI-DL switch, seems a bit, uh, strange.
Click to expand...

I plan on being able to use the various other applications and Resolve interactively.

So... I might be coloring something, then realize it would be smarter to alter the source a bit where I created it.

Alt-Tab into After Effects CS5, make a couple of changes, use the Quadro for rendering, and back to Resolve resynch the media and back to coloring.

You are right though... if you don't plan on your workflow being that multi application interactive then you can make do with some of the arrangements you mentioned.

Even if that was the case though, if I am sitting with a client it doesn't look right to have to start rewiring your computer to keep working. That may be cool for Anakin's pod race (highly debatable) but its definitely uncool for me.

What would work better than any of these solutions is more than one machine. I could use an edit system with a Quadro 4000, and a Resolve system with a Quadro 4000 and a GT120. Both machines need a Rocket and a Decklink 3D card, plus monitors. They could interchange files with a LAN or other shared storage- but THAT is out of my budget.

Two Quadro cards suddenly look quite affordable by comparison.

Those two cards are indeed a 2X form-factor. Acutally, there are single-slot variants of the 285 out there, but most require liquid cooling or other heat-pipe mods. Same with the 480 -- Just like EVGA is offering their single-slot GTX 580 with water-cooling hook-ups. Double-width cards for the primary PCIe slot on the Mac Pro is not a problem anyway. That slot has a double-width space. Plenty of other ways to run leads from capture cards out of the system without relying on that empty slot space for a slot-filler plate.
Click to expand...

Its not about two Quadro 4000's.

For my work computer I want all the components to be supported OS X compatible parts. I don't want a hacked video card. So assuming that constraint...

Its more about populating slot 1, which Resolve requires for its "GPU" card, with the fastest available CUDA card for Mac... that's a Quadro 4000. If nVidia made a Quadro 6000, that would be better.

When I am feeling budget challenged, I could go for a GTX580 in a supported Mac version

And its about filling slot 2 with a GTX285 or faster video card for general production use. That has to be single slot... so again today that means a Quadro 4000.

I know they could engineer a GTX 580 or 480 into a single slot... but that does not exist in a supported OS X version. A GT 430 would be a simple enough product, but its too slow.

The video card companies are just as much to blame as Apple. Apple has done little to actually restrict nVidia or ATI from making card offerings for the Mac. The aftermarket offerings from nVidia seem to be increasing a bit lately. Perhaps we'll see some more offerings soon. Actually I do know of one other nVidia Mac edition card in the pipeline, but I can't say more than that. I'm just hoping it does come to market with the next Mac Pro revision.
Click to expand...

The reason the market is so tight for OS X video cards is because its so damn small.

The only Mac that can handle a PCIe video card is the Mac Pro, and that group of models is a fraction of Mac sales, Mac sales themselves being at most 10% of the market. (I think its really 6%)

Its hard to make a special piece of hardware for a tiny segment and profit. Doubly hard if that segment is accustomed to quality engineering.

The reason its Apple's fault is because they won't make what many of their customers ask for and would pay good money to use: a mid range Mac tower.

Its stupid because its a money maker. Even if they made a plastic Mac Pro based on Intel's Core i series and sold it for a premium over competitive Windows PC's it would sell like hotcakes. Once a number of these got ino the market the market for Mac peripherals would grow. That helps "mythical mid range mac" customers and Mac Pro customers.

The fact is I can think of a dozen ways they can innovate in their Mac Pro and this mythical mid range mac lineup to push computing forward and justify Apple's traditionally high margins- features I believe many would pay for.
 
Apple should make a Mac PRO Tower worthy of the name and price it accordingly - if the performance is there, the ROI for people who do professional work shouldn't be an issue even if they charge $5,000.

Then put a Light Peak/USB3 or other fast port(s) on the iMac and MBP laptops for the mid-range crowd and Bob's your uncle.

Just sayin'

Cheers - #19
 
@ Alexander,

I totally agree on the mid-range Mac system. The gap between the iMac and Mac Pro is quite huge. Unfortunately, I think if they did offer such a system, they could shoot the Mac Pro in the foot... 90% of the people who buy the Mac Pro now don't actually need a dual Xeon architecture and would be served just fine by a single 4 or 6 core i7 CPU. Anyway, it's something many of us have been hoping will happen for quite a long while now.

I completely understand where you're coming from on the dual quadros if you want to fulfill the need for multiple applications on the same workstation. Let's face it, we all work that way now and adding an app like Resolve really disrupts the whole flow on a workstation like this.

Price-wise, going with two Quadro4000 cards isn't too prohibitive. I'm still betting there's a good chance a non-EFI PC version would work just fine as the accelerator GPU for Resolve. I've seen a few reports of them working in Hackintosh systems and I would try it myself today if I had Resolve here. I'll be setting up Resolve here sometime early next year. There still is the power issue though -- We can power one card just fine, but will have to pull additional power elsewhere. In most situations, that's going to mean from the lower optical bay or from an external source.

The biggest issue I'm having with setting up a Resolve system is that for R3D footage, it's making more and more sense to have dual Rocket cards in the system along with the two video cards for Resolve, a proper capture/monitoring card otherwise what's the point of doing color work... Need a good RAID controller... So that's 6 PCIe cards and 4 slots. None of the current PCIe expanders seem to be compatible with the ATTO 6Gbps RAID cards and a few other cards. You can get away with two Rockets in an X16 v2 expander along with a GT1x0 video card just fine. But you can't effectively run dual Rockets in there with a Quadro or a performance RAID card.

I may just hold off and see what the next version of the Mac Pro does bring us.

The next revision of the Mac Pro will be based on the Sandy Bridge architecture, which has already been confirmed by Intel (as of last month) to incorporate USB3. Same with the next revision of the iMac and forthcoming mobile chipsets. Intel is rolling USB3.0 into all their forthcoming chipsets across the board. There is still no official word on LightPeak... It's probably still a ways off, but I bet we still see it before the end of 2011.
 
FYI.
We ordered this card last week.
I was just told that Nvidia is holding off till next week for release.
They claim that their having issues with the card.
 
So far, so....

So far, so....

Ive had this card running for weeks now.
It was a pain to add it into my Gefen 2X2 DVIDL Switcher due to the cards Display Port/DVI option. Had to get some extra cables to work. Its a bit buggy but works most of the time.
The issue so far is the Grey Screen of Hate (Death seemed to bleek at this time of year). Itll come up daily after long use. Cant really say what causes it but the Apple report points to the card.
So far so...oh well it hasnt killed the Mac Pro yet :)

Happy Holidays!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top