Celestia Forums

I was looking at the options on the Apple Store for a MacPro but really I'm a bit puzzled; they propose 4 NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB or much more expensive a NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB, Stereo 3D (2 x dual-link DVI)...

What's the interest in having 4 graphic cards? (apart wanting 8 screens on the desk) do the actual app manage 4 cards?

Why this NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 is so expensive? is this a top card?

I'm puzzled because 1xNVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB seems better than 4xNVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB (1024MB total)...

I believe the multiple cards are for SLI, using the memory of each card.

It's why I'm puzzled concerning the single NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 which seems to be better than the 4 NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB...

The GeForce 7300 is a low-end graphics card. There's really no point in setting them up as SLI--you'll get much better performance out of a single high end card such as the Quadro FX 4500. The only reason I can think of for wanting a lot of 7300s is to drive a lot of monitors.

The Quadro FX 4500 is very expensive because it's a workstation graphics card, designed for people who use Maya, SolidWorks, and other high-end modeling software. It's much too costly if you're not using those programs. If you're primary 3D graphics application is Celestia, the best graphics card to get for a Mac Pro is the ATI X1900. I wish that Apple offered the GeForce 8800 or 8600 on the Mac Pros--they'd give you more advanced OpenGL features than the Quadro at a much lower price. Hopefully, Apple will add more NVIDIA graphics options soon. The MacBook Pros are now shipping with GeForce 8600s--I just bought one this week!

--Chris

chris wrote:The GeForce 7300 is a low-end graphics card. There's really no point in setting them up as SLI--you'll get much better performance out of a single high end card such as the Quadro FX 4500. The only reason I can think of for wanting a lot of 7300s is to drive a lot of monitors.

The Quadro FX 4500 is very expensive because it's a workstation graphics card, designed for people who use Maya, SolidWorks, and other high-end modeling software. It's much too costly if you're not using those programs. If you're primary 3D graphics application is Celestia, the best graphics card to get for a Mac Pro is the ATI X1900. I wish that Apple offered the GeForce 8800 or 8600 on the Mac Pros--they'd give you more advanced OpenGL features than the Quadro at a much lower price. Hopefully, Apple will add more NVIDIA graphics options soon. The MacBook Pros are now shipping with GeForce 8600s--I just bought one this week!

--Chris

So the Quadro is good for 3D (modeling/rendering) but the 8600 on PBP is better for GL app, right?
... I want both...

ElChristou wrote:

chris wrote:The GeForce 7300 is a low-end graphics card. There's really no point in setting them up as SLI--you'll get much better performance out of a single high end card such as the Quadro FX 4500. The only reason I can think of for wanting a lot of 7300s is to drive a lot of monitors.

The Quadro FX 4500 is very expensive because it's a workstation graphics card, designed for people who use Maya, SolidWorks, and other high-end modeling software. It's much too costly if you're not using those programs. If you're primary 3D graphics application is Celestia, the best graphics card to get for a Mac Pro is the ATI X1900. I wish that Apple offered the GeForce 8800 or 8600 on the Mac Pros--they'd give you more advanced OpenGL features than the Quadro at a much lower price. Hopefully, Apple will add more NVIDIA graphics options soon. The MacBook Pros are now shipping with GeForce 8600s--I just bought one this week!

--Chris

So the Quadro is good for 3D (modeling/rendering) but the 8600 on PBP is better for GL app, right?
... I want both...

The 8600 is just fine for most modeling--I don't think you'll run into any problems.

--Chris

chris wrote:

ElChristou wrote:

chris wrote:The GeForce 7300 is a low-end graphics card. There's really no point in setting them up as SLI--you'll get much better performance out of a single high end card such as the Quadro FX 4500. The only reason I can think of for wanting a lot of 7300s is to drive a lot of monitors.

The Quadro FX 4500 is very expensive because it's a workstation graphics card, designed for people who use Maya, SolidWorks, and other high-end modeling software. It's much too costly if you're not using those programs. If you're primary 3D graphics application is Celestia, the best graphics card to get for a Mac Pro is the ATI X1900. I wish that Apple offered the GeForce 8800 or 8600 on the Mac Pros--they'd give you more advanced OpenGL features than the Quadro at a much lower price. Hopefully, Apple will add more NVIDIA graphics options soon. The MacBook Pros are now shipping with GeForce 8600s--I just bought one this week!

--Chris

So the Quadro is good for 3D (modeling/rendering) but the 8600 on PBP is better for GL app, right?
... I want both...

The 8600 is just fine for most modeling--I don't think you'll run into any problems.

--Chris

Yep but I plan to do some hardcore modeling (insane number of poly) so I'm looking for a really strong config...

My understanding is that at one time the only differences between Quadro and consumer cards were in the firmware. There was quite a bit of discussion then about how to replace consumer firmware with the professional versions. I suspect there are more differences in the hardware these days.

Celestia seems to run fine on low-end Quadro cards (my system at work has a 128MB Quadro FX 550) and I suspect the high-end cards run it quite well.

If you do decide to get seriously involved with professional workstation graphics software, then a professional grade graphics card might be appropriate. Companies like AutoDesk won't provide software support unless you're running on a certified configuration -- that means having combined program version, graphics card model and graphics driver revision that they specify. (You can't upgrade the graphics driver to the latest release whenever you want. You can only install versions that they've certified.) It can be quite expensive when upgrading to the next version of their software also requires that you upgrade to a more expensive graphics card.

What I'm wondering (and I don't find a repose to this) is if one can use 2 X1900 (after all there is 4 slot on those MacPro...)...

I'd suggest asking on one of the Mac-specific Web forums. The Mac Pro technical specs claim the slots are all 16 lanes, so it'll partially depend on the graphics drivers that Apple provides. I suspect it'll also be limited by the power requirements of the cards (300 watts max), which may be why they're only providing 7300 cards in the quad-card configuration.

I'm very interested in the new MacBook Pro. I'm about to buy a portable to use Celestia in the classroom (the portable PCs we have at my institution really sucks !). However, I may hold on, since I want a LED screen : the new 15" MBP are a bit small for my taste, and it's just a first generation of those screens (according to some repports, they are a bit yellowish). I may wait for the next revision.

And there's also the flash HD (solid state memory) which is coming to replace the standard rotating plates HD. The flash HD is faster and much more robust than the traditional rotating HD. And yet it's smaller, weight less, and need less energy (longer battery life). I just can't wait for these.

selden wrote:I'd suggest asking on one of the Mac-specific Web forums...

Of course I'll do that; for now I was just searching for info but even on the Apple forums it's not so obvious...

Cham wrote:And there's also the flash HD (solid state memory) which are coming to replace the standard rotating plates HD. The flash HD are much faster and much more robust than the traditional rotating HD. I just can't wait for these.

Where can I read about those HD on Macs?

In following this thread, I can't help but wonder why one of the cardmakers out there doesn't come up with a card which allows you to add on more memory (just like your motherboard)?... or for that matter, the ability to drop in a new GPU just like you would a new CPU.

ElChristou,

"Hard Disks" which are simulated by boxes of memory (RAM, EEPROM, ROM, Flash-RAM, whatever) have been around for a very long time. Several companies make them. You can plug them into any computer that'll talk to the type of hard disk that they emulate using an appropriate bus: SCSI, USB, SATA, whatever. In small capacities, the ones that attach by way of USB are often called "thumb drives".

[edit]
Here's a reference:

http://www.storagesearch.com/ssd-buyers-guide.html
[/edit]

Selden,

apparently, the hard disk in the portables willl be completelly replaced with large capacity solid state devices. Nobody could tell *when* exactly this will happen, but according to several discussions I've read, it may occur in about a year. I don't know if this is too optimistic, but personally I just can't wait. The advantages appear to be fantastic.

selden wrote:ElChristou,

"Hard Disks" which are simulated by boxes of memory (RAM, EEPROM, ROM, Flash-RAM, whatever) have been around for a very long time. Several companies make them. You can plug them into any computer that'll talk to the type of hard disk that they emulate using an appropriate bus: SCSI, USB, SATA, whatever. In small capacities, the ones that attach by way of USB are often called "thumb drives".

[edit]
Here's a reference:

http://www.storagesearch.com/ssd-buyers-guide.html
[/edit]

Tx Selden, I'm in the pampa but even there those pendrives and other USB devices are on the market. Now such storage as a replacement to classical HD seems a bit new to me...