Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest kittonian

New Graphics Card - Which one for Mac?

Recommended Posts


Guest darby
  • Topic Author
  • Even with flashed EFI you (or someone) may want to dig into the system to modify files that control things like power management and temperature/fan thresholds.

    Or you may be fine installing the alternate graphics drivers that NVIDIA provides. However, when I switch to those on my Mac pro with a 560Ti installed it freezes the entire system.

    Bottom line, which you're probably aware of, is that a card that Apple hasn't included support for in their drivers is going to have more trouble than one that they have.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Ten:

     

    The total cost of ownership of Mac vs PC is hands down on the Mac side. Yes, I understand you get a bit better performance on the Windows side, but for that slight increase you have to deal with massive security holes, constant updates, reboots, registry errors, formatting the drive and re-installing every 6 months, the list goes on. I owned a technology company for many years. We built high end Windows and Linux machines for the government and corporate arenas. From there I went to work at Apple HQ in Cupertino and though I left Apple after a short while I have never had a desire to work on a PC again if I don't have to.

     

    I am the person who pays the bills and investing in anything Microsoft is not in the cards.

     

    StCanas:

     

    It's actually kind of funny because I usually hear the exact opposite argument. Anyone who is on Windows in a design or audio related field gets chastised about not using a Mac.

     

    ----------

     

    Regardless, this discussion needs to refocus onto which video card to get.

     

    I have a similar topic going on at MacRumors and the consensus is between:

     

    GTX 980

    GTX 680

    Quadro K4200

     

    They are saying the GTX cards are more powerful than the Quadro, but the Quadro is the one I should be purchasing because of its superior stability in C4D and AutoCAD. Of course, others are arguing in favor of the GTX series, and so far everyone is agreeing that any of those cards will have no trouble driving the 3440x1440 34UM95 display.

     

    I am not a Mac user, but I do know the guys who build the MacPro and just wondering how you can fit something as big as a Quadro into that machine given its round shape?  Relative to new MacPro build quality, as I know the factory and engineers who put that line together, I can say that you are getting something assembled by one of top electronic manufacturing sites in the industry.

     

    Now, I did just buy myself a new windows workstation.  I went with the Quadro K5200 as I wanted the additional memory to run TFD.  All I can say is ....wow!  I can crank through a fluid sim with a 30Gb cache file in no time with the K5200 (rather than the CPU).  C4D viewport will handle it pretty well too.  So just wondering why the K5200 is not on the list?

     

    Very stable so far.  I have heard GTX drivers have issues with R16 that have yet to be addressed by Nvidia.  MAXON says there is nothing they can do and nVidia has yet to respond or even acknowledge the issue....which is one reason why I will probably always go with a professional card in the future:  stability.   I believe that 90% of all stability issues with a graphics software program have to do with the graphics card.  If C4D crashes on a Quadro, nVidia is more likely to take notice.   Likewise if "Call of Duty" crashes on a GTX card.  Those are the target applications for those cards -- stability issues outside of the target apps and you may have to wait longer for any resolution - or even an acknowledgement.

     

     

    So might as well just embrace it and figure out how much stability is really worth to you!

     

    Dave


    Sorry...but I simply do not have enough faith to be an atheist.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest kittonian
  • Topic Author
  • I am not a Mac user, but I do know the guys who build the MacPro and just wondering how you can fit something as big as a Quadro into that machine given its round shape?  Relative to new MacPro build quality, as I know the factory and engineers who put that line together, I can say that you are getting something assembled by one of top electronic manufacturing sites in the industry.

     

    Now, I did just buy myself a new windows workstation.  I went with the Quadro K5200 as I wanted the additional memory to run TFD.  All I can say is ....wow!  I can crank through a fluid sim with a 30Gb cache file in no time with the K5200 (rather than the CPU).  C4D viewport will handle it pretty well too.  So just wondering why the K5200 is not on the list?

     

    Very stable so far.  I have heard GTX drivers have issues with R16 that have yet to be addressed by Nvidia.  MAXON says there is nothing they can do and nVidia has yet to respond or even acknowledge the issue....which is one reason why I will probably always go with a professional card in the future:  stability.   I believe that 90% of all stability issues with a graphics software program have to do with the graphics card.  If C4D crashes on a Quadro, nVidia is more likely to take notice.   Likewise if "Call of Duty" crashes on a GTX card.  Those are the target applications for those cards -- stability issues outside of the target apps and you may have to wait longer for any resolution - or even an acknowledgement.

     

     

    So might as well just embrace it and figure out how much stability is really worth to you!

     

    Dave

    Now that is an interesting response. First off, you cannot fit a PCIe card in the new trashcan style Mac Pro. That is why we use the full size Mac Pro machines and upgrade them with the latest processors and faster memory. You achieve the same or greater results with that machine that you do with an $8k cylinder Mac Pro.

     

    What I'm most interested in is the Quadro vs GTX commentary. I have not heard of any issues with the GTX cards and C4D until you just mentioned it, and the Quadro cards have a lot less power than the GTX 980. I know the ATI drivers on OS X have issues that MAXON is trying to address with Apple (good luck) but like I said, this is the first I've heard of GTX issues. Can you be more specific and/or can anyone confirm this issue?

     

    Before we spend a bunch of money on new cards I really want to know everything I can. Thanks!

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest kittonian
  • Topic Author
  • A quick update.

     

    I found a post from Srek in the summer of 2013 here on C4DCafe stating that the two main reasons to go with a Quadro over a GTX are:

     

    1. Drivers are more stable

    2. You can use the stereoscopic viewport

     

    Seeing as how stability is of the utmost importance, it looks like I have to forget about the GTX series, bite the bullet, and spend more on a Quadro. The only Quadro card made for the Mac currently is the K5000 so unless anyone can provide further information as to another option, that looks like what we'll be purchasing. Quite a bit more than I was hoping to spend (ugh).

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    ... I'll try to post more on this subject when I have time because it's something I've been following for the past few years being a Mac Pro 5,1 user myself with a standard ATI 5870 card... But for now I'll say that it could be well worth considering the iMac to get really good OpenGL performance from Cinema ... Not the Retina, I haven't tested that enough with C4D yet... But suffice to say the iMac with the 4GB graphics beats the hell out of my Mac Pro on working performance... (not rendering obviously) ... The problem I have with upgrading graphics cards in the Mac Pro is that you largely have to go by what others tell you in forums etc... You can't exactly try before you buy with graphics cards. And what works for one person might not work for you. In the end I've just decided to make do with what I've got...

     

    ... just to add... for what you mentioned, working with openGL shadows and everything, I can honestly say that the iMac with 4GB graphics card won't disappoint.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest darby
  • Topic Author
  • 1. Drivers are more stable

    2. You can use the stereoscopic viewport

    #1 isn't much of a selling point for Cinema 4d as far as I know. Nvidia and MAXON haven't really kept up on their certifications so it's a bit of a wild west situation with drivers. There are also fewer driver releases on Mac so you may find that limiting/frustrating if a bug does appear.

    #2 isn't entirely accurate. There are many different modes of stereoscopic viewport and the only one that might require quadro is the shutter mode.

    I'll add #3 to the list: the quadro boards are clocked lower, run cooler and should last longer under near constant heavy loads with all other things being equal. Of course they're also slower :)

    Viewport rendering isn't really a heavy load though.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest
  • Topic Author
  • ^ Yeah I switched back to a GTX from a Quadro recently and find in general it works better/faster. Doesn't make a huge difference really though either way in C4D in my experience. Other apps are getting GPU processing for the viewport which does make a significant difference (Maya 2016 for example has major speed boosts in that mode) but that hasn't been implemented in C4D and I don't expect it to be soon.

     

    I'm using a Windows machine though where the drivers are generally a little better, that's not trolling, it's pretty much an established fact.

    http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=7&t=1276056

     

    Cheers,

    Brian

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    A couple of good Cafe threads to tap into:

     

    Interesting thread from my perspective because it forced me to do a 180 degree turn on selecting a graphics card.  Until then, I was waiting for the Maxwell architecture to hit the Titan series (what ultimately became the TitanX).  As you know, I went with the K5200 after that thread forced me to do additional research --- plus I got tired of waiting for something with a bit more memory than the GTX980 to come out of nVidia (GPU memory is a key factor in TFD's ability to calculate the simulation cache)

     

    You may also find this thread extremely useful:  

     

    Also, look for any post from Srek on graphics cards or PM him directly for his feedback.  He is closest to the run around MAXON has been having with nVidia -- some of which he describes in his posts.

     

    Finally, if you really want to deep dive into the Titans, and GPU rendering, there is no better thread than this:

     

    Note that in the last two threads, IceCaveMan has some important insights.  That may be another person to PM as well.

     

    Dave


    Sorry...but I simply do not have enough faith to be an atheist.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites


    I'm using a Windows machine though where the drivers are almost always much better and more numerous, that's not trolling, it's pretty much an established fact.

     

    FTFY. I think you were being a little kind, there. We are poorly served as far as drivers go. :-)

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    YOUTUBE CHANNEL:

    ABOUT US:

    C4D Cafe is the largest CINEMA 4D community. We provide facilities for discussion, showcasing and learning our favorite software :)
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...