PDA

View Full Version : help with graphic card for Mac Pro



xhd2xhd
03-12-2008, 08:59 AM
Hello, I am quite new to lightwave and Mac.

Our office is trying to get a new Mac Pro but we were wondering what kind of graphic card would be best for us.

We do a lot of 3d medical illustrations and we model/use very very high polygon models.

As far as modeling or using 3d models that are very high poly, would it help to get a Quadro FX 5600 for our new Mac Pro?

or any other recommendation?

we currently use RadeonX1900 512m

Thank You for your help!

Giacomo99
03-12-2008, 07:07 PM
Three methods that might help you decide:

1. Try doing a search on this forum.

2. Check the Apple website.

3. Use Google.

JeffrySG
03-12-2008, 09:45 PM
I haven't used the 5600 before, but I'm pretty happy with the X1900 in my MacPro. If you want me to test a file for you to see how responsive it is just let me know. What do you consider hight-poly counts?

Otterman
03-13-2008, 02:45 AM
Three methods that might help you decide:

1. Try doing a search on this forum.

2. Check the Apple website.

3. Use Google.

O come on Giacomo-thats a bit naff. Us wavers are renowned for offering helpful advise with a smile. And for christs sakes man-put some clothes on hehee!

Anyways-ive heard good stuff about the GeForce 8800 ULTRA

Giacomo99
03-13-2008, 01:55 PM
Since I bought my new Mac Pro I am too poor to afford clothes. However, the peace of mind afforded by buying official Apple RAM was worth the cost, I feel. ;)

Regarding the video cards, I'm really hesitant to offer an opinion about the 8800GT vs the Quadro FX5600. All the comparisons I've found online suggest that the 8800's the best choice and that the Quadro's performance doesn't come close to justifying its price, but I have a strong suspicion that I'm not getting the whole picture. I mean, for all that extra money the Quadro must be useful for something, right?

dsol
03-13-2008, 02:14 PM
I mean, for all that extra money the Quadro must be useful for something, right?

Well, it does have a Gig-and-a-half of RAM. That's got to count for something :) Also, it supports hardware antialiasing of lines. W00t!

If (a) Gelato was available for LW and (b) Gelato was supported on Mac OSX full stop, it might make it more of a serious consideration. But otherwise, you could buy, I dunno, 4(?) 8800GT cards for the cost of the Quadro. Or even a second MacPro!

xhd2xhd
03-13-2008, 04:54 PM
hi, thank you so much !

we are still considering,

on my machine i have 8gig ram, 2 x 3ghz, and radeonx1900, and for certain models it's really hard to edit/change things because of high poly.

I did bit of research on google, called newtek but didn't thep too much.

any other recomendation with quadro 5600fx?

again, thank you for your help!

3dworks
03-13-2008, 05:48 PM
xhd2xhd,

some performance tests are on this site:

http://www.barefeats.com/harper8.html

and here:

http://www.barefeats.com/york2.html

especially this:


WHY MOST USERS SHOULD PASS ON THE $2850 QUADRO FX 5600
We think most of you should pass on the Quadro FX 5600 option. Though it costs 14 times as much as the GeForce 8800 GT, it is not 14 times faster.

However, the Quadro FX 5600 does feature more video memory (1.5GB vs 512MB). And, according to one Maya guru, the extra memory (and superior memory management code) of the Quadro workstation cards becomes useful for frame buffering in Maya. This is especially true for redraw of multiple views of the same complex 3D model.

This has been enhanced further by Quadro FX 5600's new integrated memory allocation which allows the card to dynamically allocate on-board RAM to whatever task is at hand rather than have specific hard wired allocations. So rather than say a maximum of 40% of total on-board RAM dedicated to the texture buffer the card can ramp up and down from 80% sharing with the immediate needs of the other buffers.

And it does have a stereo 3D port which I've seen used in one scientific visualization lab for demonstrations with software that generates an animation that requires special 3D glasses to view.

If you are a heavy Maya user or often view your screen with 3D glasses, the cost might be justified. Might. But I still say the cost is not justified for 99% of consumers.

maybe that helps a bit...

maybe chilton could give us some clue if such a card would help specifically LW on macs?

cheers

markus

Chilton
03-13-2008, 08:06 PM
I wrote a really spectacular response to this question earlier today. It was dramatic, comical, and over the top. In retrospect, possibly the finest thing I've ever read.

However, I quit Safari without thinking about it, then realized the horror I'd inflicted on the world by so cruelly taking such a jewel away, and I've lost the will to write it again.

So to answer the question at hand, LightWave is not heavily GPU dependent. So to be honest, I don't know. But LightWave *is* highly portable. So throw a copy of LW UB on a thumb drive (put your license.key file in SharedSupport, and bring your dongle with you), and head to your nearest Apple store. Most of the time, they'll let you test things on their hardware as long as you don't install anything. So find out when their slow times are, show up then, and it probably wouldn't hurt to tell that Apple store employee he looks absolutely Jobsian in that black shirt. Take a few minutes to play with it on the various Macs on display, and see what feels best to you.

That's the best answer I can give you. Aside from that, I always suggest buying the biggest, baddest thing you can, if you can afford to. As all software progresses, it generally consumes more and more processing power wherever it can find it.

-Chilton

Otterman
03-14-2008, 02:48 AM
This thread has seemed to have been double posted-naughty!! Anyways-heres what i wrote in response to that thread......

Im currently using a G5 quad core with a poxy NVIDIA GeForce 6600 card. Because i have to handle cad data i also have to throw around loadsa polys as well. Its a real ball ache sometimes.

However-Im just about to get a new machine-the mac Octo-pro with the Quadro FX 5600 beast. So im hoping to see some dramatic improvement-fingers crossed.

Will give u some feed back as soon as i get my greasy mits on it!

Oh by the way-im not paying for this card-if it was my own hard earned money i was parting with-id go for the 8800 ULTRA!

3dworks
03-14-2008, 04:21 AM
So to answer the question at hand, LightWave is not heavily GPU dependent. So to be honest, I don't know.

that's what i thought too... or, put the other way round, it is not really using the power inside these cards? :devil:

is this a mac issue or does this concern LW on all platforms? i definitely have a much better performance of LW opengl when running on the same mac under windows. so it could be the driver for the card or a better LW opengl implementation under this platform.

cheers

markus

Chilton
03-14-2008, 05:51 AM
Hi Markus,

This is an addressable issue.

-Chilton

3dworks
03-14-2008, 12:19 PM
Hi Markus,

This is an addressable issue.

-Chilton

sounds 9.5ish :D

cheers

markus

JeffrySG
03-14-2008, 09:09 PM
It was dramatic, comical, and over the top. In retrospect, possibly the finest thing I've ever read.
lmao...
(not that you lost your post, but the way you said it...)


sounds 9.5ish :D
cheers
markus
:D