Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Ati Radeon 5870 or Quadro 4000

P

Paradiseapple

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 18, 2010
131
2
Germany
Hello friends,

not getting the expected editing-performance with Adobe Premiere Pro and After Effects 5.1 on my 2.666 12-core 2010 with an Ati Radeon 5870 I think about getting the Nvidia Quadro 4000 (which might be good for Avid Media Composer too). Ok but then I loose performance with Motion and Final Cut-X that might become great one day. Does it make sense to build in both Graphic cards or will the system collapse energywise or softwarewise?

In Germany the Quadro 4000 cost about 800 Euro and for 1800 I get a good PC that is optimized for Adobe... But who wants a C? Me? Mmmh...

Could someone help me

Thanks

Alfred
 
You could use both...

You could install both a 5770 card and a Quadro 4000 in your system. Its a certified way to work with DaVinci Resolve, so I know it works with other workflows as well.

Adobe apps are CUDA enabled, which the Quadro has--but the Radeon does not. However, both the Quadro and Radeon should provide a very good level of performance under 10.7 which has OpenCL 1.1 which is what the new Motion and FCPX use.

TL
 
a used NVidia GTX 285 is another option, if you don't mind used components. CUDA without the giant price tag.
 
not getting the expected editing-performance with Adobe Premiere Pro and After Effects 5.1 on my 2.666 12-core 2010 with an Ati Radeon 5870 I think about getting the Nvidia Quadro 4000 (which might be good for Avid Media Composer too). Ok but then I loose performance with Motion and Final Cut-X that might become great one day. Does it make sense to build in both Graphic cards or will the system collapse energywise or softwarewise?
Click to expand...

A CUDA card would certainly help things out in Premiere, but you probably won't notice a ton of difference in After Effects, which uses OpenGL for GPU rendering. The biggest bottleneck in After Effects CS5 and later is RAM. You need lots of RAM (at least 1GB per core; more with complex projects) for multi-core rendering to work at its best. How much RAM do you have and how are your "Memory and Multiprocessing" settings configured in AE?

Just keep in mind in most cases other than the complete lack of CUDA support, the 5870 is a faster card than the Quadro 4000. It's a real shame that NVIDIA keeps CUDA proprietary AND the selection of NVIDIA GPUs on the Mac platform is extremely limited.

Adobe apps are CUDA enabled, which the Quadro has--but the Radeon does not. However, both the Quadro and Radeon should provide a very good level of performance under 10.7 which has OpenCL 1.1 which is what the new Motion and FCPX use.
Click to expand...

Only the Mercury Playback Engine in Premiere has CUDA acceleration. The rest of the Adobe apps are OpenGL, with some rare exceptions involving 3rd-party plugins that can use CUDA.
 
I had the same problem with my 5870 and installed a nVidia Quadro FX 4800 into my machine and have never looked back. The CUDA architecture works beautifully with Adobe and some 3D s/w packages.

The only problem is you can't install a 5870 and a Quadro together without modifying your case and buying a small power supply as there are not enough power leads. I bought the "juice box" from NewEgg.com for $20 which fits in one of your optical drives. But you will need to mod your case a bit. There are threads on here that explain how to do it.

So go with the Quadro and buy a 5770 which would work because they both use one power lead apiece, or get another PS and run your 5870 and the Quadro. Or just run a Quadro. Either way you will be happier. :)
 
Thanks for your great replies.
I have 32 Gb of RAM at the moment: 4x8GB. What is the perfect configuration in After Effects? Or: how much more RAM do I need to run better?
I a bit afraid to exchange the graphic cars myself. I thought my Appledealer could do it.
Maybe I´m a coward....
 
Question though, is CUDA architecture going to be expanded into the rest of the Adobe lineup in future iterations or will they be sticking with Open GL/CL? Even on the 3D side of creative work is CUDA the direction or will Autodesk, etc. also pursue Open CL? If the two are even interchangeable in that respect, forgive my ignorance, just trying to get a potential peek at future product roadmaps which could obviously influence hardware choices.
 
Rustus Maximus said:
Question though, is CUDA architecture going to be expanded into the rest of the Adobe lineup in future iterations or will they be sticking with Open GL/CL? Even on the 3D side of creative work is CUDA the direction or will Autodesk, etc. also pursue Open CL? If the two are even interchangeable in that respect, forgive my ignorance, just trying to get a potential peek at future product roadmaps which could obviously influence hardware choices.
Click to expand...

Does that mean that Adobe 6 might run fast with ATI Radeon cards in the future?
 
A couple of thoughts...

1) The new mac pros are slated to come out shortly with a new set of graphics cards. Honestly, I'd wait to see what those bring before buying anything unless you're desperate. The only consideratioin 1) The new mac pros are slated to come out shortly with a new set of graphics cards. Honestly, I'd wait to see what those bring before buying anything unless you're desperate. The only consideration on waiting would be whether you have a 2009 or 2010 Mac Pro. If you have a 2010 a graphics card upgrade would be supported whereas it would not in a 2009.

2) Installing a graphics card isn't much harder than installing RAM. If you've never installed RAM it's easy :). The user manual that came with your mac pro explains how to do it. You don't even need any tools. You can just pop open the side door take out the two thumb screws holding the PCIE plate off and you can take out the card (ok, there may be a little tab on the card slot you have to unlatch too). It was harder for me to type this than put in the card. So when you upgrade I highly recommend grabbing the manual, getting your hands dirty, saving a little money and doing it yourself.
 
mzeb said:
1) The new mac pros are slated to come out shortly with a new set of graphics cards. Honestly, I'd wait to see what those bring before buying anything unless you're desperate. The only consideratioin 1) The new mac pros are slated to come out shortly with a new set of graphics cards. Honestly, I'd wait to see what those bring before buying anything unless you're desperate. The only consideration on waiting would be whether you have a 2009 or 2010 Mac Pro. If you have a 2010 a graphics card upgrade would be supported whereas it would not in a 2009.

2) Installing a graphics card isn't much harder than installing RAM. If you've never installed RAM it's easy :). The user manual that came with your mac pro explains how to do it. You don't even need any tools. You can just pop open the side door take out the two thumb screws holding the PCIE plate off and you can take out the card (ok, there may be a little tab on the card slot you have to unlatch too). It was harder for me to type this than put in the card. So when you upgrade I highly recommend grabbing the manual, getting your hands dirty, saving a little money and doing it yourself.
Click to expand...

That sounds great. What about the drivers for the new card? When and how do I install them?
But anyway - you´re right maybe I should wait for the new MacPros an see what they bring.
 
Rustus Maximus said:
Question though, is CUDA architecture going to be expanded into the rest of the Adobe lineup in future iterations or will they be sticking with Open GL/CL?
Click to expand...

It is really Open CL versus CUDA.
OpenGL is a different usage: displaying graphics as opposed to "doing computations".

The multiple platform vendors (like Adobe ) are going to stick with OpenGL. With Lion finally moving to OpenGL 3.x also helps solidify the case for leverage more OpenGL over time for those vendors.


Even on the 3D side of creative work is CUDA the direction or will Autodesk, etc. also pursue Open CL?
Click to expand...

Depends upon whether OpenCL catches up squeezing the most performance out of graphics engines. Again, none of the multiplatform vendor would like to use a single vendor API. Doing so means your code is stuck to a specific vendor's offerings. However, if pressed to get max performance they will.

Like Adobe Flash vs. HTML 5 + Javascript debate Apple is throwing its weight toward the more open standard. In this case, OpenCL.

Because OpenCL is portable there are always going to be some areas where it will fall behind the more platform specific programming approach.
There is also a question whether can actually write truely portable code and still squeeze out max performance.

http://insidehpc.com/2011/05/22/whi...-solution-for-multi-platform-gpu-programming/

However, if competing more so against the x86 cores then don't necessarily have to get max to have added value.

Over time I suspect vendors like Adobe will probably put a "OpenCL" solution in their products as the default and perhaps have a "turbo charger", added value (and cost to the user) version for those who have to push the throttle to the wall.
 
Paradiseapple said:
Does that mean that Adobe 6 might run fast with ATI Radeon cards in the future?
Click to expand...

More likely Adobe 7 (or maybe 6.5). Adobe 6 was probably already speced out while the OpenCL compilers were still trying to get their act together. Most of them are still sensitive to arch differences and don't have some top end optimizations in them.

OpenCL didn't make Adobe 5 because it was too new to evaluate relative to when the code needed to be written. While it could be evaluated for Adobe 6 there were/are some aspects that still need to be matured to make it a coin toss as to whether it should be included. I think OpenCL compilers will mature; just a bit too late to have made the Adobe 6 train. ( remember that AMD and Intel totally dominate in terms of GPUs deployed over the next year. Until there are mature compilers/drivers for both the "cross platform" advantage will not get not get deep traction. )
 
Last edited:
I have both a GTX285 (CUDA) and a 5870, and my main use is Premiere CS5 and After Effects CS5. I found that using the CUDA card was fine for Premiere, but painful with AE, so I switched back to 5870 for most use. When I REALLY want to work faster in Premiere, it takes about two minutes to swap the cards out and reboot. I got the GTX285 used from a MacRumors user for $300, and it works great, on the very rare occasions that I use it. This is mainly because I tend to lean so heavily on AE, using it more than Premiere most of the time. If I used Premiere more, I'd keep the CUDA card in most of the time.
 
wonderspark said:
I have both a GTX285 (CUDA) and a 5870, and my main use is Premiere CS5 and After Effects CS5. I found that using the CUDA card was fine for Premiere, but painful with AE, so I switched back to 5870 for most use. When I REALLY want to work faster in Premiere, it takes about two minutes to swap the cards out and reboot. I got the GTX285 used from a MacRumors user for $300, and it works great, on the very rare occasions that I use it. This is mainly because I tend to lean so heavily on AE, using it more than Premiere most of the time. If I used Premiere more, I'd keep the CUDA card in most of the time.
Click to expand...

I´m impressed. So maybe I should follow you. As a disappointed Final Cut-user I just thought to switch over to Premiere - my main interest is After Effects anyway. What do you think: how much performance do I win in Premiere when I switch over from my 5870 to the Quadro 4000?
 
Paradiseapple said:
I´m impressed. So maybe I should follow you. As a disappointed Final Cut-user I just thought to switch over to Premiere - my main interest is After Effects anyway. What do you think: how much performance do I win in Premiere when I switch over from my 5870 to the Quadro 4000?
Click to expand...
It really depends on what footage you have. I edited a feature film that was all shot on P2, and my prior 4870 and 5870 both handled it just fine in real-time, even with three video layers and effects on two of them. I can't think of any footage I've used that doesn't play real-time, but when you start putting certain effects on it, then things can slow down. It all renders very quickly, though, so it's better for me to use the 5870. I'd say if you have footage and effects idealized for the Mercury Playback Engine (as not all effects are optimized for it) then it will be amazingly fast and smooth, but otherwise it's really not any better. It also depends heavily on your system. Yours is very nice. I'm on a 2009 Mac Pro 3.33GHz Quad with 16GB RAM, and I'm probably about to trade my 4x4GB ram for 4x8GB, as I feel more RAM does a lot more than CUDA for my projects. Maybe the 3.33GHz (boosting up to 3.6GHz when only one core is working) makes a difference, too. Honestly, I don't know how many cores Premiere uses for timeline playback. I know it uses multiple when you render, though.
 
Thanks again - all that helps me a lot. First of all I will get Production Premium 5.5 and hope that the optimized play-back-engine will bring me forwards. Only after that I will order another graphic card.

It´s great to get this help...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back