GTX570 or Quadro 4000 for RESOLVE ?

Im building small system for grading with Resolve .. I was bought old MAc pro Early 2008 , with 8 cores 2.8GHz .. And looking for GPU card .. GUI card will be Gt120 .. But what is better for Resolve ? Quadro 4000 ? or GTX570 ??

[Peter Chamberlain]

If you have sufficient power in that model MacPro, the 570 has considerable more performance.
Peter

Im not sure , what PSU is there ..

I see GTX570 models with 2.5G ram or 1280MB .. Does Resolve can use all 2.5G ram ? or 1280MB is enough for rendering ?

[Dwaine Maggart]

If you are working with anything larger than an HD timeline, or rendering files larger than HD, you should get the 2.5G VRAM version.

Don't expect great real time performance on a 3,1 MacPro no matter what GPU card you install.

Would it be a problem with the 570 being installed in the slot 1. I've got a 3.1 Mac Pro, and read in some forums that this could be a problem with the 570 being installed in slot 1, but would work fine in slot 2, but i need the slot 2 for the Red Rocket card. Would it work if i swap the order (RR slot 1, 570 slot 2)

Does has anyone know's a good config for a hackintosh that would work fine with resolve??

Thanks!

I just upgraded to a GTX660 and also have a 550Ti (as primary display) in and Resolve is running quite nicely . Though it does complain about it not being supported .

Don't expect great real time performance on a 3,1 MacPro no matter what GPU card you install.

What is a problem ? Intel Xeon 5400 series ("Harpertown") is not enough ? Is missing any feature in CPU ?

I just upgraded to a GTX660 and also have a 550Ti (as primary display) in and Resolve is running quite nicely . Though it does complain about it not being supported .

do U use it in MAC PRO ?

Don't expect great real time performance on a 3,1 MacPro no matter what GPU card you install.

What is a problem ? Intel Xeon 5400 series ("Harpertown") is not enough ? Is missing any feature in CPU ?

Internal data bus speed is the problem not cpu itself.

Older machines had 6xx mhz and new ones are 1xxx something. Almost twice the speed.
So cpu may be as fast as it likes but data will not come to it and from it fast.
So yes 3.1 is slow system.

Ohh I see ..

Mac Pro 3,1 have 800MHz DDR2 ram
newer Mac Pros have 1333/1066 DDR3 ram

Mac Pro 3,1 have 1,6GHz system bus
newer Mac Pros Intel QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) at 4.8 GT/s or 6.4 GT/s system bus ..

Do U thing that it will not be enough for 1080 video ? GTX570 1280MB

If Dwaine says no then no.

I have 5.1 for my resolve and did not think of running it on 3.1 or 2.1 etc.
Data bus in mind mainly.

This is even why some new iMacs seem a bit faster compared to my 5.1
Time will tell how good will they be.

uhh .. so then its right time to rewrite OSX Configuration GUIDE and delete MAC PRO 3.1 from there !!!

My colegue is right now ordering GTX570 .. Should i stop him ?

570 seem good option imo if machine is good

Just keep in mind the GTX570 will block slot 3. I think the GUI card is required to be in slot 1 on a mac.

[Dwaine Maggart]

Hi Margus,

I didn't say no, I just said that performance would be poor.

Pytkin, The Mac Pro 3,1 is in the guide because it will run Resolve properly. Like the iMac's and MBP's, it should work fine in SD and 720 timeline resolutions. And it works in 1080 as well. It's just likely you won't get very many nodes of correction before it starts to drop out of real time playback. And that will also depend on the type of source files you are using. It will work better in 1080 mode with uncompressed file formats like DPX, than it will with compressed formats like ProRes. And the higher quality ProRes you use, the worse the issue. It might work acceptably with ProRes422 and not with ProResHQ or ProRes444.

Unfortunately, I don't have a 3,1 Mac to test with. All my comments are based on the (MANY) user comments and complaints I've received from Mac 3,1 users over the past few years. I'm just trying to set appropriate expectations on what you will likely see if you use a 3,1 Mac Pro system.

Dwaine .. Thanx a lot for your comment .. We will start on this Mac Pro 3.1 .. I was asked my colegue , and he using one Mac Pro 5.1 for AVID Media Composer .. So if performance will be very bad , we can try change this two MACs ..

Thanx for you knowledges ..

Actually that was my point. Not to have big expectations for 3.1.

I have used Resolve on mbp and it was hardly as fast as 5.1 in any config.

If full realtime performance is not what you are after it will be probably ok.
Creating looks, making daily work, digging in to Resolve.

I just want to give it a fair perspective. Mostly Resolve is considered as realtime
platform but it sets hi standards for hw.

I just upgraded to a GTX660 and also have a 550Ti (as primary display) in and Resolve is running quite nicely . Though it does complain about it not being supported .

do U use it in MAC PRO ?

yes .

scratchpostvfx : wow .. GTX660 have twice CUDA cores , than GTX570 , low power .. Why BMD do not recommend it in HW guide ?

maybe you should get one and test it out ?

i wonder if there is or will be mac version ?

why mac version ? GUI need to be mac version .. And GPU acceleration can be PC .. or not ? we do not need connect monitor to it ..

[Peter Chamberlain]

Some GPUs are not recognised by some OS and there are different drivers for different OS. When we get a chance to test the new GPUs I will include them in the next config guide of they work.
Peter

I have a Mac Pro 6,1 Mid 2010 running OSX Mountainous Largecat

I have a GTX660 and a GTX550ti running with the latest Quadro 4000 drivers . The 660 would not fire up at all without the latest drivers installed .

Resolve runs pretty well with these cards though it does complain that they do not meet the minimum requirements . Since installing the 660 I've had much far fewer lack of GPU memory and corrupted render frames as a result of this . I am tempted to stick another 660 in now .

what another cards do U have in Mac Pro ? In Whitch Slots ?

I just answered it . I don't think it matters what slots they're in . The monitor is connected to the 550 so that all of the GPU of the 660 is being used for processing .

somebody here wrote , that GTX570 not worked in slot 1 , so he needed to put it to slot 2 ..

so Im interested what another cards do U use ? any raid card ? SDI output for preview ?

not sure, don't know if it matters . The 660 did not work before I updated the drivers . I also have a RAID controller card for a G-Tech drive

Sorry, I think my last post was unclear. There is no problem running a GTX570 in slot 1. However, OS X requires the card in slot 1 to be used for GUI. So whichever card you want for Resolve processing power will need to go in slot 2.
I'm currently running just a single card (GTX 570 PC version) in my mac pro with no problems. Performance is about double what it was previously with my old Radeon 5770.

Elliott : i was put Radeon 2600XT from slot 1 to slot 2 and it works without problem ..

Do U use just one GTX570 PC version and OSX booting ? Do U see startup boot screens ?

strange, that wasn't the case for me Elliot as I recall . Resolve (and all else) is currently using the card I have hooked up to the monitor as the UI, the slot arrangement didn't seem to matter - unless I'm mistaken .

Pytkin, these cards still do not support EFI, so there is no boot screen .

EVGA GTX570 Strength = 2.5GB Mem and 480 CUDA cores | Weakness = 8-bit color
Quadro 4000 Strength = 10-bit color | Weakness = 2GB Mem and 256 CUDA cores

*Note: A 10-bit color workflow requires full round-trip support (10-bit monitor, Displayport cable, 10-bit video card, 10-bit app)

[Dwaine Maggart]

If you have any display connected to the GPU card, it will be the GUI display, in the case of the GPU card being the only graphics card in the system. And the GUI display does not really care if it's 8 bit or 10 bit. You are not using the GUI display for critical monitoring.

For critical monitoring, you will be using a BMD Video I/O card driving a high quality display.

scratchpost I think you're right, I was wrong about slot arrangement.