Not True at all! I have 3 video cards in my MacPro a ATI as my display driver and two Quadro 6000's to handle rendering and CUDA chores.Originally Posted by Preston
Not True at all! I have 3 video cards in my MacPro a ATI as my display driver and two Quadro 6000's to handle rendering and CUDA chores.
The Mac Pro (desktop) I bought is still under AppleCare for another year. I just ran into a great deal, that I could not pass up. WAY overkill for what I actually need, but the price was great. I read where the Quadro 4000 worked great with CS6. Knew the NEC monitors did best with DP input, looked up Quadro 4000 and saw that it has 2 DP outputs so I saw it as a sign from above that this was for me. Only later to find out that the Mac version only has 1 DP and 1 dual link DVI port. I also found out that the 4000 was mainly for video and 3-D work.
Just a few minutes ago I spoke with someone at Mac Support and he know a lot about the 4000. Basically said I would be better off not using it. Said that for my uses the 5770 would be a better option, the 5770 would be slower in some areas but the 5770 would do more applications than the 4000.
He also said that the 4000 CAN BE USED alone, without the 5770. He also said that generally speaking the 5770 will do everything that the 5870 will do only that it may take a little longer. But the final results would be the same.
He suggested I contact NEC again and ask if they have a recommended video card for Mac.
So now at least I know some valuable info from a reliable source. I'd heard a lot of it before but at the same time I was hearing just the opposite...
So tomorrow I will call NEC again and ask what card do they recom?
Again thanks to everyone, the FORUM again has been a great help. I just pulled out the Quadro 4000, any one want to buy one?
I'll have to think about the RAID
Bill
Yours is a different configuration than what Bill will have. Your rendering and CUDA are using identical cards (bridged, I assume). That's a whole different ball game from what Bill wants to do with his system.
Also I was merely supporting this quote:
--PFrom Adobe - of concern if you use Photoshop: "Multiple video adapters can cause problems with GPU-accelerated or enabled features in Photoshop. It's best to connect two (or more) monitors into one video adapter. If you have to use more than one video adapter, make sure that they are the same make and model. Otherwise, crashes and other problems can occur in Photoshop.
Note: Using more than one video adapter does not enhance Photoshop's performance."
Preston-Columbia CA
"If you want nice fresh oats, you have to pay a fair price. If you can be satisfied with oats that have already been through the horse; that comes a little cheaper."
Preston, and everyone else, I've been working my tail off and ordering cables so that I can try the different configurations that are possible.
I spoke to Nvidia today and they were unsure about the double card set up, they were DEFINITELY sure that the Quarto 4000 by itself would do an unbelievable job on CS6 and the latest Mountain Lion upgrade.
I also called Adobe and the tech support was not helpful at all, they tried but truthfully knew nothing.
I did find what you quoted from the Adobe website.
The Nvidia website had some video clips showing the difference between the 4000 and CS6 and other cards. It was amazing.
Nvidia suggested trying both cards and comparing the difference. Shooting RAW with large files he said that I would be able to see a HUGE difference. Can't argue with that. SO today I will be trying the 4000 by itself for a while and see if I can see a difference.
The RAID if I go that route, I'm thinking can be 4 identical hard drives backed up by Time Machine to an external on a regular basis. Not everything, just the files.
A friend told me to have 3 folders for every shoot. "Original' and 'Working' and 'Final', sounds good to me.
The Quarto 4000 is one of the few cards that can output 10 bit color if you enable OpenGL in Photoshop, and have a monitor that can display 10 bit color and connect via displayport connector. The DVI connector only supports 8 bit color.
Bill, I know you already got your computer, but you may want to start saving up for your next one. At the WWDC today Apple previewed the new Mac Pro. It's a lot more than just another version of the existing Mac Pro with a Thunderbolt port added. Come the fall, if you've squirreled away several thousand extra dollars, you'll be able to get one screamin' machine.
http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/
Of course the machine you bought will still work fine even after they start shipping the new one--as will mine. I made a similar choice to yours about six months ago, knowing that soon there would be a new generation machine, but wanting to get to work now.
But I'm starting to save up anyway. It looks that good.
Paul Stubblebine
serious student
limnidytis, and everyone else, Work keeps getting in the way... not enough time for anything else...
Thus far I tried the 4,000 by itself, worked fine. Now I have the 4000 and the 5770 both installed and have the monitors connected to the mini-DP on the 5770 to the DP on the NEC monitors. Still working fine. I calibrated them and they look fantastic. Is the 4000 doing anything? I do not know.
Question is, does the 5770 output 10 bit color? Simple question, but I can't find the answer. If it does not then the monitors are NOT getting the 10 bit color they need for max performance. I know "If they look good then leave good enough alone..." but since I already have the 2 cards, what is the best way to connect them??? Does 10 bit color have a different name?
The 4000 alone forced me to use it's only 2 outputs a DP and a Dual Link DVI.
I keep talking to people at NEC and Nvidia and MAC... NO ONE can give me a definitive answer as to the best way to connect them. Really disappointing.
So for now I'm leaving them both connected and the displays connected via the 5770. I probably, hell I know, I do not push them hard enough to really see a difference.
Monitors really look great.
Again THANKS everyone for all the help. If I ever come up with a good answer I'll pass it along. limnidytis brings up some of the finer points about the 10 bit color, those are the details that I am striving to set this computer/displays up that it can perform at it's best.
Bill
I keep reading and now I find this, It is a bit dated but had that changed? This says MAC can not provide 10 BIT COLOR.
Any comments?
http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/qu...Output+Support
the graphics subsystem to processor pipelines are all 8 bits as far as I know. The truth is that modern flat screen monitors can't really even QUITE get 8 bits of information properly displayed - practically speaking - but theoretically they can. Older high end CRTs still do a better job at this. So even if you had some absurd super duper graphics processing capability running on the latest cray or whatever - it would be pretty pointless unless you had a monitor capable of resolving 8 bit plus word lengths... not really sure the human eye would even be able to tell the difference though...
It comes up if your monitor doesn't have hardware calibration. If you only have 8 bits to work with, and your ability to control the monitor is strictly through software and through an ICC profile, then every adjustment you make cuts into to those 8 bits. The greater the adjustments you make, the lower the effective available bit depth you''ll have remaining.
Monitors like the Eizos and higher end NECs have their own built-in 10 or 12 bit display engines, which use internal 16 bit lookup tables, allowing adjustments to the monitor output to take place in this expanded resolution space. They give a huge range of adjustment, without any chance of banding or reduced gamut. With these monitors, 8 bit output from the computer is plenty.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks