[Natz]

Hello,

I've recently decided I'd like to move from an iMac to a Mac Pro, however I can't decide on a graphics card.

I've seen information that suggests that ATI are doing a Radeon 3870 for the Mac, and it offers better performance for things like iMovie than the Geforce 8800 which you can get the Pro supplied with.

Aside from the likes of iMovie and various non-performance applications, I do play World of Warcraft, so I'd like to get a card that's a bit more powerful than the Radeon 2600 card you can also get the Pro supplied with.

The only problem is that I can't seem to find the Radeon 3870 anywhere for the Mac Pro. Does anyone know if it's been released yet and if so any places where you can purchase it in the UK/ship to the UK?

Thanks in advance.

[mduell]

It has been released; Amazon US has them but Amazon UK doesn't.

Unless you're using the GPU-accelerated pro apps (Aperture, Motion, Color, Shake?), I'd go with the 8800GT from the factory.

[sadpandas]

Originally Posted by mduell 

It has been released; Amazon US has them but Amazon UK doesn't.

Unless you're using the GPU-accelerated pro apps (Aperture, Motion, Color, Shake?), I'd go with the 8800GT from the factory.

I use pshop, illustrator, after effects , final cut and maya with the 8800 gt, works great and it came when with the machine. i love when things just work .

pa
nd
as

[mduell]

Originally Posted by sadpandas 

I use pshop, illustrator, after effects , final cut and maya with the 8800 gt, works great and it came when with the machine. i love when things just work .

The first four don't use the GPU and the final one isn't an Apple app (which seem to have a monopoly for performance problems on the nVidia G8x/G9x architecture), so the 8800GT should be great for you.

[Natz]

Thanks for the replies, I've purchased the Mac Pro with the 8800 nvidia card. I'm enjoying it so far!

I couldn't find the Radeon 3870 anywhere, maybe when it's available over here I'll switch if I find any performance issues with the 8800.

[sadpandas]

"if ain't broke why upgrade it?"

[TimmyDee51]

Has anyone purchased a 3870 for their Mac Pro? Do you like it? Where did you buy it from?

[Cei]

I'm using an 8800GT for FCP and Aperture, and really it isn't a problem. Quieter than the 3870 too.

[tooki]

I also have the 8800GT for Aperture. The 3870 may be faster, but that'd just be the difference between "instant" and "instant" -- Aperture's just totally snappy, period. (I have 8GB RAM in it.)

[Simon]

BareFeats has done some benchmarks comparing the 3870 and the 8800. There's no doubt Core Image apps (Aperture, Motion, FCP previews) run faster on the 3870. That said, the 8800 is not a bad choice and in most games it's ahead of the 3870.

"In our Core Image intensive tests, the ATI Radeon HD 3870 Mac & PC Edition provided 21% to 41% gains in performance over the GeForce 8800 GT. "

http://www.barefeats.com/harper16.html

[tooki]

Yeah. I think it can be summed up that if your focus is games, go for the 8800GT. If your focus is core image apps, go for the 3870. If you don't do much of either of those, then the stock 2600 card will be more than enough.

Hey, anyone wanna trade a 3870 for my 8800?

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The first four [Adobe CS apps] don't use the GPU and the final one isn't an Apple app (which seem to have a monopoly for performance problems on the nVidia G8x/G9x architecture), so the 8800GT should be great for you.

That is no longer true of Adobe apps. Adobe CS4 has been announced for release within the next month and requires good graphics card acceleration. I suggest that anyone who might use CS4 WAIT and see which graphics cards perform best with CS4 after production versions of CS4 are on the street; it should only be a few weeks before real test results are available.

-Allen Wicks

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

That is no longer true of Adobe apps. Adobe CS4 has been announced for release within the next month and requires good graphics card acceleration. I suggest that anyone who might use CS4 WAIT and see which graphics cards perform best with CS4 after production versions of CS4 are on the street; it should only be a few weeks before real test results are available.

-Allen Wicks

That's interesting to hear, as I was thinking about upgrading to CS4.

I have the 7600GT in my 24" iMac and I wonder if that's enough, or if CS3 will run faster with that kind of set-up (3Gb RAM)

[OreoCookie]

From what I've heard, only Photoshop CS4 and Premiere CS4 use the gpu. Or can anyone post a link saying otherwise?
I don't think Photoshop CS4 is more demanding than Aperture in that respect, so Veltiner's iMac should be just fine.

[grover432]

What about the FX 5600? How does it's performance compare to the 8800 for those apps, including CS4?

[tooki]

The Quadro FX series of cards are scientific/engineering visualization cards. Basically, if I recall correctly, the Q FX5600 is the same GPU chips as the 8800GT, but with far more VRAM, and programmed differently. Rather than focusing on raw speed (a la gaming) they're programmed for accuracy and support for vast numbers of vertices.

I believe they would perform similarly in Core Image applications. Stick with the ATI for now.

[OreoCookie]

In the windows world, the drivers are also optimized differently: professional cards have drivers that favor accurate representation over speed. In games, it doesn't matter if a few triangles are dropped every once in a while -- especially if it makes the game run smoother. In CAD applications, for instance, this is not an option.

[P]

Originally Posted by tooki 

The Quadro FX series of cards are scientific/engineering visualization cards. Basically, if I recall correctly, the Q FX5600 is the same GPU chips as the 8800GT, but with far more VRAM, and programmed differently.

Close. It's the older but more powerful 8800 GTX, clocked a little differently and with twice the RAM (which some 8800s also have). The major difference is the RAM - I'm told with hacks, you can make a cheap(ish) 8800 look like a Quadro 5600 to the driver.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

...I don't think Photoshop CS4 is more demanding than Aperture in that respect, so Veltiner's iMac should be just fine.

The point is that it is not about "just fine." The question is about best/appropriate value in choice of graphics card. Note that the RAM and overall throughput of any iMac already are limiting to heavy usage of Aperture or CS3. iMacs and laptops with their inherent limitations are special subcategories as regards graphics app performance.

Minimum hardware requirements (to access all CS4 GL features) suggest a video card of at least 256 MB VRAM, support for Open GL 2.0 and Smart Shader 3.0e. However Adobe's "minimum" requirements have seldom reflected real-world PS performance/value optimizing. We will not know how production CS4 performance changes under various setups until the app is actually released. I say wait a few weeks for real-world test results.

-Allen Wicks

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Natz 

I've recently decided I'd like to move from an iMac to a Mac Pro...

Wait.

The new Nehalem chips from Intel this quarter are a nice advance; properly integrated into new boxes +50% performance improvements may be seen for heavy apps. However, existing 2006 and 2008 MPs remain excellent towers and Aperture/CS3 platforms so at this moment there is no overwhelming need for new MPs.

Since laptops are where the money is laptops will get Apple's primary Q4 2008 attention, and iMacs are just a subset of laptop engineering. IMO there is not a lot of pressure for Apple to rush to release new MPs. Q4 2008 is possible but IMO Q1 2009 is more likely, and (depending on how bad Apple sees the economy as well as how Snow Leopard and new MPs integrate) Q2 2009 is even possible.

We do not know what production CS4 will like to eat the most: RAM? Cores? Clock Cycles? VRAM? New Box Architecture? New Chip Architecture? OS 10.6? etc. For geeks like me it is a fun time to watch empirical performance comparisons as the new tools become available.

IMO January (Mac Expo SF) and OS 10.6 is the earliest that anyone with a currently good working system should consider upgrading to Mac Pro - - - unless a 2006 MP deal is too good to pass up .

-Allen Wicks

[OreoCookie]

Even my first-gen ProBook has 256 MB dedicated video RAM.
And I disagree that you can't make a statement about the approximate performance: Apple uses similar techniques to do the same things in gpu via Core Graphics, Core Video and in Aperture.

The question of `best value' cannot be answered like that, because it varies from person to person and workload to workload. From the specs of your iMac (24", GeForce 7600), I infer that you have 256 MB VRAM and satisfy the minimum requirements to use graphics acceleration. So you know it will work. And if CS3 runs acceptably on your machine now (which I leave up to you to decide), then CS4 should not be slower.

Photoshop is not the most demanding of applications (unless you're like ninahagen, working on very, very large image files), apps such as Aperture and Lightroom are what's driving the need for speed these days.

[tooki]

I couldn't agree more. Graphic design/DTP apps used to be a high-end computer task, but these days, they're pretty unremarkable. Even without GPU acceleration, Photoshop runs fast on pretty much any Mac right now (with few exceptions, as Oreo said).

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by tooki 

Graphic design/DTP apps used to be a high-end computer task, but these days, they're pretty unremarkable

As a professional Aperture and Adobe CS user I have to say that is just plain untrue. Yes, modern Macs are strong enough even on the low end to "run" graphics apps, but heavy usage on lower end boxes is far inferior to comparable performance on a properly equipped Mac Pro.

Graphics users need to carefully evaluate hardware purchases in order to optimize performance. Graphics card choices are one obvious example; RAM is another.

-Allen Wicks

[tooki]

I disagree, as someone who's equipped vast numbers of graphic design clients. For most of their use, with current apps, there's little difference between an iMac and a Mac Pro. (No, I wouldn't recommend a Mac mini, and of course the laptops always have a speed penalty compared to a desktop.) It also depends on their work habits. If they're the kind of person who keeps tons of stuff open at once, a Mac Pro might be able to handle the multitasking better. But for most, a well equipped iMac works at similar speeds. (Most of the graphic design apps are not, alas, well multithreaded, so they don't benefit from multiple CPUs. And even so, most stuff happens instantaneously anyway, so speeding it up more doesn't change much.)

And again: until the upcoming CS4 comes out, Adobe CS does not rely on the graphics card, so the choice of graphics card has only minimal impact on application performance. CS4 will be different, but until it's released, it'll be hard to say what systems it benefits from.

Aperture is different, it's in a new breed of apps not really related to the graphic arts and desktop publishing apps. Its system requirements are completely different from those of the classic graphics apps.

I have no doubt that some designers work on stuff that demands more than an iMac or MacBook Pro (I never recommend MacBooks to graphic designers, just on screen alone). But most are fine on an iMac.

[Natz]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Wait.

Too late, read the other post by me in this thread!

[SierraDragon]

Like I said, MPs are excellent boxes; and the 8800 is a good card for most folks. You have years of solid performance ahead of you, enjoy!

-Allen Wicks

[tooki]

The 8800 is a fantastic gaming card, and a solid all-around card. If you're looking for peak Pro Apps (Core Image) performance, the ATI cards do better at lower cost.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by tooki 

I disagree, as someone who's equipped vast numbers of graphic design clients. For most of their use, with current apps, there's little difference between an iMac and a Mac Pro...

I respectfully but strongly disagree.

My first disagreement is with simply measuring against "current apps." Any new box should be planned for the apps and OS versions expected to be in use during the life of the new box in addition to current apps. In this thread that includes CS4, OS 10.6 and beyond. And, IMO when buying for the graphics-pro future we should be equipping folks with the ability to handle image management apps like Aperture because managing DSLR captures will become more and more prevalent a need over the life of most new desktop graphics boxes.

The latest iMacs will accept 4 GB RAM and have a FW800 port to add the necessary external drives. Today such a configuration indeed will do an adequate job of just running PSCS3 - but just running the apps does not make a box the best choice.

As a long term Mac graphics professional since early Photoshop actualIy earning a living using graphics apps I respectfully but very strongly disagree with

...there's little difference between an iMac and a Mac Pro...

For life cycle and for performance reasons IMO iMacs are much less good choices than towers for desktop graphics workstations. iMacs are subject to the very significant limitations noted below.

Just the RAM limitation alone is an obvious serious limiter even with today's app versions, and as RAM prices continually fall modern apps and the OS are taking advantage of more and more RAM all the time. E.g. even though Photoshop can only directly address ~3 GB RAM, PS running under OS X has shown improved performance with 8 GB and more RAM for about 5 years now. A while back a senior PS engineer observed that 8-16 GB RAM shows improving performance on Mac Pros.

Boxes purchased today will be running the OSs/apps of the next few years, when the 4 GB limitation of iMacs will become even more significantly limiting. I consider RAM the bargain value performance enhancer today and it will only get better, so IMO limiting a graphics desktop box destined for 2009-2012 usage to 4 GB max RAM is poor life-cycle decision making.

I would also point out that, as consumer boxes, iMacs now only come with glossy displays. Matte vs. glossy is a matter of personal preference, but personally I find glossy unacceptable. Few graphics pros want their displays adding contrast and saturation to their work. That, for me, makes iMacs unacceptable at any price.

Some pros get around the iMac's glossy display issue by having their second display a matte and just using the iMac for palettes. I guess that could work but it is not something I would want to do because frequently I compare images on both displays.

All Photoshop versions require a separate hard drive for scratch to achieve best performance. That starts an iMac with at least one permanently attached external drive limited to FW speeds. The SATA of MPs is far preferable. Note too that if DSLR batch image handling were to creep into the usage during the life of the box that single FW800 port might well prove limiting as regards disk i/o.

iMacs are nice consumer boxes and I have purchased them for family members, but they are less-good desktop choices for graphics professionals.

-Allen Wicks