NVIDIA brings Fermi to Mac Pro through Quadro 4000

[Margus Voll]

This is super.

Thank you.

I will place my order today.

—

Margus

https://iconstudios.eu

[Guilherme Ramalho]

Having two Quadro 4000 makes sense? or is overkill ?

[Margus Voll]

I do not have 285 so for me it is really sensible option.

More power gives more nodes. It really depends on complexity and type of work you do.

—

Margus

https://iconstudios.eu

[Erik Lindahl]

This should make sense for apps that can’t utilize the dedicated CUDA GPU. nVidia’s GeForce 120 is quite a weak card for anything but 2D-graphics. Applications that are OpenGL based (Motion, Color, Photoshop and so forth) should benefit greatly from having a Quadro 4000 as the main GPU board. Also other CUDA apps like CS5, Nuke and so forth I’m not sure they can use a secondary card as their processing board like one does in DaVinci.

Would be nice to get a proper answer though cause I’m wondering the same.

It’s is supported in the MacPro hardware to use two Quadro 4000 according to nVidia’s press-release at least. 2200 dollars isn’t that crazy for the hardware we’re talking about. Not sure heat or power consumption would become an issue with this setup as well as a video-card and a i/o board (or extension board).

————————
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Post Production Services
http://www.freecloud.se

[Erik Lindahl]

It would of course be very nice with a 4xx or 5xx GeForce option on the Mac as well. Not sure why they haven’t jumped on that wagon.

————————
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Post Production Services
http://www.freecloud.se

[Joseph Owens]

GT285 is somewhat power-hungry in comparison, idling at somewhere around 211W, and can consume up to around 620 under load.
The early spec is that FX4000 is somewhat more efficient, idling at 184 according to the literature…

However, I’m interested in knowing what those who are hoping to run both Resolve and COLOR on the same machine are going to do to negotiate the single display port, when COLOR really should be running with a dual-display, or does one opt to do without the preview display and scopes, or forget about all that and go back to the over-crowded single-display mode. Seems like a poor choice.

But it seems like 2xFX4000 for a dedicated Resolve would be a nice way to go, and is probably all that I’ve been waiting for…. time to start configuring that new 12 core….

jPo

You mean “Old Ben”? Ben Kenobi?

[Erik Lindahl]

Yeah, my though was a dual Quadro 4000 setup.

Slot 1 – Quadro 4000 #1 for 2 displays and general use / acceleration
Slot 2 – Quadro 4000 #2 for dedicated CUDA processing (asaik only DaVinci uses this atm)
Slot 3 – Video i/o
Slot 4 – Storage i/o

I guess slot 4 could be exchanged for a RED Rocket or a PCI-e expansion card as well.

————————
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Post Production Services
http://www.freecloud.se

[Tony Manolikakis]

I know it wouldn’t match the published config. but could you not put an ATI 4870 or 5770 in slot 1 the Nvidia 4000 in slot 2. Use the ATI for GUI and Color. I’m thinking short term until we can get a dedicated setup for each.

Tony Manolikakis
Rev13 Films

[Margus Voll]

That would bee cool but not very likely if BM does not confirm it.

—

Margus

https://iconstudios.eu

[Joseph Owens]

[Tony Manolikakis] “could you not put an ATI 4870 or 5770 in slot 1”

No. The Resolve interface needs nVidia throughout.

jPo

You mean “Old Ben”? Ben Kenobi?