nVidia GTX 285 verses nVidia Quadro 4000

[Ed Fiebke]

Hello -

I'm just settling in with the new CS 5.5 Production Suite that I recently purchased. It nicely does what it is intended to do. Coming from FCP, the learning curve isn't that steep as I work on the first few projects using Premier. The rendering is fine with my current video card (ATI Radeon HD 5770). It can be a bit slow as I add on a few effects. At this point I'm beginning to think about upgrading the video card. I see that on eBay one can purchase an nVideo GTX 285 for around $400. This is significantly cheaper than the nVidia Quadro 4000 which goes for around $800 to $1,000+ depending on where one goes to purchase it.

As mentioned in an earlier thread that I posted here, I'm still working in Standard Definition. I am thinking about "moving on up" to high definition within a year's time and wish to prepare myself for the change (a little at a time). With all of this in mind, what is the difference between the GTX 285 and the Quadro 4000 in terms of performance? Which would be the least problematic with my Mac Pro (Early 2009 2.26 X's eight-cores with 32 GBs RAM)?

Regarding the GTX 285, it seems that some of the newer ones on eBay are PC cards that's been "flashed" to work for Mac. If I purchased such a card, would this come up to bite me in the behind in some future date?? Is there any significant performance change to a "flashed" GTX 285 as compared to one specifically made for a Mac??

I thank you in advance for your thoughtful comments.

Sincerely,

Ted

[Randall Leong]

Actually, the GTX 285 is overpriced for such older tech: It is now obsolete, being superceded by the GTX 470/480 and now the GTX 570/580. The Quadro 4000 is actually a newer GPU than the GTX 285; however, it is based on a version of the GTX 470/480 with only 256 CUDA cores and a 256-bit GDDR5 bus.

The above, however, does not apply when it comes to a Mac: None of the current Fermi-based GeForce GPUs have OSX drivers (yet) - nor are they compatible with Macs. This means that you'll have to choose between cheap and obsolete or expensive and fairly up to date.

[Ed Fiebke]

Randall -

Appreciate the information. Then there's the Quadro 4800 which is even more expensive. . . .

I'm in no hurry to purchase anything at this point. I'm not sure that I want "obsolete and cheap" as new versions of everything else (Adobe software upgrades, etc.) come out. (I've been stung by "cheap" in the past.) I don't have spare $$$$ for "expensive and fairly up to date". (I've also read that people were having problems with the Quadro 4000.)

Thank you for your thoughtful input.

[Eugene J. Kulak]

Hi Ed, just for your information I replaced my GTX 280 with a Quadro 4000 and I have had no problems with it what-so-ever. I'd be happy to sell you my old 280. If interested PM me.

[Randall Leong]

Originally Posted by Ed Fiebke

Randall -

Appreciate the information. Then there's the Quadro 4800 which is even more expensive. . . .

I'm in no hurry to purchase anything at this point. I'm not sure that I want "obsolete and cheap" as new versions of everything else (Adobe software upgrades, etc.) come out. (I've been stung by "cheap" in the past.) I don't have spare $$$$ for "expensive and fairly up to date". (I've also read that people were having problems with the Quadro 4000.)

Thank you for your thoughtful input.

If anything, the Quadro FX 4800 is equally as old as the GTX 285.

And ignore Eugene's request to sell you the GTX 280: That card (at least the particular model) might be Windows-only.

[Ed Fiebke]

Eugene -

Thank you for the offer. For good or for bad I have a Mac Pro. It's a nice computer but it seems to limit me to what type of video graphics card can be installed on it. It seems that the GTX 280 that you offer would not work on my system.

Randall -

The Quadro FX 4800 is an older card?! Geeze. It ain't cheap, that's for sure. It seems that the CS 5.1 Production Suite is created more with PC computers in mind in terms of hardware (graphics card) upgradeability. Actually, Premiere and After Effects work just fine on my system. For more graphic intensive work I just let the software "render" the project and all is well. (It's not that much different than FCP with regards to using more graphic-intensive effects.) If you're using an Apple-based computer for your Adobe software, what graphic card do you use? Maybe I need to settle for "obsolete" or "expensive and fairly up to date"??

I ain't gonna worry about it now, though. Except. . . I'm seeing used (and in "Excellent Condition") Panasonic AG-HVX200a video cameras on sale on eBay for a very reasonable price. (I plan on purchasing my next newer "used" video camera from the same eBay-based store that I've used in the past.) With only several hours of extra over-time from work (I'm a nurse and getting over-time is pretty easy at our short-staffed hospital) I can purchase that "big boy" in a few month's time. I would like my happy Mac Pro to be ready for it. (High-definition scares me, though! LOL!) Ultimately, I want a two-camera high-def system, and wish my computer to handle it (graphics and all) without hiccuping too much. (I enjoy my happy SD two-camera system that I use now.) Slowly but surely I wish to upgrade my computer to handle all of this. (Slowly but surely.)

Thank you, both, for your kind feed back and offers.

Ted

[Kevin Monahan]

Quadro cards are designed for rendering and realtime cad/cam apps.

GTX/geforce, etc.. are for fast rendering of games that deal will pre renderd textures in memory.

The nvidia Quadros have the ability to do math and work out complex shapes in REAL time. if you want fast, fluid and high quaility rendering for Film making or 3d apps such as CINEMA 4D, 3Dmax, Maya and CAD/CAM apps such as soldworks, autodesk and architect applications.

GTX/Geforce cards can only handle pre rendered textures and can display them quickly for game play, but they cant real time render as fast as the quadro.

from: GTX vs Quadro - Nvidia - Graphic-Displays

[Ed Fiebke]

Kevin Monahan -

Thank you for providing the comparitive information between the GTX and Quadro models. For good or for bad, I don't do video games. I'm leaning toward (working extra over-time and) purchasing the Quadro 4000. Although most reviews of this video card seem positive, there are some less than postive reviews as well.

By the way. . . I'm liking the CS 5.5 Production Suite. I'm having a little hard time getting used to Encore. Just need to spend more time with it (and actually read the manual! LOL!). I've been using Adobe Products for a number of years, mostly the web-creating programs, though. Glad I decided to purchase the video production suite. So far it meets my very modest needs. I've already finished editing two video-taped (healthcare-focused) educational in-services for my happy little hospital. My video-editing needs are ultimately meeting the educational needs of my co-workers. Thought you might like to know that your product is not only being put to good use, it's also (in-directly) helping meet the educational needs of my nursing co-workers. This, ultimately, helps provide safe and effective nursing care for my hospital. Thank you. :)

Ted

[Randall Leong]

Originally Posted by Kevin Monahan

Quadro cards are designed for rendering and realtime cad/cam apps.

GTX/geforce, etc.. are for fast rendering of games that deal will pre renderd textures in memory.

The nvidia Quadros have the ability to do math and work out complex shapes in REAL time. if you want fast, fluid and high quaility rendering for Film making or 3d apps such as CINEMA 4D, 3Dmax, Maya and CAD/CAM apps such as soldworks, autodesk and architect applications.

GTX/Geforce cards can only handle pre rendered textures and can display them quickly for game play, but they cant real time render as fast as the quadro.

Actually, this only applies to those Quadros priced at more than $800 (the Quadro 4000 or higher). Lesser Quadros, such as the Quadro 600, actually perform worse than a GeForce at the same price point due to the fact that they are based on budget GPUs.

[Eugene J. Kulak]

Sorry Ed, I must have missed the part about the Mac...