So is the D300 decent?

[Quash]

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.

If you wanna do any gaming on 4K with high details you need D700s. With the D500 the extra ram probably isn't gonna help because the chips are not fast enough to render textures that require that memory.
(but keep in mind the d700's are only around 30% faster the d300's)
D300's aren't slow they are roughly equivalent to 7970m crossfire under windows. http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-7970M-Crossfire.74305.0.html. (around same clock speed, same pitcairn core)

If you do 3d rendering then the extra memory is welcome. But again if you do any kind of serious work you're probably much better off with the D700s (which have a serious amount of VRAM).

I would either go D300 or D700, depending on your needs. The D500 aren't the best value unless you have specific needs and a very specific budget.

 

[VirtualRain]

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?

FCP X certainly benefits greatly from the new GPU architecture in the nMP, but it's not yet clear to me (at least), if there's any difference in FCP X performance between the D300, D500 and D700... there's just not enough different system benchmarks out there to say with any certainty at this point.

----------

I would either go D300 or D700, depending on your needs. The D500 aren't the best value unless you have specific needs and a very specific budget.

I agree but think if you don't need GPU acceleration for your workflow today (and are therefore in the D300 camp), but want to use 4K displays in the near future or anticipate needing some GPU compute capability down the road, then the D500 is not a bad investment for $400. I'd rather regret spending $400 on GPUs I never utilize vs. not having spent $400 on GPUs I wish I had. But everyone's situation is likely unique.

 

[td2243]

I'd rather regret spending $400 on GPUs I never utilize vs. not having spent $400 on GPUs I wish I had. But everyone's situation is likely unique.

Well put. $400 isn't peanuts, but it isn't like I'd have to take another loan out just to upgrade to the D500.

 

[Quash]

I agree but think if you don't need GPU acceleration for your workflow today (and are therefore in the D300 camp), but want to use 4K displays in the near future or anticipate needing some GPU compute capability down the road, then the D500 is not a bad investment for $400. I'd rather regret spending $400 on GPUs I never utilize vs. not having spent $400 on GPUs I wish I had. But everyone's situation is likely unique.

Did you buy the D500's? I've not seen any evidence to support that claim.
In most benchmarks i've seen the D300's are actually faster. Although the difference is negligible both ways.
I'm not saying you shouldn't trade up but if you think you need more GPU power you are much better off with the D700s. I consider the D500 to be bad value. If you have benchmarks please prove me wrong, but 400$ more for about the same performance is terrible value.

 

[td2243]

He did get the D500's.

The question is, where have we seen a noticeable difference between the D300 and D500? So far, the concensus seems to be that there isn't one, at least one that has been documented. Theory is one thing, but real use is another.

I'm really on the fence between getting the D300 and D500. I know I want the 6-core, 512GB, but the GPU's are where I'm stuck.

 

[Quash]

He did get the D500's.

The question is, where have we seen a noticeable difference between the D300 and D500? So far, the concensus seems to be that there isn't one, at least one that has been documented. Theory is one thing, but real use is another.

I'm really on the fence between getting the D300 and D500. I know I want the 6-core, 512GB, but the GPU's are where I'm stuck.

Depends on your use case, how long you want to run this machine and your budget i suppose.

 

[td2243]

Depends on your use case, how long you want to run this machine and your budget i suppose.

I'd like to use this for at least 4 years. I tend to keep my computers for a LONG time. I can't afford to buy a new one every 2-3 years, nor does that seem sensical to me. I suppose if I were raking in money through the use of it, that would be a different story.

 

[keigo]

He did get the D500's.

The question is, where have we seen a noticeable difference between the D300 and D500? So far, the concensus seems to be that there isn't one, at least one that has been documented. Theory is one thing, but real use is another.

I'm really on the fence between getting the D300 and D500. I know I want the 6-core, 512GB, but the GPU's are where I'm stuck.

The test score shown both D300 & D500 is similar. So with that kind of score, I can't find must different in real use.

Unless you are using application that need heavy computing in the GPU, else for most of us that is using the GPU for graphic will not see anything different.

The $400 different in that case is more like buying the extra pair for 1GB vram. But in the end will you ever use it due to the bottleneck in the GPU speed is totally unknown.

End of the day it boil down to what applications do you run in your nMP?

Game? Forget about nMP I say, cause within 2 years you will face issue. Build a PC is much better option.

Photography, D300 will be able to last you long enough until you decided to change to another new MP.

3D work? Better hope for D700 but that might also last you like 2~3 years max

 

[td2243]

End of the day it boil down to what applications do you run in your nMP?

These are the 'biggies' I plan on using:

Adobe Photoshop
Adobe Lightroom
Adobe Premiere Pro (often)
Adobe Audition (often)
Adobe After Effects (not too often)

Logic X
Protools 11
Ableton Live

bunch of music plug ins

 

[VirtualRain]

Did you buy the D500's? I've not seen any evidence to support that claim.
In most benchmarks i've seen the D300's are actually faster. Although the difference is negligible both ways.
I'm not saying you shouldn't trade up but if you think you need more GPU power you are much better off with the D700s. I consider the D500 to be bad value. If you have benchmarks please prove me wrong, but 400$ more for about the same performance is terrible value.

Yes, I did buy the D500s. I'm not making any claims... just pointing out that the added VRAM and potential compute performance of the D500s may come in handy down the road. But I fully admit, it may not.

Let's face it, all we have are a couple of benchmarks on a couple of systems at this point. In particular, very little testing has been done on 4K displays with these things. So I think it's a bit early to be concluding the D500 offers no advantage over the D300. It certainly looks that way at the moment with what little tests have been done, and it may be confirmed to be the case ultimately, but even then, it's not a certainty to remain that way indefinitely.

 

[wildmac]

Yes, I did buy the D500s. I'm not making any claims... just pointing out that the added VRAM and potential compute performance of the D500s may come in handy down the road. But I fully admit, it may not.

Let's face it, all we have are a couple of benchmarks on a couple of systems at this point. In particular, very little testing has been done on 4K displays with these things. So I think it's a bit early to be concluding the D500 offers no advantage over the D300. It certainly looks that way at the moment with what little tests have been done, and it may be confirmed to be the case ultimately, but even then, it's not a certainty to remain that way indefinitely.

Yep, but meanwhile, a lot of buying decisions are being made with minimal evidence to support them..

 

[FredT2]

Yep, but meanwhile, a lot of buying decisions are being made with minimal evidence to support them..

Pioneers!

 

[wildmac]

Pioneers!

I'd rather be a pioneer spending $4k out the door instead of one spending $5.5k...

 

[macpro2000]

Come on Barefeats!!! I want to know if the difference between the 300 and 500 is worth it before I order. Sure it's only $400 but still.

 

[wildmac]

Come on Barefeats!!! I want to know if the difference between the 300 and 500 is worth it before I order. Sure it's only $400 but still.

Yep, really need more tests. Looking at the latest Barefeats FCX tests, the D500 is certainly better, but the D300 isn't a slouch either. But will the D500 still show that edge for Adobeville? That's the big question.

 

[lupinglade]

We already know. For gaming type usage (single precision) the D300 and D500 are about the same, the D300 is about 1-2 fps faster in tests.


For compute type applications (double precision) the D500 will be significantly faster.

 

[PmattF]

Yep, really need more tests. Looking at the latest Barefeats FCX tests, the D500 is certainly better, but the D300 isn't a slouch either. But will the D500 still show that edge for Adobeville? That's the big question.

See the AppleInsider review...
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/01/09/review-apples-redesigned-late-2013-mac-pro

Not only does D500 not seem to be better for Adobe apps, but the six core doesn't really seem to help much either.

 

[wildmac]

See the AppleInsider review...
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/01/09/review-apples-redesigned-late-2013-mac-pro

Not only does D500 not seem to be better for Adobe apps, but the six core doesn't really seem to help much either.

Yeah, saw that, and commented on it here someplace...

That does make it sound like the Quad/D300 is a safe choice, even if there might be some better performance out of the D500 (and Hex). But some good Barefeats tests would be nice.

 

[nathan43082]

Ordered the 6core|12gb|1TB|D300
So are the D300s a bad, average, or good gpu set compared to other cards?

No one has performed comprehensive-enough testing just yet, but this article may shed some light. Putting the necessarily-lower clock speeds in the Mac Pro aside for a moment, read this article (particularly page 6 - "The Rest of the FirePro W Series Feature Set") and keep in mind the following:

1. D300 is the W7000*
2. D500 is the W8000*
3. D700 is the W9000*

http://anandtech.com/show/6137/the-amd-firepro-w9000-w8000-review-part-1

The Pitcairn-based D300 does not nor will ever have ECC memory enabled, either real or virtual, which eliminates it for important computational tasks. Hopefully, Apple will replace the bottom end card with something better soon.

The Tahiti-based D500 is one generation beyond the D300 -- a little more powerful and with the *possibility* of ECC, which, if enabled, makes it better for important computational tasks. This may also explain why it is not appreciably *faster* than the D300, since ECC memory, real or virtualized, carries a performance hit.

The Tahiti-based D700 is just a more powerful version of the D500. If any of the cards has ECC enabled, it would certainly be this one. Again, we are awaiting confirmation here in the forums.

*Why… why… why did they overcomplicate things by not calling them D700, D800 and D900 so the names at least partially matched?

 

[Dranix]

For compute type applications (double precision) the D500 will be significantly faster.

You, like many, ignore the fact that most compute stuff in OpenCL is single so the D500 is only slightly faster.

 

[macpro2000]

Screw it. Just ordered one with the 500. Can only be better in the end.

 

[wildmac]

No one has performed comprehensive-enough testing just yet, but this article may shed some light. Putting the necessarily-lower clock speeds in the Mac Pro aside for a moment, read this article (particularly page 6 - "The Rest of the FirePro W Series Feature Set") and keep in mind the following:

1. D300 is the W7000*
2. D500 is the W8000*
3. D700 is the W9000*

http://anandtech.com/show/6137/the-amd-firepro-w9000-w8000-review-part-1

The Pitcairn-based D300 does not nor will ever have ECC memory enabled, either real or virtual, which eliminates it for important computational tasks. Hopefully, Apple will replace the bottom end card with something better soon.

The Tahiti-based D500 is one generation beyond the D300 -- a little more powerful and with the *possibility* of ECC, which, if enabled, makes it better for important computational tasks. This may also explain why it is not appreciably *faster* than the D300, since ECC memory, real or virtualized, carries a performance hit.

The Tahiti-based D700 is just a more powerful version of the D500. If any of the cards has ECC enabled, it would certainly be this one. Again, we are awaiting confirmation here in the forums.

*Why… why… why did they overcomplicate things by not calling them D700, D800 and D900 so the names at least partially matched?

And considering, even with my gov discount, is the D700 really worth a $900 update over the D300?

Unless there's significant improvement, RAM and a larger SSD are likely better investments for that price difference.

 

[kingtj]

Quad/D300 ?

Yes, if all you're really looking at is performance with the current apps on the market, I'd say the Quad-core with D300 is going to make the most price/performance sense. (The exception is Final Cut Pro X, which already got updated with new Mac Pro specific code in it.)

IMO though, buying one of the new Mac Pros, as costly as one is, is more of a long term investment. In other words, I wouldn't make a buying decision based on "What's the cheapest configuration of new Mac Pro that runs all my existing software well?", or even "Where's the performance sweet-spot for the apps I own today?"

I'd say it's a VERY good bet that Adobe will update almost all of its major software to make better use of the features in the new Mac Pro, such as additional processor cores and functionality found in the higher-end video card options. Extra RAM might even get utilized better if they decide "our typical user is likely to have 32GB or even 64GB in the machine now".

So yeah, as an early adopter of one of these -- you're taking some chances and some educated guesses. You DON'T have all the facts to show what the smartest purchase will be, because you can't predict what future software upgrades will do.

Knowing that, MY plan of action is to order one with the D700 video card option (since video is always Apple's weakest point, and with every machine I've ever owned from them, has been a case of wanting the absolute fastest thing I could run in it - just to keep on par with Windows users). I'm also going to go with the 1TB storage since there's no room for additional internal drives. Seems silly to have a machine this costly and have less built-in storage capacity than many laptops! I think RAM is a place where some money can safely be saved on the initial order price though. 16GB is plenty for now and it's easily user-expandable down the road if it becomes an issue. By then, it will probably cost less too.

Yeah, saw that, and commented on it here someplace...

That does make it sound like the Quad/D300 is a safe choice, even if there might be some better performance out of the D500 (and Hex). But some good Barefeats tests would be nice.

 

[wildmac]

Yes, if all you're really looking at is performance with the current apps on the market, I'd say the Quad-core with D300 is going to make the most price/performance sense. (The exception is Final Cut Pro X, which already got updated with new Mac Pro specific code in it.)

IMO though, buying one of the new Mac Pros, as costly as one is, is more of a long term investment. In other words, I wouldn't make a buying decision based on "What's the cheapest configuration of new Mac Pro that runs all my existing software well?", or even "Where's the performance sweet-spot for the apps I own today?"

I'd say it's a VERY good bet that Adobe will update almost all of its major software to make better use of the features in the new Mac Pro, such as additional processor cores and functionality found in the higher-end video card options. Extra RAM might even get utilized better if they decide "our typical user is likely to have 32GB or even 64GB in the machine now".

So yeah, as an early adopter of one of these -- you're taking some chances and some educated guesses. You DON'T have all the facts to show what the smartest purchase will be, because you can't predict what future software upgrades will do.

Knowing that, MY plan of action is to order one with the D700 video card option (since video is always Apple's weakest point, and with every machine I've ever owned from them, has been a case of wanting the absolute fastest thing I could run in it - just to keep on par with Windows users). I'm also going to go with the 1TB storage since there's no room for additional internal drives. Seems silly to have a machine this costly and have less built-in storage capacity than many laptops! I think RAM is a place where some money can safely be saved on the initial order price though. 16GB is plenty for now and it's easily user-expandable down the road if it becomes an issue. By then, it will probably cost less too.

Fair points. But, the Hex/D700 is a $1300 increase over my current order of a Quad/D300, with my gov discount. Worth it? Perhaps... but it's a 35% increase over my current order, that's significant.

I think the 32GB ram on the order still makes sense, unless you are sure you can sell that memory you take out. Extra ram sitting in a drawer isn't a cost savings.

I might change my order again, but I'm not doing so until I see some Adobeville tests on the D700.

 

[deconstruct60]

....
The Tahiti-based D500 is one generation beyond the D300 --
....

Tahiti and Pitcarin are in the same generation. They are siblings in the Graphic Core Next (GCN ) v1.x generation. They don't have the same exact feature set but siblings aren't necessarily twins either. It is the same basic infrastructure with differences in number of function units ( computational cores , raster op pipeplines , etc. ). A couple of supplementary features on the higher end doesn't make for a new generation. They are just higher end features.